Consumer complaint received 2024-08-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Dunlap Gardiner LLP
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Formal Complaint Against XXXX XXXX XXXX, Dunlap Gardiner, LLP ( A debt collection law firm ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for Unjust Fine Imposition Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Georgia XXXX XXXX Dunlap Gardiner , LLP, a debt collection law firm located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), for their engagement in unjust, arbitrary, and capricious practices. These practices have led to significant financial harm and stress for myself and potentially hundreds of other homeowners in Georgia. These actions constitute violations of state and federal consumer protection laws and demand immediate investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). 

JURISDICTION The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) is the most appropriate federal agency to address this issue due to its explicit mandate to oversee and enforce the fair treatment of consumers, particularly in the context of financial transactions and debt collection practices. The CFPBs jurisdiction extends to management companies like XXXX XXXX, which act as de facto debt collectors when imposing and enforcing fines on homeowners. In this case, XXXX XXXX has been engaged in questionable practices that warrant the CFPB 's attention. 

Additionally, Dunlap Gardiner, LLP, a debt collection law firm is implicated as a co-conspirator in these actions. The law firm has allegedly been complicit in aiding and abetting XXXX XXXX 's fraudulent collection efforts. These efforts involve the imposition of fictitious debts and unwarranted fines for alleged violations that either do not exist or are not supported by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ( CC & Rs ) governing the homeowners ' association. 

This complaint clearly falls within the CFPB 's purview as it involves blatant violations of consumer rights and the use of deceptive and unfair practices in debt collection. The CFPB 's intervention is necessary to address these serious concerns and to ensure that both XXXX XXXX and Dunlap Gardiner, LLP, are held accountable for their actions. 
. 
OVERVIEW OF XXXX XXXX 'S OPERATIONS AND ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Sentry Management is a property management company that operates across XXXX states, including Georgia, where it manages the financial and administrative affairs of numerous homeowners ' associations ( HOAs ), including the LDNPOA. XXXX XXXX  operational model appears to include leveraging the authority of HOAs to impose fines and fees on homeowners for alleged covenant violations, even when such violations do not exist or are not supported by the associations governing documents. 

Over time, it has become evident that XXXX XXXX, under the guise of enforcing community standards, has engaged in a pattern of imposing arbitrary and capricious fines. These fines are often based on fabricated or exaggerated violations of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ( CC & R ) that govern the communities they manage. The fines are not only unjustified but also a part of a broader scheme to extract significant sums of money from unsuspecting homeowners. 

BACKGROUND OF THE INCIDENT LEADING TO THIS COMPLAINT On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted an Architectural Review Committee ( ARC ) request to the LDNPOA, ( Exhibit XXXX ) which is managed by XXXX XXXX, seeking approval to erect a front fence with supporting columns on my property. The application was comprehensive, clearly detailing the design, including the supporting columns. The XXXX & XXXX governing the community stipulates that the ARC must adjudicate all such requests within 45 days of submission. ( Exhibit XXXX ) ( Paragraph XXXX ( b ) highlighted XXXX XXXX acknowledged receipt of my ARC request ( ( Exhibit XXXX ). However, despite the clear timeline established in the XXXX & XXXX, XXXX XXXX failed to provide any decisioneither approval or denialwithin the mandated XXXX period. According to the CC & R ] XXXX ( Paragraph XXXX ( b ), in the absence of a timely response, the homeowner is permitted to proceed with the proposed modifications. Relying on this provision, I commenced the construction of my front fence, which included the supporting columns as specified in my application. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, well beyond the XXXX review period established in the CC & Rs, I unexpectedly received a violation notice from XXXX XXXX. The notice incorrectly asserted that the fence columns WILL not be approved and imposed an unwarranted {$100.00} weekly fine. This action was both surprising and distressing, as it was predicated on a false assumption. The CC & Rs do not impose any restrictions on front fences with supporting columns, nor do they authorize such arbitrary and excessive penalties. The notice 's claim that the columns will not be approved '' suggests an ongoing review process, which contradicts the clearly defined expiration of the XXXX adjudication period outlined in the CC & Rs. 

EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE In response to the violation notice, I promptly requested a meeting with the XXXX XXXX to discuss and resolve the issue. ( Exhibit XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I met with the XXXX XXXX, during which we discussed the alleged violation. At this meeting, the XXXX did not request the removal of the columns. In subsequent written correspondence, ( Exhibit XXXX and XXXX ) the XXXX explicitly stated that the fence was acceptable, with or without the columns, confirming that my construction was in compliance with the community standards. 
Despite this clear resolution, XXXX XXXX persisted in imposing fines, leading to an accumulation of {$700.00} by XX/XX/XXXX and over a XXXX XXXX  in XX/XX/XXXX. This ongoing fine imposition of $ XXXX has caused significant financial strain and emotional distress. Moreover, the notices from XXXX XXXX have failed to cite any specific chapter or section of the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXhat I am alleged to have violated, a glaring omission that further underscores the baseless nature of the fines. 

LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND IMPLICATIONS The actions of Sentry Management,, are not only unjust but also appear to directly violate established legal precedents. In the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), ( Exhibit XXXX ) where Dunlap Gardiner LLP was the debt collection attorney involved, the Georgia XXXX XXXX XXXX ruled that fines imposed by the homeowners ' association, under the management of Sentry, were unauthorized under the covenants and therefore illegal. ( It is important to note that XXXX XXXX operates as the management company for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where they orchestrated a similar fraudulent scheme against another homeowner. ) The Georgia appeal court specifically noted that fines not explicitly supported by the XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX can not be enforced, and any attempt to do so constitutes an unlawful practice. 
This ruling is highly relevant to my case, as XXXX XXXX is employing similar tactics to impose and collect fines that are not supported by the governing documents of the XXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ' decision establishes that such practices are not only unethical but also illegal. 
Furthermore, the actions of XXXX XXXX contravene the principles established in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the Georgia Supreme court held that the exercise of authority by a homeowners ' association must be procedurally fair, reasonable, in good faith, and not arbitrary or capricious. XXXX XXXX conduct in my case fails to meet these standards, demonstrating a clear abuse of power and a disregard for legal and ethical obligations. 

BROADER IMPACT AND SYSTEMIC CONCERNS The fraudulent and exploitative practices employed by Sentry Management are not limited to my case alone. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that many other homeowners in Georgia have been similarly targeted and subjected to unjust fines and aggressive collection practices. XXXX XXXX  partnership with the law firm Dunlap Gardiner, LLP, ( A debt collector with office at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX ), further exacerbates the situation, as they aggressively pursue collections for these unjust fines, leading to bank account garnishments and other severe financial consequences for homeowners. 
This pattern of behavior suggests a systemic issue that extends beyond individual cases, raising significant concerns about the fairness and legality of XXXX XXXX 's operations. It is imperative that the CFPB takes swift and decisive action to investigate and address these practices to protect consumers and restore confidence in the management of homeowners ' associations. 
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the violation notice I received ( Exhibit XXXX ), along with correspondence with the XXXX XXXX confirming the compliance of my construction with community standards. I am also prepared to provide additional documentation, including records of all fines imposed, as well as testimony to support my claims. 
CONCLUSION Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. The practices of XXXX XXXX not only violate the rights of individual homeowners but also undermine the trust and integrity that are essential to the effective functioning of homeowners ' associations. I trust that the CFPB will take the necessary steps to investigate and rectify these injustices, ensuring that all consumers are treated fairly and in accordance with the law. 
I look forward to your prompt response and am available to provide any further information or assistance that may be required during the investigation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation