Use of owner name in complaint about rule infraction

Our Board recently received a complaint from a tenant about noise from late night music. The bylaws have a specific clause outlining Quiet Hours, the times of day they are in force, and examples of the kind of noise that is not permitted.

The tenant was notified that the Board could not accept his complaint, and that it had to come from the owner. Tenant was also told his name would be used in complaint when the owner with music noise was notified.

The tenant is reluctant to give his name because of possible harassment, and so withdrew his complaint.

This Board is not consistent in enforcement of rules, and I've seen this kind of thing happen before. Some tenants and owners have made complaints and had them delivered without names attached; others are told they can file a formal complaint only if their name is attached to it.
The bylaws do not address this named or not named issue. Some owners are told who filed a complaint against them; other owners are simply told 'several owners complained'.

I understand there is more than one issue here. This Board does not follow through consistently. The thing I'm interested in is how other HOAs handle giving names in a complaint, so that owners/tenants feel free to make a complaint when an obvious infraction is happening, but are reluctant to do so because of possible retaliation or harassment.

James

When a complaint is received we have a BOD member investigate it. If the situation exists, then we have the MC notify the owner thus the MC becomes the "official complainer". When we hired the MC, we made sure they were willing to fill this role.

If the complaint is anonymous, we still investigate it. We do not ignore it.

It is quite common that the complaint, especially noise, no longer exists. If asked what we have done about it we reply (if we know who to reply to) that we investigated and the complaint no longer existed. Of course if anonymous we do not reply as we do not who to reply to....LOL

Given the way that Davis-Stirling micromanages everything else, how did they let this slip past?

While it is of no help to James, AZ law requires that the complaining party be identified. Since the complaining party is not limited to owners, I would assume that any owner, tenant, HOA employee, or security person could be the complaining party.

Right.

You make a complaint of noise (while it is happening) and a Board member comes over to your home/unit to verify.

In the instance of not picking up after the dog, there really can not be independent verification from a Board member. Therefore, pictures (ideally video) is best evidence. You could encourage the board to mount game cameras in some problem areas in hopes to identify the individual(s). Of course, you can also set up a camera inside your home.

I noted above that complaints must identify the complainer. But that does NOT mean we give the complainer's name to the alleged violator. We do not need to as we'd take no action UNLESS the complaint is verified.

In your case, James, a board member needs to verify the violation if it's not a police matter. If no directors are willing to enforce your governing documents, that is in deed a sorry state to live with.

I think it would be an interpretation of our policy of dealing owner to owner. This particular situation hasn't come up to my knowledge, so the detailed parsing of it hasn't happened before.

Our policy:

If someone in the community (owner or tenant) complains about X's activity, we sent X an email that says:

"We received a complaint that ..."

We never identify who complained. We don't cite them for an offense. We don't threaten with fines. We just state the nature of the complaint.

95% of the time, that's all that's needed.

We know who our chronic complainers are. We know where there's bad blood. When we're dealing with a "hot" zone, we don't sent an email every time there's a complaint. Not interested in adding fuel to the fire.

James

Automatic fining in California fining doesn't take place. We have "due process" in which an owner must be brought to hearing prior to any fine being administered.

In your case, if the Board doesn't take up the tenant complaint, which I don't think they should, the tenant has cause against the landlord.

It depends on the type of complaint in our community. We have two security officers who can receive complaints about neighbor/neighbor disputes that may involve criminal activity - they have to disclose their names to the officers, but the officers don't say where the complaint came from, they'll usually say "we received complaints about X and go on from there. If it involves a number of residents, the board is notified and then the property manager will contact the owner, saying the same thing, so we usually don't have to name names.

I investigate complaints on my job - I won't say what kind, but I've always been skeptical of "anonymous complaints." I fully understand the concern about retaliation, but in my experience these complaints are short on actual facts (dates, locations, times, etc.) and long on wacky allegations. You can't go back to the complainant to obtain additional information and he/she may have the valuable piece needed for me to take more action. Then there are the "complainants" who are mostly pissed off about something else and want to get someone else in trouble...

When it comes to tenants, our association has listed to them directly, although I personally prefer the tenant to address this through the owner/landlord. In my community, we have a lot of off-site owners and it seems they expect the association to babysit their tenants and deal with their mess, while they sit back and collect rent checks. In this case, why can't the owner visit the home at night and listen to the racket, record it and then talk to the neighbors personally and if that doesn't work, take it up with the board? Besides, if/when the subject of the complaint is notified a complaint has been filed, he/she may figure out where it came from.

We have 30% offsite Owners, James, many of whom live far away, even abroad. Why can't the tenant take a pic of the offending dog ?? I

believe tenants should have the same rights as Owners re: violations and their rights to peaceful enjoyment of the premises should be the same as Owners.

If your CC&Rs give the Board the authority to make rules, then that's all the board needs to do, which is pretty easy in CA. board praises new or rules change, sent to Owners for 30-day comment period. discussed at next open mtg. and board votes. Changing the bylaws requires Owners to vote and doesn't seem to fit this issue.