Community associations deal with assessment collections more often than they’d like to, and the stakes are much higher than the occasional late payment might suggest. Few issues create as much friction as fees added to delinquent accounts, especially when those fees were never supposed to be there in the first place. It’s the kind of mistake that associations don’t intend to make, yet find themselves answering for in front of owners, auditors, and in worst-case scenarios, regulators.
This is the landscape Carole Briggs, a DC community association attorney, works in every day: one where accuracy matters just as much as fairness, and where the smallest misstep in a collections communication, lien notice or ledger can spark serious consequences. Her insight reflects a reality many associations underestimate: improper fees don’t just create frustration;they can create financial liability for the association.
When a “Standard Fee” Isn’t Actually Standard Under the Law
Because they have seen a fee utilized elsewhere, boards frequently believe it is suitable. Maybe a property manager has included it in their regular procedure, or another organization charges it. However, what seems usual often has little bearing what the law permits.
This is where associations can run into trouble:
- A collection agency adds costs, fees or other charges that may be common in other jurisdictions but not allowable or appropriate in DC.
- A property management company forwards a file automatically, triggering charges and/or actions the board never formally approved.
- A late fee is piled on top of another late fee, or a demand letter (and charges for crafting and sending same) is followed by another demand letter, giving the appearance – not the intent – of a penalty structure out of step with local requirements.
In isolation, these moments are insignificant. When taken as a whole, they produce a pattern that may be deemed improper or illegal by owners, authorities, or judges. It becomes much more difficult to defend the association’s viewpoint once a perception has been established.
Why “Passing Through” Fees Doesn’t Mean They’re Allowed
Many boards assume that if a manager or collection agency imposes a charge, it can simply be passed on to the delinquent unit owner. But under DC law and governing documents, the question is not whether a third party charged the association. It is whether the association had the authority to charge (that is, to pass on that charge) the owner.
That distinction shapes everything.
Associations have fiduciary responsibilities, legal boundaries, and governing documents. Association vendors don’t. The vendor is not the only party who bears the cost when their fee schedule clashes with legal or contractual restrictions.
Even if a manager or outside organization handles the mechanics, the board is likely still accountable.
This is why handing control of collections to a property manager, without strict oversight, becomes problematic. The manager may choose a vendor based on convenience, familiarity, or incentives that do not align with the association’s legal obligations. The association, however, is the entity that must answer for the outcome.
The Hidden Costs Boards Rarely Anticipate
Inappropriate collection costs don’t necessarily lead to disputes right away. Like structural pressure behind a wall, the risk might occasionally develop gradually.
Three foreseeable outcomes are frequently seen by boards:
- Negotiated write-offs that weaken the association’s position –
Owners push back, attorneys get involved, and the association ends up waiving fees that never should have appeared in the first place. The association “wins” the dispute but loses revenue and credibility. - Fee structures that collapse during settlement –
If half the itemized amounts must be erased before an owner will resolve their balance, the board inadvertently shows which fees are vulnerable and opens the door for other owners to challenge them. - Exposure under consumer-protection laws –
A misapplied fee is more than a clerical issue; it can be viewed as an improper collection attempt, which can quickly escalate by way of liability for an association, especially if the unit owner is considered a “consumer” under the law.
If boards continue to actively participate in the collections process, these results can be prevented.
The Role of a Law Firm Versus a Collection Agency
A nationwide collection agency that operates in several jurisdictions differs significantly from a firm that specializes in community-association law. The latter cannot modify DC statutes to conform to its templates, but it might provide volume efficiencies.
Boards often assume they must choose whichever vendor their property manager already works with. In reality, the board – not the manager – controls:
- How collection files are handled
- Who receives them
- What fees may be added
- When legal action is appropriate
- How charges are communicated to owners
A firm with experience in DC community association law takes a different tack when it comes to collecting. Accuracy, compliance, and safeguarding the association’s long-term financial stability are more important than speed. Although this approach seems more methodical, it avoids the mistakes that can later become expensive.
A Final Thought
Although collections are never enjoyable, they are far easier to handle when the procedure is based on compliance rather than conjecture. One of the simplest errors a board can make – and one of the most difficult to rectify afterwards – is charging the wrong fees.
The association’s finances are safeguarded, its reputation is strengthened, and the legal issues that occur when charges stray beyond acceptable bounds are avoided with careful consideration.
If there is one principle every board should carry into its next meeting, it is this–compliance with applicable debt collection laws, including those contained within the Condominium Act, is not optional.