Problems with Compliance Depot

I'm trying to join in on Compliance Depot and they are asking our insurance company to do something that is illegal. Can someone message me and let me know how to get around this? I have potential clients out there wanting bids and can't do anything until all this is ironed out.

Something that is illegal? What are they asking for? I haven't had any issues with them like that.

I am guessing they want some sort of language on the certificate about "primary" and "non-contributory" coverage?

Hello Mj, without getting into all the details, maybe this link will assist you in finding some answers: www.propowerwash.com/board/upload/showth...051-Compliance-Depot

Compliance Depot is a joke. I have been dealing with them for years. The people that answer the phones are just reps, not insurance agents. They really have no idea what they are looking at as far as certificates of insurances. Yet they hold the power in thier hands of companies like the one I work for from doing business. I really wish management companies were aware of this.

I have worked with them in the past, too. As a regional manager, I actually ask in the 2nd or a later job interview if the company works with Compliance Depot or plans to. I absolutely refuse to take a job that has anything to do with them. I never heard of illegal requests, it was just a difficult, slow process that smaller vendors couldn't afford and delayed many necessary projects. I wish they had a sizable competitor!

Actually, there are a few competitors out there now.

RMIS came not long after Compliance Depot started up and has Lincoln Property Company and Fairfield Residential as clients.

Notivus is a new credentialing company that signed on First Communities, RAM Partners, and Matrix Residential.

Vendor Verify just started up recently and has Cottonwood Residential as a client.

And I got a letter earlier this month from NetVendor representing Carroll Organization.

That's good to know. Compliance Depot drove me away from the whole area, though I thought in concept it's a good idea. I'll look at some of these others.

You are right that the concept is a good idea. The problem has always been execution, primarily due to severe breakdowns with internal communication.

The two best (in my vendor-side opinion) are RMIS and Notivus. RMIS gets the information from us, including our Insurance Agent's contact info, and then initiates contact with the Agent for certificates and certificate renewals. We only get involved if there is an issue, which allows me to focus on other job duties.

Notivus is newer, but seems to be taking the approach of "let's start with the good concept and then figure out what should have been done better with the execution." They have had a hiccup or two, but these have been resolved quickly and a Notivus rep took the time to email me about the steps they had taken to make sure there was not a repeat. That speaks well of their customer-service mindset.

If you think what they are asking now is illegal. Wait until they start reviewing your applications!!!

In my state, they required us to estimate "POTENTIAL" child support, if a "separated" woman with children applied for an apartment.

The employee of the State Housing and Finance Development, who wrote the state compliance manual, told us that if we estimated child support, she would throw it out during an audit.

In the beginning, they were great. They turned into a nightmare (really I had nightmares).

One of their officers, who had about 6 of my recerts, left and they WOULDN'T tell us anything. They had my files for 2 months before they finally told my regional manager she was gone.

Then, we had to audit all of the files she approved and found tons of mistakes (according to them).

SAVE YOURSELF!!!!!!!!

Prepare yourself for wasting an inordinate amount of time on the phone between Compliance and your agent. The back and forth is ridiculous and the wording they ask for is never easily resolved. If you have a good relationship with your client, they may be able to finagle payment for you, but if its a new client, good luck. Our agency even changed insurance agents based on a recommendation from CD (we asked for 5 names in terms of who is their most successful agent in getting things through them. Still no luck and we are on the phone with them every other day.

what kind of problem you having

The reps at Compliance Depot ARE licensed agents and know the laws in every state. The clients choose the requirements.

Compliance Depot does not ever ask for anything illegal. Most likely your agent believes it is but it is not and we have every state law to back that up.

"We?" So you work for Compliance Depot?

Can you tell me how Compliance Depot responds to a client when the client asks for "primary and non-contributory" language to be included on the certificate?

John McKeegan wrote: "We?" So you work for Compliance Depot?

Can you tell me how Compliance Depot responds to a client when the client asks for "primary and non-contributory" language to be included on the certificate?

I'm not sure what you mean. If a client asks for the primary and non-contributory we make sure it is provided.

I am not an agent but your answer seems to be part of the problem. The Certificate is not an actual policy and is not intended to be one. It is a summary of what coverages the policy provides, and the conditions of coverage.

When a property owner or manager asks for the certificate to include "primary and non-contributory" language, the long-hand version of that phrase says, in effect, the Insured named on the Certificate has the primary responsibility for coverage in the event of a claim, and all other parties (including the Additional Insured) do not have to pay any claims out of their insurance policy. The problem is, when the Insurance Agent puts this wording on the Certificate, it is not necessarily a part of the policy. Thus, the certificate does not reflect the true policy coverage. The Agent cannot amend the policy; that is the underwriter's job, because the coverage affects the premiums. The Agent can only send requested revisions to the underwriter and then wait to see if the coverage will be provided as requested.

I had one Agent refuse to put this language on a certificate because the policy itself did not provide that coverage. He actually said to me it was "illegal" to include it. Whether he was correct or not I do not know. But this type of wording is certainly wrong. See these links:

www.genins.com/img/~www.genins.com/comme...does%20it%20mean.pdf

www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2012/stanov...ility-insurance.aspx

www.independentagent.com/Education/VU/In...s/FacultyPandNC.aspx
(Note the phrase, "impossible to comply with the request.")

If all Compliance Depot reps are licensed agents they (and you) should already know this. They should be advising their owner/manager clients NOT to include this wording as it either misrepresents the policy or, if the policy itself already has such a provision, is redundant and useless.

John McKeegan wrote: I am not an agent but your answer seems to be part of the problem. The Certificate is not an actual policy and is not intended to be one. It is a summary of what coverages the policy provides, and the conditions of coverage.

When a property owner or manager asks for the certificate to include "primary and non-contributory" language, the long-hand version of that phrase says, in effect, the Insured named on the Certificate has the primary responsibility for coverage in the event of a claim, and all other parties (including the Additional Insured) do not have to pay any claims out of their insurance policy. The problem is, when the Insurance Agent puts this wording on the Certificate, it is not necessarily a part of the policy. Thus, the certificate does not reflect the true policy coverage. The Agent cannot amend the policy; that is the underwriter's job, because the coverage affects the premiums. The Agent can only send requested revisions to the underwriter and then wait to see if the coverage will be provided as requested.

I had one Agent refuse to put this language on a certificate because the policy itself did not provide that coverage. He actually said to me it was "illegal" to include it. Whether he was correct or not I do not know. But this type of wording is certainly wrong. See these links:

www.genins.com/img/~www.genins.com/comme...does%20it%20mean.pdf

www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2012/stanov...ility-insurance.aspx

www.independentagent.com/Education/VU/In...s/FacultyPandNC.aspx
(Note the phrase, "impossible to comply with the request.")

If all Compliance Depot reps are licensed agents they (and you) should already know this. They should be advising their owner/manager clients NOT to include this wording as it either misrepresents the policy or, if the policy itself already has such a provision, is redundant and useless.

If that language is not part of the policy then the agent ones to add it to the policy via an endorsement. Then the language can be on the cert. Compliance Depot does not require any language that violates the law. It is up to the agent to provide whatever documentation to comply with the client's requirements.

And yes, we do know this. The clients can require any language they want. It is up to the agent to comply.

By the way...your definition of primary and non-contributory is incorrect.

Hmmm. . .
Which part is incorrect?

According to the General Insurance Services link I provided earlier:
"In liability insurance claims, when two policies cover the same loss, one usually applies on a primary basis and the other on an excess basis. This means that one will pay first (the primary policy). . ."

The owner/management company are at the "top of the chain" so to speak, and the vendor is, in essence, a subcontractor, listing the Owner and/or management company (along with Compliance Depot when they are involved) as Additional Insureds. The primary and non-contributory language puts the subcontractor's insurance as the primary contributor. The same site also says:

". . . the subcontractor’s policy is automatically primary. The form’s wording makes the insured’s coverage excess over any policy that has added the insured as an additional insured by endorsement."

So I am not incorrect in my understanding of the "primary" part, am I? If so, please explain.

What about "non-contributory?" See the link above at IRMI, which says:

"Noncontributory as included in 'primary and noncontributory' is generally understood to mean that contribution will not take place—there will be no contribution. Put differently, 'noncontributory' is casual shorthand that is to mean contribution will not be sought."

The wording on certificates is always that the Insured's coverage will be primary and "all others will be non-contributory." Taken with the definition provided above, the attempt is to say that the Insured will pay all claims singularly, first via his insurance and then, if the claim is in excess of the policy limits, the insured will pay out of pocket as he has relinquished his right to seek "contribution" from the Additional Insured to offset the claim amount - in other words, "all other" insured's policies will not be expected/required to contribute to any claims awarded.

If I am still incorrect, please clarify what this terminology actually means.

I just check Compliance Depot thru our local Better Business Bureau and learned they are listed as an Investigator firm, not accredited through the BBB and has had 34 complaints filed against them in the last 3 years. Why are Property Managing Companies using a company such as this as a way of "managing" their Vendors/Contractors?

Seems odd to me....

Can you provide a link to that information? The BBB site does not have any listings for them (accredited or otherwise) for Compliance Depot in Atlanta.

Either you are mistaken or attempting to mislead people on this site. Compliance Depot has ZERO complaints with the BBB. Please provide validation of this information or stop making false claims.

John McKeegan wrote: Hmmm. . .
Which part is incorrect?

According to the General Insurance Services link I provided earlier:
"In liability insurance claims, when two policies cover the same loss, one usually applies on a primary basis and the other on an excess basis. This means that one will pay first (the primary policy). . ."

The owner/management company are at the "top of the chain" so to speak, and the vendor is, in essence, a subcontractor, listing the Owner and/or management company (along with Compliance Depot when they are involved) as Additional Insureds. The primary and non-contributory language puts the subcontractor's insurance as the primary contributor. The same site also says:

". . . the subcontractor’s policy is automatically primary. The form’s wording makes the insured’s coverage excess over any policy that has added the insured as an additional insured by endorsement."

So I am not incorrect in my understanding of the "primary" part, am I? If so, please explain.

What about "non-contributory?" See the link above at IRMI, which says:

"Noncontributory as included in 'primary and noncontributory' is generally understood to mean that contribution will not take place—there will be no contribution. Put differently, 'noncontributory' is casual shorthand that is to mean contribution will not be sought."

The wording on certificates is always that the Insured's coverage will be primary and "all others will be non-contributory." Taken with the definition provided above, the attempt is to say that the Insured will pay all claims singularly, first via his insurance and then, if the claim is in excess of the policy limits, the insured will pay out of pocket as he has relinquished his right to seek "contribution" from the Additional Insured to offset the claim amount - in other words, "all other" insured's policies will not be expected/required to contribute to any claims awarded.

If I am still incorrect, please clarify what this terminology actually means.

In your first definition you stated that one policy is to pay the claim but the other parties do not have to pay the claim. In your second definition you explained it correctly

James k, please see Jack Smith's comment "Kelly, the complaints are from vendors who . . ." indicating there are complaints filed with the BBB against Compliance Depot and your claim of "Compliance Depot has ZERO complaints with the BBB" is incorrect.

Jack, I do not see any difference between my first definition and my second. What am I missing?

John McKeegan wrote: James k, please see Jack Smith's comment "Kelly, the complaints are from vendors who . . ." indicating there are complaints filed with the BBB against Compliance Depot and your claim of "Compliance Depot has ZERO complaints with the BBB" is incorrect.

Jack, I do not see any difference between my first definition and my second. What am I missing?

Your first definition says that a second insurance policy would not have to pay anything...which is incorrect. Your second definition says that a secondary policy would pay after the primary one pays...that is correct.

Let me clarify: the phrasing "primary and non-contributory" refers to two different and distinct elements. I believe you have taken my two definitions as being applied as one instance, but that was not my intent.

"Primary" - the Insured's policy is to take the primary, or first, position. The Additional Insureds on the policy are then secondary. Per the links I provided earlier, the policy would be applied this way anyway, so stating the Insured's policy is primary is redundant.

"Non-contributory" - the phrasing used is that "all others are non-contributory," with reference to all other insureds. So, if there is a claim and damages are awarded, this phrasing indicates the insurance policies of other insureds will not contribute to the payment of claim. Again, see this link:
www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2012/stanov...ility-insurance.aspx
which provides the following quote from the California Court of Appeals:


Requiring the Named Insured to declare all other insureds as non-contributory is then problematic as it could be construed that the Named Insured will have to pay all claims awarded, without contribution from the Additional Insureds, even if the awarded claim exceeds the policy limits. If the policy has paid its limit, and the other insureds have been exempted from contributing, the only option left is for the contractor to pay the balance of the award out of his own pocket.

"Primary" is one issue and "non-contributory" is a different issue. The definition I first provided was meant to convey that - I apologize if it did not.

I have not seen any complaints, nor have I looked on BBB for complaints where Compliance Depot is concerned.

My guess is that they (the complaining parties) probably have the same experience as I do with Compliance Depot - It takes up to 2 months for Compliance Depot to process paperwork, and this is when I am constantly emailing them reminders and following up on my own to check to see if (as if there approval is The Holy Grail) at last they have completed our paperwork - and our invoices are already becoming past due now, which of course the manager refuses to pay a finance fee - he/she should only call us when we have been set up - but it doesn't work this way - so I basically have to pay Compliance Depot to make sure I am not a terrorist and that my insurance is up to date - and DO NOT FORGET to cross a T or dot an I - or back to the beginning. We do follow the rules, we follow rules to a fault at my company. Yet, I too would have complaints regarding Compliance Depot. All of the money that they collect from the vendors in Houston; yet cannot even be bothered to become a member of the Apartment Association. To me, they have a lot of issues still to be resolved, yet do not seem to find any fault/flaw with their processes.

Laura Collins wrote: I have not seen any complaints, nor have I looked on BBB for complaints where Compliance Depot is concerned.

My guess is that they (the complaining parties) probably have the same experience as I do with Compliance Depot - It takes up to 2 months for Compliance Depot to process paperwork, and this is when I am constantly emailing them reminders and following up on my own to check to see if (as if there approval is The Holy Grail) at last they have completed our paperwork - and our invoices are already becoming past due now, which of course the manager refuses to pay a finance fee - he/she should only call us when we have been set up - but it doesn't work this way - so I basically have to pay Compliance Depot to make sure I am not a terrorist and that my insurance is up to date - and DO NOT FORGET to cross a T or dot an I - or back to the beginning. We do follow the rules, we follow rules to a fault at my company. Yet, I too would have complaints regarding Compliance Depot. All of the money that they collect from the vendors in Houston; yet cannot even be bothered to become a member of the Apartment Association. To me, they have a lot of issues still to be resolved, yet do not seem to find any fault/flaw with their processes.

It does not take up to 2 months to process paperwork. In most cases it is done within 48-72 hours. Te dotting an I and crossing a t is because the certificate of insurance is a legal document and must be treated as such.

Kelly Hendrick wrote: I just check Compliance Depot thru our local Better Business Bureau and learned they are listed as an Investigator firm, not accredited through the BBB and has had 34 complaints filed against them in the last 3 years. Why are Property Managing Companies using a company such as this as a way of "managing" their Vendors/Contractors?

Seems odd to me....

Kelly, I noticed in all the replies that no one has really answered your question as to why Property Management Companies are using companies like Compliance Depot. As much as I have opposed Compliance Depot on this thread, I actually agree with the concept of what they do. Put yourself in the shoes of the Owner/Manager of an apartment complex for a moment:

You are sitting in the leasing office and the day seems to be going well. The carpet cleaner was waiting outside the office when you arrived, so he could pick up the keys to clean an occupied unit, you saw the painting contractors pull in half an hour later and head to a building being renovated, and your signage vendor just showed up with your new banner and has offered to install it for you.

A little later, the resident whose carpet was cleaned comes into your office and says her jewelry is missing. Before you can address that, several vans speed through your property headed to the renovation building and the signage vendor turns to see what the commotion is all about and falls off his ladder. You will eventually find out that the carpet technician has a history of arrests for theft, the painting company has been hiring undocumented workers and your signage vendor did not renew his Worker's Comp policy. How did all of this happen?

Compliance Depot says they can help protect you against such events by tracking all of the necessary documentation. There are some limits, of course, to what they can do and they explain that, but your current system is not working and they can certainly bring about some improvement. The best part is, their costs are subsidized by the vendors you use, possibly even 100%, so that this protection costs you little or nothing.

Would you take them up on their offer? Really, who wouldn't?

The concept is a very good one. The frustration experienced by most vendors comes from
(a) having to pay a fee to essentially hire someone for the management company/owner to use for proper record-keeping and
(b) the list-checker ("i" dotters and "t" crossers) mentality of the reps hired by Compliance Depot.
And if THEY don't see the dotted "i" or the crossed "t"? They push whatever button they have to send an automated response that you are not compliant. I have one management company where we were told we needed an endorsement. We sent it. Two weeks later we sent everything again. My agent cc's me on everything so two weeks later I sent it again, after calling and speaking to Derrick Thompson (he is very helpful, by the way). No changes were made to what we had submitted; it was just sent again. The next day we showed as approved. A full month to get an Approved status when all of our documentation was correct to begin with (once we sent the endorsement).

So, the idea is good. Execution, on the other hand, is woefully lacking.

Jack Smith wrote: It does not take up to 2 months to process paperwork. In most cases it is done within 48-72 hours. Te dotting an I and crossing a t is because the certificate of insurance is a legal document and must be treated as such.

Jack, see my reply to Kelly about the month it took to get approved after we submitted the corrected paperwork.

When our Worker's Comp came up for renewal, our agent sent to Compliance Depot ALL of our needed certificates as one attachment, and our Endorsement as a second attachment. I have at least three management companies that were categorized as "Not Approved" due to us not including the endorsement. I had to call Compliance Depot to point out it was a separate attachment and was included from the beginning. These three companies were changed to "Approved" afterwards, without us having to resubmit anything.

I had one company that we were not approved for and had to send to Compliance Depot their own sample certificate along with our certificate to try to get them to see there was no difference. Later, the status was changed to Approved. That took a little over a week to get cleared up.

One of the problems seems to be that the notices of non-compliance are too generic in nature. Compliance Depot is in Carrollton TX. My employer is near Atlanta GA and there is also a Carrollton GA nearby. Our agent mistakenly put Compliance Depot as Carrollton GA instead of TX, and we were told we were not compliant and not approved. But the notice did not provide the specific error that needed to be corrected. The rep who rejected our certificate was sharp in picking up that detail, but it took over a month for anyone at Compliance Depot to specify the problem. Instead, we were just sent generic notices that simply said, "you are not compliant."

Why do the Compliance Depot reps act so much like automatons and not like thinking people? I agree the TX/GA certificate was wrong - why didn't somebody do more than just say, "No approval for you!"?

I have been dealing with them for years and every year when my Gen Liability policy expires it is a nightmare around here try to get back into compliance for my near 30 customers who use this hell! Like it or not they are hear to stay and in the future they and our government will get even MORE intrusive, a lot more intrusive.

Background checks on all employees, just around the corner!

I agree with the assessment of the company...as a vendor we feel hopeless as we encounter MANY issues and mistakes on their end that end up being a problem on the side of our clients . It is unfair to work on completing all their requests but they never seem to update the system or respond in a timely fashion. Until property management companies research and demand better standards for service providers, vendors are at the mercy of a flawed & inefficient system

That is not something Compliance Depot does. I think you are commenting on the wrong company.

Rebecca - can you be more specific? Who are you replying to? What does Compliance Depot not do?

John McKeegan wrote: Actually, there are a few competitors out there now.

RMIS came not long after Compliance Depot started up and has Lincoln Property Company and Fairfield Residential as clients.

Notivus is a new credentialing company that signed on First Communities, RAM Partners, and Matrix Residential.

Vendor Verify just started up recently and has Cottonwood Residential as a client.

And I got a letter earlier this month from NetVendor representing Carroll Organization.

Clearly, many, many people just hate Compliance Depot. As for their "updated" database mentioned in a different post, I would go on their website to find approved vendors, then call and find out the information was no longer accurate--they were an old vendor & no longer active or whatever. I began to think they updated their database only on the new moon and with info from a scratchpad and abacus!

Anyway, I'm wondering if any of you out there can comment on RMSI, Notivus, or Vendor Verify. Looks like they are getting some big clients. Surely they've targeted companies out there who currently use Compliance Depot--because it seems like an easy sale to me!

Chuck Mallory wrote:
Anyway, I'm wondering if any of you out there can comment on RMSI, Notivus, or Vendor Verify. Looks like they are getting some big clients. Surely they've targeted companies out there who currently use Compliance Depot--because it seems like an easy sale to me!

Chuck - I am sure you realize no company is going to be perfect. (By the way, I got the impression you went to Compliance Depot's website to find approved vendors and that is where you got the out-of-date names. Jack seems to have understood your post differently. Can you clarify? I only have access to CD as a vendor so I do not know how it works from the management company side)

RMIS is probably the second-oldest credentialing service with CD being the oldest. On the plus side for RMIS, they do some of the time-consuming stuff: they contact the vendor's insurance agent and request the CoI's and they send the agent follow-ups when needed. If there is no response after a certain amount of times/tries they contact the vendor and ask for help in nudging the agent along. The only issues I have had with them (other than the agent not responding in a timely manner - which would not be CD's fault, either, had it been them) is where one investor required specific coverage that was not required by investors of other portfolios managed by the same company. When that coverage neared expiration, RMIS sent out warning letters for ALL properties being managed by this one company, even though the coverage did not apply to them. I was able to get that resolved within a few days and the RMIS rep adjusted our account and then sent me an email stating the properties that DID NOT require this added coverage.

Notivus, as I understand it, was already doing this type of credentialing/insurance verification work for the medical industry, then decided to apply their methods to multi-family. The only issue that has ever come up with Notivus started when our insurance renewed. For some reason, we were not renewed for one management company in Notivus but a new account was set up instead. Many of our property managers tried to process our payments and were using our original vendor code, which they had memorized. That code was showing us as non-compliant. I was able to contact Notivus and found out the cause of the problem and they said they would correct their internal systems so that both of our codes would link to us. This repair did not work right away, but I had a record of our new vendor code and sent it to each manager that reported they could not pay us due to our Notivus status, and they were able to process our invoices. I have not had a manager report a problem now in two months.

Vendor Verify and NetVendor are too new for me to have formed an opinion on them yet, but I can tell you that Vendor Verify, which represents Cottonwood Residential, has the same mailing address as Cottonwood Residential.

Yes, I did go to Compliance Depot's own website and found the outdated information. If Compliance Depot were doing well in all aspects now, I don't think there would be all these negative comments from a variety of people on here--and think of the people who don't want to post a comment on here or who are afraid to. I am fairly forgiving on vendors and companies. Sometimes a service or product has a rough start and makes amends, and can be given another chance. But I will certainly never work with Compliance Depot again.

stay far away from Compliance Depot nothing but a headache

I am so glad this is a topic of conversation. I am one of those "smaller" vendors. We are not on-site as we ship everything UPS. I have talked to Compliance Depot and explained that the average cost per gift is $5-$8 the profit on most only being $1.00. They are now charging I think $85.00 per year! For larger vendors that charge thousands a month that seems reasonable. I would think that if this is not avoidable that it would be a one time charge for non on-site vendors not a yearly charge. A W-9 is simply that - a W-9 and it Never Changes. RAM exempt us from having to be compliant but they seem to be the only management company that will. Furthermore, I know of competitors that are not compliant yet they do business with some of the same Management Companys we do, very unsure how? I would value and appreciate all comments and suggestions. Many Blessings, Jill

Simply ask your management company if you can bill the $85 fee back to them each year. You will likely have to call it "admin fee" or something. That's how I got small vendors like local plumbers when I managed a historic property that required lots of small specialists (carpentry, tuckpointing, odd plumbing etc). We didn't use them much and usually not for anything but minor amounts. So I asked them to put the fee in the first invoice. That way we could use them.

Fortunately, the management company I worked for when we had Compliance Depot exempted companies that did not have people working on site. So gift baskets, supplies etc. were excluded from Compliance Depot. There was some talk about the "delivery people" but since UPS delivered everything, coverage from Compliance Depot was not needed.

This doesn't save a management company money, but with Compliance Depot it's the only way you can get very small vendors who would just move on to the next client rather than pay the annual fee.

Chuck Mallory wrote: Yes, I did go to Compliance Depot's own website and found the outdated information. If Compliance Depot were doing well in all aspects now, I don't think there would be all these negative comments from a variety of people on here--and think of the people who don't want to post a comment on here or who are afraid to. I am fairly forgiving on vendors and companies. Sometimes a service or product has a rough start and makes amends, and can be given another chance. But I will certainly never work with Compliance Depot again.

The only way Compliance Depot would have outdated information is if the agent or vendor did not have it updated

Jill Douglas wrote: I am so glad this is a topic of conversation. I am one of those "smaller" vendors. We are not on-site as we ship everything UPS. I have talked to Compliance Depot and explained that the average cost per gift is $5-$8 the profit on most only being $1.00. They are now charging I think $85.00 per year! For larger vendors that charge thousands a month that seems reasonable. I would think that if this is not avoidable that it would be a one time charge for non on-site vendors not a yearly charge. A W-9 is simply that - a W-9 and it Never Changes. RAM exempt us from having to be compliant but they seem to be the only management company that will. Furthermore, I know of competitors that are not compliant yet they do business with some of the same Management Companys we do, very unsure how? I would value and appreciate all comments and suggestions. Many Blessings, Jill

The $85 also pays for the processing an housing of the vendor agreement.

Jack Smith wrote:
The only way Compliance Depot would have outdated information is if the agent or vendor did not have it updated

You know what? I have to comment on your other post as well, so read on.

Jack Smith wrote:
The $85 also pays for the processing an housing of the vendor agreement.

It costs $85 per year to process and store a single document, that as a pdf is maybe 1MB? Before you reply and point out your use of the word "also" - as in, 'we do many other things as well' - understand that I already saw it. Everything that Compliance Depot does for that $85 isn't really the issue.

One issue is that the new competitors to Compliance Depot do the same thing for less money.

Another issue is the predominating attitude most people seem to be experiencing that Compliance Depot won't admit they could be doing things better. Go back and look at your replies to the various complaints posted on this thread. Over and over you have essentially said it is either the vendor's fault, or the fault of the vendor's insurance agent.

Chuck Mallory has been very active in this discussion. I have never met him face-to-face and had never heard of him prior to this thread. Click on his name and look at his profile. He is a District Property Manager in the Chicago area. His experience is on the property management side. He is not a vendor. How many times have you insisted to him that Compliance Depot has made no errors and he has to be mistaken? Yes, he already had a dislike for Compliance Depot. But you might have been able to change that. Instead, you essentially told him that everything negative he has experienced with Compliance Depot is his own fault. It is no wonder he posted, "I will certainly never work with Compliance Depot again" and that your competitors are probably focusing on your clients because "it seems like an easy sale."

It's as Donald Porter of British Airways said, "Customers don’t expect you to be perfect. They do expect you to fix things when they go wrong." But you cannot do that if you do not first admit that something has gone wrong.

OFFICIAL COMPLIANCE DEPOT RESPONSE

We would like to take this opportunity to publicly clarify that the posts by “Jack Smith” do not represent the views of Compliance Depot or its affiliated companies. We will always value the relationships we have built with our clients and vendors, and we hold them in the highest regard.

If you have a specific concern with Compliance Depot, please contact us directly at [email protected].

From our perspective as a small vendor who uses CD, it is getting better, and the insurance agents do make it hard for all of us to stay on the same page and get processed as efficiently as we would like to be, which is a part CD cannot control.

"You don't like the truth. It is a fact that if vendors nd agents would use their brains then there old be no issues. You blame us for a lot even though the blame should be directed toward yourself and your agent."

- Jack, trust me, I'm not trying to entertain everyone with another knife fight, but I cannot keep from encouraging you to look at all your responses, one right after another. I'm not a big fan of talking about the 'tone' of an email/text/blog/whatever, but there is definitely something creeping out besides your point-of-view. With that said, I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to talk to you at an AAA Dinner Meeting while you have this 'passion' and vinegar churning inside!

My problem is with Compliance Depot and the Management Companies. The management companies don't tell you that they are using Compliance Depot when they call in for a service call. Then months and months later when they don't pay the bill you find out they aren't paying you until you pay the fee to get paid. Then the run around with Compliance Depot starts. With every management company wanting different insurance amounts and adding their brother and cousin. The time I spend and my insurance agents spends is a bookkeeping nightmare. Only to start again in a year. and what if you pay to join and that management company never calls you for work. waste.

Jack,
I had hoped to resolve this directly, but you did not feel the need to respond to me directly, which is unfortunate. You said that you were not hurting anyone, but you have insulted people who use Compliance Depot. And since I can't verify you are who you say you are, those insults, and the general negative demeanor you have displayed, could hurt Compliance Depot unfairly. The fact that those on the other side of the fence are telling me you are hurting Compliance Depot's brand tells me that you either are not employed by them or you do not care about what damage you do to their reputation. And again, given the fact that you have not talked to me to verify anything, and frankly, been quite rude in the process, you are not welcome to post on this thread again. I am not banning your account right now, but any future posts on this thread or similar threads will be grounds for banning. You are free to send me a private message to discuss.

To everyone else, as we start removing many of "Jack"s posts, this thread will become increasingly hard to read from future visitors. So we may remove posts that now do not make sense in the overall discussion or adjust them to remove deleted quoted content.

As a note to everybody, we try our best to keep all conversation open and foster good debate. Removing posts like this is a last resort, but we felt it was necessary to do so to maintain the integrity of the discussion area.

(NOTE: This message will also get deleted once we complete the process of cleaning up this thread)

Easy Ride, I agree that there is an issue from some of the property management companies. We've had it a couple of times where someone would ask to be invoiced for a webinar, attend the webinar, and then let us know we need to be with Compliance Depot. Fortunately, all but one we've just been exempted from, so it was a non-issue, but I can see how other companies who cannot be exempted could be frustrated with some cost they were not anticipating. And what's bad for Compliance Depot is that that frustration is going to bleed onto them when at least in that circumstance, it wasn't their fault at all...

Brent,

By both participating in the conversation on this thread and by removing commentary that is not vulgar, lewd, or explicitly attacking/disparaging in particular person or company, you are setting yourself - and this entire forum up for future scrutiny and even potential litigation.

If you simply "watch" and remove content that is in violation of common-sense rules that is one thing. But by selectively removing content at-will, I am concerned that you may appear to be "taking sides." For example, one could accuse you of removing content because CD has paid you to do so. True or not, the accusation could be made. Additionally, once you start monitoring and managing the content posted by others you become responsible (professionally and personally) for the remaining content and commentary.

It is up to CD to protect their own reputation and determine who in their organization is misrepresenting their interests. It is up to CD to train their employees regarding appropriate behavior and establish boundaries. They are failing... miserably. By continuing to engage with "Jack" the thread has become even more hostile.

Although it may not be your intent, I am noticing a trend to intervene in what you deem to be appropriate commentary - outside of the usual retrains regarding foul language, violence, etc. One could legitimately ask, "Is this an open community forum or merely a Brent Williams marketing platform?"

For clarification, please post a link to the forum rules/terms of use for reference.

I am completely ok with you not agreeing with how the situation was handled, although I believe we did everything possible to maintain open discussion. But what I'm completely floored by is all the accusations - how are any of those warranted? Anyway, to clarify why it was handled the way it was:

Without verification, I was unable to discern whether Jack was fraudulently posting as a representative of Compliance Depot. That's a pretty serious thing to do, and quite probably illegal. I gave him several chances to talk to me to clear things up, but he never communicated with me privately in any way whatsoever to help me figure out whether he was who he says he was. Even after he was pretty flippant with me telling me he didn't have to verify anything, I still gave him more time just in case. At that point, I was unable to verify that he wasn't fraudulently posting in order to hurt Compliance Depot, and decided to react to the situation by removing posts that could be considered harmful. What you seem not have noticed is that I left up all the other posts that were not positive, and sometimes downright negative, to Compliance Depot. This was not across-the-board censorship - this was addressing the issue of possible fraud. If this was all because I was supposedly paid by Compliance Depot, I could so incredibly easily just delete the entire thread and be done with it. Instead, I tried to save as much discussion as I could while removing potentially fraudulent posts.

Did you not see all the posts I made to try to head off the situation? Was that not abundantly clear? I'm just amazed that someone who supposedly knew me fairly well would suddenly throw so many baseless accusations my way.

If you look through MFI's discussions, you would see both positive and negative discussions about companies, many of whom are sponsors of Multifamily Insiders. We do not remove these posts, but rather encourage the companies to respond to the concerns and improve their own service if there are truths to the complaints. You make it seem as if there is all this censorship going on, which clearly isn't the case.

Although one could argue that we should have left up the posts and made notes that they were unverified (or some other solution altogether), I am shocked that you would make accusations about my integrity in the process.

I completely understand your concerns Brent - and believe you do have integrity - which is what you're demanding from the forum participants. However, if anonymous profiles are allowed there will always be the potential for commentary such as "Jack" has posted. I believe "Jack" should be fired for what he's posted if he works for CD. That said, there is no proof he isn't who he says he is either.

I am not personally accusing you Brent, simply pointing out the slippery slope of selective moderation and how EASY it is for people (who may not know you) to make assumptions when they see commentary disappearing, regardless of your explanation.

The opportunity to create or share forum guidelines/rules is now.

I don't (I DO NOT) believe you accepted money from CD. I was making the point that you could be accused of it as easily as accusing "Jack" of fraudulent posting.

I sincerely apologize for not explaining my case more clearly and hope this reply clarifies my concerns regarding subjective moderation.

The insurance requirements are stringent in that they require copies of 4 policy endorsements dealing with Additional Insured's, Waiver of Subrogation & Ongoing Operations worded to their unique specifications. This may be met with insurance carriers who are ISO filed for policies / endorsements, but smaller mutual insurance companies who follow MSO or AAIS filings are required to remove language from their filed endorsements. I have won this argument with Compliance Depot by advising them I would file a formal complaint with our state insurance department for requiring me & the carrier to commit an illegal act. My state will soon join 13 other states who have made it a felony offence for anyone, usually banks and large general contractors, to require us to modify a certificate of insurance or endorsements in violation of the filed endorsements & Acord COI wording.

Jim,
Would you mind sharing your state and the 13 others you mention?

Hey Brent,

I think this post is valid and should be left on the site. Very intriguing.

Here's my personal take:

Jack Smith is a fraud. "Vendors and agents are ALWAYS wrong." He/she must work for a competitor. Name alone rats him out. Might as well be John Smith.

Yet also a huge fail on Compliance Depot's part. Hate to say it, but Compliance Depots's response to these posts basically proves their customer service must be secondary at best....

Really. This is your response?

OFFICIAL COMPLIANCE DEPOT RESPONSE

We would like to take this opportunity to publicly clarify that the posts by “Jack Smith” do not represent the views of Compliance Depot or its affiliated companies. We will always value the relationships we have built with our clients and vendors, and we hold them in the highest regard.

If you have a specific concern with Compliance Depot, please contact us directly at [email protected]."

And yes I have had to go through the CD bureaucracy with some of my clients, so I understand everyone's complaints.

Also thanks to John McKeegan for all his posts to state some simple facts.

Keep the thread alive. Maybe somebody at Compliance Depot will actually chime in -- instead of you having to call or e-mail them.

Leigh

Leigh,

I am, after all, just a simple guy at heart. Thank you very much for your kind words.


- John

John -- I have seriously enjoyed reading your posts. Learned a lot about the insurance side of things that I will be able to carry over to my clients when I have to deal with the CD's of the world.

I have to agree with Leigh. It is damning for Compliance Depot, and perhaps even indicative of their efficiency, that they had to be notified that this whole thread was occurring. And then no one from there continued to monitor the forum and defend the company? This is 101 for even a small business, for cryin' out loud!

Even if a company didn't suspect negative information happening out there, they would have the sense to regularly Google their company name and see what's being said out there. A 3-year-old could do this! And there it is, on the first page of Google search for "Compliance Depot," this whole thread.

Granted, not every company is going to have a public relations person, but when branding is so crucial you would think Compliance Depot would at least monitor their public image.