Virginia CIC Ombudsman Filing

Va. Code § 54.1-2354.4 — Association complaint procedure

1. Defective Final Adverse Decision — Missing required disclosures

The HOA's AP02 complaint procedure (Section G) and § 54.1-2354.4 require every Final Adverse Decision to include: (a) specific citations to governing documents, laws, or regulations; (b) the Association's CICB registration number and the manager's CICB license number; and (c) notice of the complainant's right to file an NFAD with the Ombudsman and applicable contact information.

President Parlette's July 15, 2026 email — the FAD — omits all three. Instead of the required NFAD notice, it states: "No appeal process is available; the Board's rendered decision is final." This statement is contrary to the complainant's statutory rights and contrary to AP02 Exhibit A, which expressly preserves the NFAD right.

AP02 Exhibit A (the complaint form itself) states the opposite: "you have the right to file a notice of final adverse decision with the Common Interest Community Board."

Va. Code § 54.1-2354.4 / AP02 Section F.2 — 14-day meeting notice

2. Complaint reviewed without required advance notice to the complainant

AP02 Section F.2 requires the Managing Agent to provide the complainant with at least 14 days advance written notice of the board meeting at which the complaint will be considered. The formal complaint was filed July 7, 2026. The board meeting where it was decided was July 14, 2026 — only 7 days later. No advance notice was provided. The complainant was not present and had no opportunity to attend.

President Parlette's FAD acknowledges: "No homeowners were present."

Va. Code § 55.1-1819(A) — Reasonably published or distributed

3. Complaint procedure and enforcement policy not published for years

Virginia Code § 55.1-1819(A) requires rules and regulations to be "reasonably published or distributed throughout the development."

• The Association's AP02 complaint procedure was adopted September 28, 2012 but was not listed on the HOA's public Documents page until July 2026 — approximately 14 years after adoption — and only after the complainant's July 7, 2026 formal complaint. Screenshots document the before and after states of the Documents page.
• The "Covenant and Rule Enforcement Policy" — cited in the ARB Criteria & Standards as the source of the Board's "authority and procedures for enforcing the covenants and rules" — has never been published on the HOA's Documents page and has not been provided to the complainant despite formal written request.

Va. Code § 55.1-1819(B) — Express authority required

4. No express declaration or published rule authorizes a shutter fine

§ 55.1-1819(B) limits the Board's authority to assess charges to "the extent the declaration or rules and regulations duly adopted pursuant to such declaration expressly so provide."

The word "shutter" does not appear in the recorded Declaration, Articles of Incorporation, or Bylaws. The only document naming shutters as a maintenance item is the ARB Criteria & Standards (Section 12.2), which describes itself as "a guide" — not a recorded covenant. The Covenant & Rule Enforcement Policy, which would supply the enforcement mechanism, has never been produced.

Va. Code § 55.1-1819(C) — Pre-hearing certified notice

5. Hearing held without documented 14-day certified pre-hearing notice

§ 55.1-1819(C) requires that before charges are assessed, the member must receive written notice of a hearing — delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested — at least 14 days prior to the hearing. The October 14, 2025 Architectural Violation Hearing was held without the owners present. Documentation that the required 14-day certified pre-hearing notice was sent has not been provided.

Va. Code § 55.1-1819(D) — 90-day cap on continuing-offense charges

6. Continuing-offense charges may exceed the 90-day statutory cap

§ 55.1-1819(D) provides that charges for any offense of a continuing nature "shall not be assessed for a period exceeding 90 days," with a maximum rate of $10 per day — a statutory ceiling of $900. The account balance of $960.60 (June 10, 2026 statement) comingles violation fines, interest, and ordinary HOA dues in a single unitemized figure, making verification against the cap impossible. A fully itemized ledger has not been provided despite repeated requests.

Va. Code § 55.1-1819(B)(C) — Reasonableness of continued charges; "reasonable opportunity to correct"

7. The HOA's primary rationale for continued charges rests on a reinspection portal that was not reasonably accessible

The HOA's stated basis for denying the reversal request was that "multiple communications provided instructions for reinspection" and that "the management company was not contacted until after the assessment process was underway." In other words, the HOA's position is that fines continued not because the physical violation persisted, but because the homeowner did not complete a reinspection request through the provided channel.

That channel was http://mjfarb.com/reinspect/ — an HTTP-only website operated by MJF Associates. The problem was not a user error or refusal to comply. The problem was structural:

• Modern browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge) default to HTTPS when a user types a web address without specifying a protocol. Because MJF's server did not accept HTTPS connections on port 443, the browser could not establish a connection at all — the site appeared unreachable, not insecure.
• A server that does not accept HTTPS cannot send a redirect from HTTPS to HTTP. The browser never receives redirect instructions; the site simply fails to load.
• The only workaround was to manually type the full http:// prefix — behavior that runs contrary to modern browser security defaults and that a typical homeowner would not know to try.
• A screen recording dated March 2, 2026 documents the HTTPS failure on mjfarb.com. The HOA and MJF Associates were notified of this accessibility issue. The reversal was nonetheless denied and the portal was not corrected.

This matters to the POAA analysis for two reasons:

1. § 55.1-1819(C) — reasonable opportunity to correct: A process that requires completing a reinspection through a portal inaccessible under standard browser behavior is not a "reasonable" compliance mechanism. Charging fines because a homeowner failed to use a broken process undermines the statutory requirement of a fair opportunity to cure.
2. § 55.1-1819(B) — express authority to charge: No governing document located in the record expressly states that per-day charges continue after the physical condition is cured solely because a reinspection request was not submitted. The HOA's authority to charge was for the violation — a missing shutter. Once the shutter was replaced (October 21, 2025, before fines began), no express provision authorized continued charges on reinspection-procedural grounds alone.

What happened after notice was given

The homeowners notified President Parlette — and separately notified both MJF Associates and the HOA Board — of two issues: (1) the reinspection portal was inaccessible under standard HTTPS browser behavior, and (2) the portal collected homeowner personal data (account number, reference code, email address) over an unencrypted HTTP connection, which constitutes a personally identifiable information (PII) security risk. A screen recording was provided as documentation.

President Parlette's response — in full

"I'm not sure what you are trying to show with your video. I see you had no internet connection, then you did and got to the site. I tried the link you provided which doesn't work, but when I type it free hand it does work.

So the process has reached the date specified in your hearing decision letter where fines are assessed. Fines continue daily for 90 days or until the amount has reached the limit allowed by Virginia law. Contact MJF at the number provided on the violation letter, (also on the Dawson Landing Website) to halt the accumulation of fines. MJF will reinspect, and if the violation is resolved, the fines end at the point you contacted them. MJF asks for the date you attempted to access so they can check the website to see if anything was going on.

You can ask MJF for an Assessment Reversal Form. MJF will provide your completed form with a history log and other artifacts (such as your enclosures) to the BOD for review."

Why this response compounds the statutory problem

Parlette's response contains several admissions that are significant to the Ombudsman's review:

1. "I tried the link you provided which doesn't work."
   Parlette attempted to access the portal using the URL as provided (without manually forcing http://) and confirmed it did not work. His own test reproduced the exact failure the homeowner documented. He then accessed it by typing "free hand" — meaning he typed the full URL with explicit protocol knowledge that an ordinary homeowner would not have. This confirms the portal was inaccessible using the link as communicated to homeowners.
2. "MJF asks for the date you attempted to access so they can check the website to see if anything was going on."
   MJF's own request for the access date to "check the website" implies awareness that the site may have had operational problems — inconsistent with the later position that the portal was functioning normally and the homeowner's failure to use it was the basis for continued charges.
3. "Contact MJF at the number provided on the violation letter… to halt the accumulation of fines."
   Parlette directs the homeowner to call MJF by phone as the method to stop fines — not to use the web portal. This introduces a second pathway (phone) that was not clearly communicated in the original violation notice, and undermines the position that the web portal was the exclusive or required compliance mechanism.
4. The PII concern received no response.
   The homeowners explicitly raised the issue that collecting account number, reference code, email address, and violation data over an HTTP-only connection constitutes a PII security risk. Parlette's response does not acknowledge this concern, does not dispute it, and does not indicate any plan to address it. The portal continued operating as HTTP-only after notice.
5. "I'm not sure what you are trying to show with your video."
   The screen recording was provided as objective documentation of a technical failure — a failed HTTPS connection to port 443. Characterizing it as showing "no internet connection" misrepresents what the recording documents. An internet connectivity failure would affect all sites simultaneously; the recording shows other sites loading while mjfarb.com specifically fails to respond on port 443.

After receiving this response — and after the Board was placed on notice — no corrective action was taken. The portal was not updated to support HTTPS. The charges continued. The FAD denied the reversal request citing, as its central rationale, the homeowners' failure to contact management through the portal or by phone.

Note: The security implications of an HTTP-only portal collecting homeowner PII under financial compulsion may be separately relevant to a complaint against MJF Associates as a licensed common interest community manager under Virginia law (§ 54.1-2348 et seq.), and may warrant referral to the Virginia Attorney General's Consumer Protection Section.