Compliance Scorecard — Dawson Landing HOA

Scorecard disclaimer

This scorecard reflects the homeowners’ personal evaluation of the Association’s handling of this dispute, using criteria and weighting developed by the homeowners. It is not an official audit, regulatory determination, legal opinion, or accounting. Scores reflect our understanding of the available documents and communications as of July 2026. Some contextual information was reported by community members and has not been independently verified. Alleged statutory or procedural deficiencies remain disputed unless confirmed by a court or regulatory authority.

Scoring method

1 = criterion satisfied based on records reviewed | 0.5 = partially satisfied | 0 = criterion not satisfied based on records reviewed

Scores reflect what is documented in association notices, emails, board minutes, account statements, and the Association's own AP02 complaint procedure. See the Ombudsman filing page for statutory citations and timeline.

Summary by category

8% Publication & Transparency
0.5 / 6

0% Complaint Procedure (AP02)
0 / 10

8% Fine Assessment (POAA)
1 / 12

0% Records & Responsiveness
0 / 8

13% Reversal & Internal Review
1 / 8

0% Final Adverse Decision
0 / 8

I. Publication & Transparency — 0.5 / 6

#	Test	Score	Notes
1	AP02 complaint procedure published on website	0 / 1	Adopted 2012; not on Documents page until July 2026, after formal complaint
2	Covenant & Rule Enforcement Policy published/provided	0 / 1	Referenced in ARB Criteria; never published or produced despite requests
3	Express rule/declaration authority for shutter fine identified	0 / 1	"Shutter" not in Declaration/Bylaws; enforcement policy not produced
4	Itemized account ledger provided	0 / 1	Balance shown as single $960.60 lump sum; no breakdown despite repeated requests
5	Violation notices reasonably distinguish fine vs. inspection	0 / 1	"Being assessed" read as inspection; daily monetary fine not clearly disclosed
6	Board minutes reflect substantive review of dispute	0.5 / 1	Feb minutes record denial vote but no findings or rationale
Category total		0.5 / 6	8%

II. Complaint Procedure — AP02 — 0 / 10

#	Test	Score	Notes
7	Provide complaint procedure upon request (before formal complaint)	0 / 1	Not provided until after July 7 complaint; only then posted to website
8	MJF written acknowledgment within 7 days (AP02 §E)	0 / 1	No MJF acknowledgment; only Parlette email on day 8
9	14-day advance written notice of board meeting (AP02 §F.2)	0 / 2	Complaint July 7 → meeting July 14 (7 days); no notice to complainant
10	Complainant opportunity to attend/present at meeting	0 / 1	Not notified; not present
11	FAD includes statutory/governing document citations (AP02 §G)	0 / 1	None provided
12	FAD includes CICB registration + MJF license numbers (AP02 §G)	0 / 1	None provided
13	FAD includes NFAD/Ombudsman notice (AP02 §G / Exhibit A)	0 / 2	Instead stated: "No appeal process is available"
14	FAD issued by impartial decision-maker	0 / 2	Parlette signed original Oct 2025 hearing record, then issued FAD on same dispute
Category total		0 / 10	0%

III. Fine Assessment — POAA § 55.1-1819 — 1 / 12

#	Test	Score	Notes
15	14-day certified pre-hearing notice documented	0 / 2	Hearing held Oct 14–15; no proof of required certified notice
16	Reasonable opportunity to correct before/during fines	0 / 2	Repair completed Oct 21; fines began Nov 5; portal inaccessible under HTTPS
17	Charges only for actual continuing violation	0 / 2	Physical condition cured before fine start; charges continued on procedural grounds
18	Reinspection channel reasonably accessible	0 / 2	HTTP-only portal; Parlette confirmed "link you provided doesn't work"
19	Continuing-offense charges within 90-day / $10/day cap	0 / 2	Cannot verify; balance unitemized at $960.60
20	Response to documented portal/PII security concern	1 / 2	Partial: Parlette responded, but mischaracterized issue; PII concern unaddressed; no fix
Category total		1 / 12	8%

IV. Records & Responsiveness — 0 / 8

#	Test	Score	Notes
21	Respond to March 23, 2026 demand letter	0 / 2	No response; not in Apr/May board minutes
22	Respond to June 27 certified records request within 10 business days	0 / 2	No substantive written response
23	Provide requested enforcement policy + adoption record	0 / 1	Not provided
24	Provide itemized ledger Aug 2025–present	0 / 1	Not provided
25	Confirm receipt of formal July 7 complaint	0 / 1	No acknowledgment; jumped to FAD on day 8
26	Board actually received/reviewed member submissions	0 / 1	Another community member reported that Board email submissions were routed through the president; we have not independently verified that account. The demand letter was not identified in the Board minutes we reviewed.
Category total		0 / 8	0%

V. Reversal & Internal Review — 1 / 8

#	Test	Score	Notes
27	February reversal request reviewed with stated findings	0 / 2	Minutes record vote only; no rationale
28	Reversal considered after notice of Oct 21 repair	0 / 2	Denied; basis was failure to contact management, not ongoing violation
29	Alternative compliance path clearly communicated (phone vs. portal)	0 / 1	Portal in notices; phone only mentioned after portal issue raised
30	Assessment Reversal Form process explained before denial	0 / 1	Mentioned only after fines already running
31	Consistent standard applied ("everyone else could do it")	0 / 1	Technically unsound; browser-dependent outcomes
32	Board reconsidered after documented portal failure notice	1 / 1	Partial: they responded, but continued fines and denied reversal
Category total		1 / 8	13%

VI. Final Adverse Decision Quality — 0 / 8

#	Test	Score	Notes
33	FAD addresses records requests in July 7 complaint	0 / 1	FAD ignored all document requests
34	FAD cites specific governing document/legal authority	0 / 2	Generic reference to "state regulations" only
35	FAD explains why fines continued after repair	0 / 2	Asserted process history; did not address cured-condition argument
36	FAD preserves statutory NFAD right	0 / 2	Explicitly denied appeal right
37	FAD issued in proper form (not informal email)	0 / 1	Informal email; missing all AP02 §G elements
Category total		0 / 8	0%

Lowest-scoring documented criteria (weighted items)

AP02 §F.2 — 14-day meeting notice: 0/2
AP02 §G — NFAD notice: 0/2 (statement appearing inconsistent with the NFAD process)
Pre-hearing certified notice (§ 55.1-1819(C)): 0/2
Reasonable opportunity to correct: 0/2
Reinspection accessibility: 0/2
90-day cap verifiability: 0/2
FAD issued by a person involved in the earlier decision: 0/2
Demand letter response: 0/2

Summary under our methodology: The Association received low scores for complaint-procedure handling, records responsiveness, and the form of the FAD. Limited credit reflects that a response about the portal was eventually provided, although the underlying issue was not corrected.

View full Ombudsman filing details →