Topic: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

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 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.."

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.

Especially if you were owned by RealPage:

www.realpage.com/company/news/realpage-a...-compliance-services

Brent wrote:

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.

Brent, in America we have something called free speech. Someone at Compliance Depot is paying you to delete my posts and I know who that is. You need to gain some integrity. Compliance Depot is an honorable organization and the vendors need to get educated about insurance and what is required

Jack wrote:

Brent, in America we have something called free speech. Someone at Compliance Depot is paying you to delete my posts and I know who that is. You need to gain some integrity. Compliance Depot is an honorable organization and the vendors need to get educated about insurance and what is required

Jack, you need to gain some integrity, as well as an understanding of what the word "integrity" means. I don't believe Brent is being paid by anyone at Compliance Depot to delete posts and even if he were, your statement, "Someone at Compliance Depot is paying you to delete my posts" directly contradicts your later statement, "Compliance Depot is an honorable organization." An honorable organization does not pay people to be subversive. An honorable person does not act subversively. A person with integrity does not hide.

Are you ready to come out of the shadows yet? I doubt it. Integrity requires courage.

I definitely agree with Leigh and Chuck that Compliance Depot failed in their handling of this situation. They had a perfect opportunity to turn this discussion in their favor and they totally missed it.

The stoic, 'Jack Smith is not expressing the views of Compliance Depot' is understandable. But with all the talk and focus these days on branding and building one's reputation, why didn't they do more?

'We recognize the frustrations experienced by some vendors and are working hard to improve our processes.' I am not an advocate of dishonesty but even if they didn't mean it, saying something to that affect would have at least showed they had some interest in their relationship with the vendors who pay their fees and contribute to their income stream. Instead, the reply they did provide came across that Compliance Depot is dismissive and unconcerned with how they are viewed by vendors. Almost as if to say, 'We have the management companies forcing you to use us and pay for the privilege, so what do we care what you think?'

They also did not express any intent to find out who "Jack Smith" is and, if a Compliance Depot employee, deal with him in an appropriate manner. Or state that they cannot identify him and thus, 'have no known relationship with him' or something along those lines. 'His opinions are not our opinion'? Really?

In any event, I will continue following this thread but in all likelihood not post many more replies, if any at all. I am not interested in feeding Jack's attention addiction and there is little left to say regarding Compliance Depot that hasn't already been covered. I do look forward to reading everyone's thoughts and responses on some future topic.

This is a train wreck that never seems to end. This thread has become toxic, and I don't believe there is any way to recover it. I agree with John's sentiment that the conversation has run its course, so I will be locking the post, as I don't see any positive responses at this point. That means that people can still read the responses, but will not be able to post new responses. I may open it back up if I feel that things have calmed down, but frankly, this goes against our goal of creating a positive place to discuss the multifamily industry.

To discuss "Jack" and his comment:

I am not sure how to handle his last comment, as although I had said I would remove his posts, he said some things directly about myself. That means that if I delete it, it could be construed as hiding something. However, as John pointed out, the allegation of paying me to remove the post is damaging to Compliance Depot. So my plan is to leave it up for a while and then unpublish it.

As for the accusation itself, that I was paid to take down posts, that is not true. I was not paid anything to do so. I made the decision on my own, as I had concerns about the legality of the posts.

I have done everything possible to help Jack legitimize himself. However, he not only decided not to accept my suggestion, but has actively insulted me in the process. Jack doesn't understand the concept of free speech. It is akin to me going to his work, insulting him in front of his coworkers, and then demanding not to get thrown out because of "free speech".

Lastly, I want to apologize to everyone who has had the misfortune of being a part of this discussion. Like I said, our goal is to provide an open and safe place to discuss all issues of multifamily. That doesn't mean everything is going to be positive, but we do want everything to be respectful. When someone starts calling others stupid, and being disrespectful overall, it creates a cloud over the discussion that hurts our overall mission. I am sure some of you will think that I handled this completely wrong, just as others will agree with my decisions, but I hope that at least all of you see that what I do is an attempt to maintain a place for us all to share ideas and debate topics in a safe and overall positive way.

If you would like to discuss with me about the situation, feel free to send me a message or email me.

Just came across this link and wanted to let you all know NetVendor is not so new. They took over our management company in Oregon, 10,000 units and do a bang up job. I used to work for a company who used CD......no comparison...NetVendor.

Anonymous wrote:

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'd have to agree :)

Hello everyone, my name is Jeff Hook and I joined RealPage as the Senior Vice President of OpsSolutions, which includes Compliance Depot, about four months ago. It appears that a lot of concerns have been brought up on this forum during that time and I thought I'd set the record straight from my point of view. I would have responded sooner, but I have been quite busy meeting with customers, suppliers and employees to understand the issues at hand as best I could before publicly speaking about things in which I had little point of reference. (For those of you wondering, I am not “from” the multi-family industry, but rather come from an enterprise software and management consulting background.

While I’ve only been with Compliance Depot a short time, I want you to know we truly value the relationships we have with our clients, whether they be industry vendors, owners or property management companies. Our job is to provide business value through serving all of our constituents in this multi-sided platform business model of PMC/Owners and suppliers and their insurance providers. Unfortunately, based on my introductory conversations, we have not always met all of their expectations. That said, I have also talked to quite a number of customers, both PMCs and suppliers, who are very happy with Compliance Depot.

Now that the “evaluation period” of my new responsibilities is complete, I can get on with improving our processes and systems. Let me emphasize, we are truly committed to making our vendor sign-up process a simple and user-friendly experience for everyone. We are in the process of reviewing our processes for scalability and quality improvements; we are enhancing our computer application to provide easier document capture methods; and we are hiring additional staff in an attempt to keep up with our explosive growth. Also, we are beginning to track PMC and vendor satisfaction as metrics to better gauge how we are performing and can better improve our customer service.

In closing, there have been a number of specific concerns and questions raised on this forum and, if you have further questions, I want to provide you with answers. Like my company, I am here to serve. Please contact me directly and I will do my best to personally answer your questions and concerns. I can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. If you would rather talk to me, email me with a couple of time slots, and we can set up a convenient time for us to talk.

Sincere thanks,

– Jeff

I just started dealing with this issue .. I can tell u this, apparently you have to go to your customers and make sure they agree to the a change in verbiage and then it's a Ping-Pong match with Compliance depot and eventually they give in

whats illegal??

You are gonna have to talk with ur agent and complinace depot person an yourself on a 3 way call to get it fiquired out. how do you know its illegal i doubt that.. thats how I got thru it. been iwth them now for 1.5 yrs. not easy but it works

Has anyone tried Notivus as an alternative to Compliance Depot? I just heard that NRP Group went with them, so I'm wondering if they are a viable alternative.

Very frustrating working with them. The reps on the phone have no idea what documents are required. I spoke with three different reps and each time I was given different information on what I needed to include.

Interesting, Jeff Hook from RealPage/Compliance Depot, who posted about 5 posts ago, left the company in January.

Someone mentioned earlier they are part of RealPage. In my last position I was shopping for yield management software and was quite impressed with the Realpage company's YieldStar division. They were smart and well-informed. So perhaps the company is steadily improving the Compliance Depot division?

I didn't know that... I thought Jeff had just started at that position not too much earlier.

His LinkedIn resume' shows starting May 2013 and leaving January 2014. Current job status is "In transition."

Chuck, I had stayed away from this topic because it had become so volatile. When an email arrived announcing someone else had vented I read the email and then deleted it.

But I really do think at this point most of Compliance Depot's reputation is undeserved. I think that because they were the first and they, in my opinion, did not handle the launch correctly they picked up the animosity of the vendors which spread about quickly as they experienced the hiccups that were to be expected in any new endeavor.

At this point they are not really any worse than any other credentialing company (just more expensive) but every mistake and error gets magnified through lingering group dissatisfaction.

I have always felt their concept was great. But I have to wonder if they will ever really be able to enjoy the fruits of it as leaner companies come along while CD still carries the burden of its beginnings.


JMcK

I think the core problem now must be (1) training their personnel and (2) monitoring their reputation. Neither is an easy task. But, with RealPage as the parent company surely those areas will improve. Some pm's like to complain because CD or any similar service is "just another step" when you're trying to get urgent work done. But then, LRO-type pricing, RUBS programs and other "additions" to plain old rent met with resistance too.

Price is not really an issue, I feel, with a strong company. Yardi surely is the more expensive pm software yet companies eagerly pay it to get such a powerful and user-friendly accounting-based program.

I went thru a little trouble to get approved but nothing was illegal the thing is that your insurance needs to add the building in which you want to work for as a holder and your insurance will require more money to add them on.

Yes, that's true, and some vendors put up resistance. But in this litigious age, it's a must from the corporate side. Where I am we have a do-it-yourself "compliance depot" but it takes corporate staff and know-how to get the vendors beforehand and get the proper paperwork. The trade-off for a corporate office is that a vendor who gets that certificate of insurance is covered, and might be a bit more expensive than the smaller guy--but again, you have to look at potential loss vs. immediate financial cost.

But now we have a new problem.

When I receive renewal notices from Compliance Depot, I always look through our records to see if we have been doing business with any properties managed by that company. Sometimes we do not, as management companies may leave the market or, in one recent case, two companies both with Compliance Depot have merged into one. (Of course, Compliance Depot's renewal process is for both of the old companies.)

When you don't renew, someone from CD will call a month or two later and try to talk you into it. That's when I usually explain that we did not renew because there is no option for us to do business with that management company. THEN they will take the management company off of our list.

I did not renew with one company in January, who decided to order a large quantity of materials this month, and now is wanting to pay those invoices but can't, because our account for them with CD is locked. (That's the other reason I do not renew with companies in our market that have stopped ordering; they will invariably place an order without confirming CD status first - they don't check into it until a month after we have made the sale).

CD has changed their renewal process to one where once you sign up, CD will automatically renew you every year after that. There is no choice in the matter - you either sign up for automatic renewal or you are not approved.

Yes, they say they are going to give 45 days notice before renewing, but that is not what I want. I want to renew based on a conscious business decision; not because CD has me on their list of people to charge.

So I sent them a protest email and within fifteen minutes a Customer Service Rep had called me and said if I pay the renewal over the phone (check by phone or credit card) the renewal will be for one year only and will not auto-renew.

Hooray for them, and I am pleased.

Hi, I know that I'm late to this topic and also new to the group, so forgive me if what I'm saying is not relevant.

In theory a company that pre-qualifies vendors for end users is a great idea. It's when you try to idiot proof it so that you can hire lower wage employees who know nothing or next to nothing of the trades that they are dealing with that the problems arise.

My problem with Compliance Depot stems not from illegal verbiage, but from coverage limits that are not industry compatible and make it unrealistic to continue the process.

For example, we were told that we must have a $5,000,000 umbrella to be able to be considered as a vendor. That umbrella would cost approx. $3,000.00 to $4,000.00. This is just to be considered for work.

We do crime/trauma/suicide/death/biohazard cleaning. So the average job for us is 3 hours in length removing bodily fluids from a property. We decontaminate upon entering the property. We remove the liability that existed previously, not cause or add to it. The average cost is in the range of the cost of the insurance surcharge for the umbrella.

So, in essence, they are asking me to spend, in advance, the amount of what the total billing would be for a job that may never happen? Not good business sense to me.

What happens is that only the restoration franchises, who do actual construction and demolition work and carry this umbrella as a normal course of their work are the only ones approved to do this work. Some of them may be qualified to perform this specialty, but a lot are not. So the system is actually working in reverse in this case, pre-approving contractors based on insurance limits alone and not necessarily their actual competence in the work required.

Don't get me wrong, the restoration guys are very competent in what they do...but we are a specialty and need to be understood as such. There is no mechanism within CD to get to someone in authority who understands this and can deal with it.

$5,000,000? I wonder if that is a Compliance Depot decision or a specific management company requirement. That's the highest I've ever heard.

I do understand what you say about something they need: there needs to be customer service reps there who can simply hear a particular situation to ascertain if something should be considered in a different way. I recall when I used CD there were certain things in place that seemingly no one could do anything about or change. However, this was 5-7 years ago, so maybe that has changed.

Chuck, I agree with you that the $5,000,000 coverage is probably from the property owner and not from Compliance Depot. We had a similar situation but we knew it was not the credentialing company since other properties handled by the same credentialing company had different minimums.

I disagree, though, that there will ever be a person in Compliance Depot (or any of its competitors) who can decide if a certain matter can be handled in a different way. CD and its kind are all following the wishes of the owners and management companies. They really don't have the authority to give a "pass" to anyone. What they COULD do (and I had this happen with CD's sister company, Ops Technology) is put the vendor in touch with the person at the management company who can make such decisions.

Keith, I think the above is the reason we feel like we are dealing with 'idiot-proofed' individuals who don't understand the trades very well. That isn't what they are hired to do. They are there to make sure the coverages you show on your Insurance Certificate match exactly what the owner has required. And if a comma gets left out of the Description of Operations? Then you have to send in a new one. Because if a CD rep lets it pass thinking it is not such a big deal and it turns out they have changed the legal definition somehow, CD ends up on the hook.


JMcK

Hi Chuck, it was definitely a requirement of the property owner, but there was no mechanism in place to discuss the actual relevance of the requirement. This was 2013.

Hey John, you are absolutely correct. I was not asking CD to give me a pass, just to put me together with the property owner to discuss what the real necessary coverage should be for these circumstances.

There is also an element of Compliance Depot not handling situations well with vendors whose service doesn't need to be covered by them. For example, I used to have a service that did not require liability insurance and did not take me on site at all. Even though we were ultimately always excluded from the requirement, Compliance Depot's initial letter stating the requirement always rubbed us the wrong way, even if it wasn't their fault. But even then, we ended up having to educated the client a lot of times about the ability to exclude a company, and how it didn't make any sense for us to be in Compliance Depot's system. In fact, our transactions were so small, that CD's fee would have completely killed our ability to do business with them. In the end, the problem always got resolved, but it caused a lot of frustration with every party involved, and a lot of that frustration ended up being put on Compliance Depot, even though they were not necessarily at fault.

:angry: As a vendor I fully understand the importance of validating the insurance requirements of craftsmen, but compliance depot has assumed an attitude of disrespect and downright harassment that is unacceptable. Though I have already paid my “administration fee”, I will no longer accept any work from their clients.
I could attribute their loss of documents, multiple requests for insurance forms, and loss of account information to pure incompetence, but the attitude of glorified secretaries to me and my colleagues is inexcusable, even with the slim selection of literate office help in today’s market.
I would strongly suggest that vendors avoid working with this company, if at all possible. As market conditions improve we will indeed have a choice.
Property owners should also look for other service providers, who offer the same services, while maintaining a good working relationship with their vendors. You will eventually pay for the lack of rapport and poor vendor relationships, if not monetarily, than in the day to day service initiated by the first impression projected in your name.

Today I turned down long term customer that switched to CD after reading all of this, and the actual web sight of CD, much to the chagrin of the maintenance man. I think that while the idea is good in theory, the practicality of it only serves to remove any one on one relationship between vendor and vendee (sic?). I bend over backwards on my knees for my customers and this is an insult to the level of integrity and completion rates that I bring to the table. I make approximately 2560 stops a year. To add another level of paperwork to be submitted to yet another company and still maintain a solid/fair price for my services, while paying money just to work seems to me like utter jack-assery. In the past all my info goes direct to property management office on 1 January of any given year, there to sit in a file for another year. Now they ask that I pay for that privilege. In a larger sense I would offer up that it is a 'fear based' marketing scheme, a 'fear based' service, and an excuse for on sight managers to sit on their well padded asses. My two cents.

Flautist wrote:

:angry: As a vendor I fully understand the importance of validating the insurance requirements of craftsmen, but compliance depot has assumed an attitude of disrespect and downright harassment that is unacceptable. Though I have already paid my “administration fee”, I will no longer accept any work from their clients.
I could attribute their loss of documents, multiple requests for insurance forms, and loss of account information to pure incompetence, but the attitude of glorified secretaries to me and my colleagues is inexcusable, even with the slim selection of literate office help in today’s market.
I would strongly suggest that vendors avoid working with this company, if at all possible. As market conditions improve we will indeed have a choice.
Property owners should also look for other service providers, who offer the same services, while maintaining a good working relationship with their vendors. You will eventually pay for the lack of rapport and poor vendor relationships, if not monetarily, than in the day to day service initiated by the first impression projected in your name.

Flautist:

I apologize for my delayed response. I’d like to help you if I can. Would you be wiling to contact me at , so that I can pass along your contact information and situation to the right folks at Compliance Depot, so that they can appropriately address your issues?

Thanks

I am curious, if they are a joke, how come you've been with them for years as you stated?
I am looking into joining Compliance Depot and reading things on the internet when I ran into your statement... Maybe they are bad... maybe they are not... you left me confused my friend! B)

@ "Intersting" - I am not sure whose comment you are referring to but I can say that the posts in this discussion are coming from vendors as well as various levels of property management.

A vendor has no choice but to use Compliance Depot if that vendor wants to continue working for a specific management company or even one property of that management company. I have worked with Compliance Depot at my current and previous employers and have no choice in the matter. My opinion of them is not relevant to how long I have worked with them.

The decision to use Compliance Depot and similar companies is made higher up than the property level and is often made after discussion with the property Owner. Quitting Compliance Depot is not an option for the property manager since that decision came from somewhere "upstairs." So a property manager could very well use Compliance Depot for years and still consider them a joke. The statement you referenced does not contradict itself.

Nobody at compliance depot knows what they are doing, that's why everytime you call they tell you something different.They knew I had no employees one rep said I needed 500,000 coverage across the board the next agent I spoke with had the same info and said I was not even required to carry workers comp.So with that being said not to mention all the other issues that tells me all their reps are uninformed of what is actually needed.

They also tried to have our agent write certificates with illegal language. Have your agent call them and tell them they refuse to include that language and why, they have no choice but to accept.

I have been an insurance agent for 30 years dealing mainly in commercial business. I have dealt with some difficult requirements but I have never seen such incompetence for any vender since I have been in business.

Once your approved for the same management company keep the same sample but hopefully you keep dealing with the same individual .. They are the worst

I own & operate a major national plumbing franchise and we do a LOT of work for a complex in this area.Along comes Compliance Depot with their requirements.As of today we still can not seem to satisfy their needs.SORRY apartment complex.If you have a building floating down main street,we can't help.We are not fooling with these clowns or any of the others.If my customer wants proof of insurance,this is fine,but Compliance Depot is out of the picture."RIP OFF"

THEIR NOT WORTH IT.I paid their fee,but it won't happen again.

They cost you a fortune! The most unprofessional company I have worked with. Always having problems updating and the workmans comp and insurance companies will not do what they require! If you do not need these customers I would skip. I am quitting my customers that use Compliance Depot!

I have worked with Compliance over the past few years. I told myself several years ago I would never deal with them again but, because of a customer request, I renewed by application. I give them the documents they requested. If there is an issue with one of the certificate of insurances, instead of calling me, they will send out a blanket email stating that they didn't receive the document. So you send it again and weeks later you receive another email stating they didn't receive it again. At that point, you call, they tell you they did receive the document but a modification is required. It had nothing to do with not receiving the document like the email stated. You waste weeks trying to get approved. I deal with industrial and property management accounts every day and don't have these kind of issues. The worse part is I have to pay Compliance Depot to approve me! I will never deal with them again. The sad part is the companies that hire Compliance Depot suffer. They will never experience the GREAT companies out there that won't put up with Compliance Depot's BULLSH**T!!!

that's so funny. I found the complaints without looking very hard

I have been receiving emails from CD for a few properties that we have done business with in the past. Having to pay to do business with them does not seem very appealing. But one of the first things I thought of was how much of a nightmare it would be to finalize things like certificates of insurance having to go through CD. Reading all the complains here just validated my opinion. Thank you Google!

Recently had to deal with Compliance Depot:

First thing - I was satisfied with the way that CD handled everything from start to finish and the final approval process.

However. . . .

The situation that resulted in having to go through CD to get approved was due to a management company requiring that my company get cleared by CD.

Four months after completing work on one of their properties. That's right. Four months after completing work at a property, and calling to check on an invoice and then being told 'we can't pay your invoice until you are approved with Compliance Depot'.

So the management company that initially called, had a considerable amount of work done WITHOUT ever notifying me about their 'need' to use Compliance Depot, waiting four months then calling to check on the invoice and being told it was NOT getting paid until everything was clear with Compliance Depot was unethical and possibly illegal. Now that is not CDs fault, as it just provides a third party service for companies and vendors.

But I was absolutely speechless at the time and considering four months had passed. Keep in mind, after completing everything the management company required via CD - it took them another two months to send a check.

No problems here with Compliance Depot. But if a management company requires that a vendor be approved with CD - Bottom line: they need to let the vendor know about that PRIOR to any work being completed.

John

NW John -

I just wanted to say that with all the Compliance Depot bashing that has taken place on this thread, I appreciate you giving a fair report about what happened in your instance and pointing out what was NOT Compliance Depot's fault.

The company still has flaws that need to be addressed but it is important to focus on what is under their control and recognize what is not.

"This Business is not BBB Accredited
Compliance Depot

(888) 493-6938View Additional Phone Numbers4240 International Pkwy Ste 180, Carrollton, TX 75007-1974http://www.compliancedepot.com
BBB® Non-Accredited A Rating
On a scale of A+ to F Reason for RatingBBB Ratings System Overview
SharePrint

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
BBB Accreditation

Compliance Depot is not BBB Accredited.

Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.

To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.
Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that lowered Compliance Depot's rating include:

2 complaints filed against business that were not resolved.

Factors that raised Compliance Depot's rating include:

Length of time business has been operating.
Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
Response to 24 complaint(s) filed against business.

Customer Complaints SummaryRead complaint details
24 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 6 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues 2
Billing / Collection Issues 5
Delivery Issues 1
Problems with Product / Service 16
Guarantee / Warranty Issues 0
Total Closed Complaints 24

Read Complaints | Definitions | BBB Complaint Process | File a Complaint"


No complaints? Yeah right!

No complaints with BBB really:

www.bbb.org/dallas/business-reviews/risk...-90034393/complaints

I spoke with Compliance Deport Yesterday because they sent Emails 3rd Notice etc. I spoke to them they said a project I was doing some work uses them to get vendor info. As I started to give information. I was informed I would have to pay $95.00 fee. I very very rarely do apartment management jobs. So I'm like for get it. I don't Pay to Play. The lady said I would not get paid by management company if I didn't comply with them. I had already given my insurance and EIN number to management company. We talked to management today they said they no longer use them and not to give them any business information on ourselves.

Beware

They also demanded our insurance agent produce documents and wording that is illegal in the state of Missouri or they would not approve our compliance. We refused to do so, continue to work for and be paid by the customer. They also charge the credit card they request on file without authorization. Totally worthless and shady company.

I noticed at least a year ago that they changed their terms when paying the renewal fee online. Somewhere buried in all the legalspeak the new terms said (to this effect) that 'for your convenience when you renew online you will also be agreeing to automatically renew for that management company going forward.'

So I called them. They said that was their new policy but if I renewed over the phone it would only be for one year. I have been renewing by phone ever since. I already know they are disorganized and have received prompts from them to renew for companies that no longer have complexes in my market. I was not about to let them just start renewing without any kind of review as to whether it was actually needed.

1 (888) 493 6938 Ext 4 to renew over the phone.

I have been requested by a potential customer to apply with compliance depot so they can do business with us. Reading the available material it appears I would be better off to move forward. Would someone advise I do so or deny the request? Thanks!

The decision to do or don't will be entirely up to you. Here are some things you might want to consider:

1) Are you providing an ongoing service or is this to do a one-time job?

2) Will you definitely get work from this customer if you sign up with CD?
It wouldn't make sense to pay the CD fee and then not get the work.

3) Will you make enough on the work you are doing to absorb the additional cost of registration?

4) Is this customer a property or a management company?
If it is a property, once you are with CD you are with the whole management company. Could lead to other work.

5) Do you really HAVE to sign up with CD for them to use you?
Some management companies have "exceptions" rules for one-time jobs, if that applies here.

If you have read this thread in its entirety you know that Compliance Depot is a favored target among vendors. Some of the complaints are deserved but some are essentially legends that will never die.

The BBB did indicate that the number of complaints for Compliance Depot for a firm their size was a positive for Compliance Depot's rating.

I have been a painting contractor in the apartment industry for 34 years. I started when hand shakes were in and bureaucracy was out, but have always been compliant as far as insurance requirements were concerned. I have always refused to work for properties that require enrollment in Compliance Depot only to find out now that Notivus is owned BY Compliance Depot (developed probably in an effort to distance themselves from the horrible Compliance Depot reputation). Does anyone remember Choice Point? This was the original vendor verification company that was shut down due to scandals involving vendor identity theft because of company info required through the internet. Choice Point was a company based out of Alpharetta, GA. Can anyone guess where Compliance Depot / Notivus are based out of? You guessed it - Alpharetta, GA. I smell a rat and it didn't even take Wikileaks to uncover it. This whole vendor verification scam is self-inflicted by the apartment industry in order to make life difficult to the small business owners who already take the brunt of regulations imposed by our government. This is one reason why the average American is fed up with the way our country is headed. If you are a small vendor, I ask you to stand with me and just say no to those properties that require this burdensome nonsense. The result will be that they will have to settle for inferior work from the large vendors that lack quality control. As for me, I guess if things get desperate, I could go to Alaska and barter with the natives to paint igloos in trade for bear meat.

From day one trying to sign-on has been an absolute nightmare. From uninformed staff, wait time on phone half hour, calls never returned, log-in issues on their website and the list just goes on and on. I wouldn't recommend them to my worst enemy!!!!!

Stay away from this company. They are the absolute worst. Any company
Requiring you to go through them is not worth doing business with. Just do
a little investigation, start with Facebook and continue from there.

As a small company I agree with most of these sentiments. My agent and I have been working with them for 30 days on a renewal. The management company added another endorsement and Compliance Depot won't tell you the problem. On the website it says to call. I call and it takes 15 minutes for me to find out the name isn't complete on the endorsement. All they would say is the language is not correct. They finally told me it the name. Once you correct that they come up with something different.

I believe this is the first time I have had to pay for services and not be treated as a customer. Compliance Depot has the method to communicate with us, but they choose to be a pain in the ___,I guess because they can.

I am now staying away from properties with Compliance Depot unless we already have that mgmt company. Would certainly advise others to do the same.

With every Insurance renewal I have to deal with Compliance Depot. As a vendor we were much more compliant and remaining in compliance was much easier when we were dealing with our clients directly. 5 months after one of our renewals and they still can't figure out how to upload the certificate. There is no communication if there is a problem and most of their reps don't understand the actual requirements. Compliance depot says they're not receiving my certificates, but I have documentation that they've been sent.

Today was the final straw, one of the reps said my certificate was crap. Thought you all should know.
I will let my insurance agent and the property management company know.

As much as I understand and agree with the concept, Compliance Depot does not deliver and is an absolute frustrating and useless company.

Compliance Depot is an ABSOLUTE SCAM!!! Do NOT sign up, do not register, do NOT pay anything to them! They will hit your credit card randomly and when your jobs are done they will continue to take $99 each and every year on completed projects until someone notices the random billings. We found $800 charges that did not come from our companies or vendors, they were simply generated by Compliance Depot. They will not remove projects when complete nor will they stop the auto-renew of account charges. You do NOT need compliance depot to send a certificate for you. Your insurance agent is perfectly capable of providing a certificate to your contractors or companies!

Both Notivus and Compliance Depot are a nightmare for vendors. We would rather deal with the DMV and the IRS combined than deal with Real Page's red tape. Their employees don't care in the least whether they cut you off from your clients or not. They are the epitome of uncaring, incompetent bureaucrats. And they make you pay them to take their abuse.

We are seriously considering discontinuing doing business with Compliance Depot and Notivus customers.

You are absolutely correct. Ryan Homes/NVR uses Compliance Depot for their Vendors. I've had to deal with them for four years and my pay has be cut off 4 times because of them. They never notify you when a document is due or if there is a problem with a document so your account goes non-compliant. Ryan Homes is just as bad with communication so they just cut your pay off with no notice. You can send document after document to Compliance Depot and you're lucky if they update your account after 3 weeks. I've had to call them several times to update my account after sending documents in by fax, email, and uploading on their site and they say they didn't get them. Yet if you look in your miscellaneous folder you can see all of the documents sitting there. I've sent in a W-9 form at least 15 to 20 times in the past 2 weeks and it still has not been updated. They say they will update your file within 24 to 48 hours. Three or four weeks must be the same as 24 to 48 hours to them. Maybe they mean 24 to 48 DAYS. Why Ryan Homes / NVR uses a company that is not even a member of the BBB because they are so bad and has so many complaints against them, is beyond me. Maybe they use them just so they can cut the vendors pay. If I had known how bad Compliance Depot was before I started working for Ryan Homes, I would never have worked there. Ryan Homes could be a good company to work for except for their lack of communication skills with the vendors but Compliance depot pulls them down even further. My advice to anyone that wants to work for a company that uses Compliance Depot is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN in the opposite direction. It's not worth it.
I would love to get a class action lawsuit against them for lost wages and to recover the fee I pay them every year for doing such a horrible job. They should also be reported to ICE, the State Insurance Board, 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc. This company needs to be shut down.

I have had that exact issue with them. They claim they never receive documents, which I know to be untrue as I am CC'd by my agent. I just had one of their people tell me to change the wording on my w9, so it wold work in their system. Sorry, I wont fill out a legal document, thereby perpetrating fraud, so YOU can verify my w9. Next year I am going to back charge my clients that use Compliance Depot for the fees, and for time I invest into their ineptitude. #stadupagainstcompliancedepot

I ran into a similar situation with CD regarding language in the description of operations on the liability insurance certificate. It got so bad, I finally submitted CD's paperwork to the Texas Department of Insurance for review. Maybe submitting their requests to the appropriate state regulatory agency will help resolve yur problem.

The PM company that forced me to do join Real-Page-Compliance-Depot (I was a vendor) was using Compliance Depot as a cover to NOT pay for work. Even the work done with in contract after being approved. Had to take the PM from Boston to court. Both this PM and Real-Page-Compliance-Depot ADMITTED in emails it's scheme to allow both companies to profit, by scamming the small vendors like myself.

Funny when I asked the PM and Real-Page-Compliance-Depot to answer if they force the big cable companies to pay them $99 a year to service their office for TV, Phones and internet they REFUSED, claiming a privacy issue (what the?).

I won that case against the PM out of Boston.

I did not have any problems with compliance depot. They were very helpful on me submitting all of my documents for the apartment that wanted me to do work for them. They even called my insurance company with me on the phone to tell them exactly what they needed. They did that for vehicle and my liability. Just call them and they will help you instead of trying to do it on line yourself. It is very easy and they are very helpful. At least the three people that helped me. This was recent July, 2019. The company that I am doing work for is even giving me the 99.00 fee that it cost me. So it was a win win for me. Just asked the company that you are doing work for if you can work in the registration fee. If they like you and want your business most of them will do that. Hope this helps

Just to let others know… Compliance depot is still out there and still evil and still screwing with small businesses. If anyone knows how we can recover the money that they owe us for work that we completed please reply.