Assessment collections are a necessary but sensitive function for community associations in Washington, DC, a reality often highlighted by Carole Briggs, Attorney of Counsel with the firm of Alderman, Devorsetz & Hora PLLC, when discussing how assessments fund daily operations, long-term maintenance, and reserve planning. Yet the process of collecting delinquent amounts is governed by a detailed legal framework that leaves little room for error. Uncertain understanding of procedures, fees, or decision-making authority can expose even well-intentioned boards to compliance risks.
For associations seeking to maintain stability and transparency, understanding where compliance issues most often arise can help prevent disputes, financial exposure, and erosion of owner trust. Many collection-related problems stem not from deliberate misconduct but from gaps in oversight, documentation, or familiarity with DC-specific requirements.
Fee Misapplication and Overcharging Risks
One of the most common compliance concerns involves fees added to delinquent accounts. DC law and DC association governing documents list or limit the costs that unit owners can incur, such as interest, administrative costs, and, in many circumstances, legal expenses. Charges that may be permitted in other jurisdictions but prohibited by DC statutes pose problems for associations.
National practices or template-based fee schedules do not always reflect local requirements. If an owner challenges an impermissible charge, the association may be required to refund the amount, revise account balances, or resolve the matter through dispute processes that consume time and resources. Boards remain responsible for these outcomes, even when a third party is involved in the collection process.
For example, violations of the District of Columbia’s debt collection laws, primarily the Protecting Consumers from Unjust Debt Collection Practices Amendment Act, carry significant legal and financial consequences as of 2026, and can result in such sanctions as fines, penalties, dismissal of the collection action, and administrative enforcement. Regular review of the fee authority under governing documents and applicable law helps associations avoid unintended violations.
Inadequate Notice and Procedural Errors
Another risk area involves notice requirements. DC law outlines steps that must occur before certain collection actions may proceed, including timelines, delivery methods, and content requirements. Missing a notice, sending it too late, or using non-compliant language can undermine the enforceability of later actions.
Procedural shortcuts may appear efficient in the short term but can expose the association to disputes if an owner claims they were not properly informed or allowed to cure the delinquency. Maintaining consistent notice practices and documenting each step in the process provides a clear record if questions arise.
Delegation Without Sufficient Board Oversight
Boards often delegate administrative aspects of assessment collection to property managers, which is appropriate for day-to-day operations. Compliance risks emerge, however, when decision-making authority shifts informally without clear board involvement.
Examples include:
- Automatic referral of delinquent accounts without board review.
- Lack of clarity around who approves added charges
- Limited visibility into how collection steps are being executed
While managers play a critical role, boards retain fiduciary responsibility for compliance. Establishing clear policies that define when and how collection actions occur helps preserve accountability and control.
Inconsistent Application of Collection Policies
Selective or inconsistent enforcement of assessment collection policies can also create compliance concerns. Treating similar delinquencies differently without a documented rationale may expose associations to claims of unfairness or improper governance.
Consistency does not require inflexibility, but it does require transparency. When exceptions are made, boards should ensure decisions are grounded in objective criteria and properly recorded. This approach protects both the association and the individuals serving in leadership roles. Assessment collection often involves multiple steps, communications, and decisions over time. When records are incomplete or disorganized, associations may struggle to demonstrate compliance if challenged.
Common documentation gaps include:
- Missing notices
- Unclear or insufficient fee breakdowns
- Lack of written authorization for collection actions
- Incomplete or not carefully reviewed and adjusted payment histories
Accurate and accessible records support compliance, facilitate audits, and reduce confusion for boards, managers, and owners alike.
Navigating Consumer Protection Considerations
Delinquent assessments fall within broader consumer protection and debt-collection frameworks. Communications must be handled carefully to avoid misstatements, improper pressure, or disclosure issues. Even routine correspondence can raise concerns if it does not align with applicable standards.
Boards benefit from understanding that compliance extends beyond recovering funds. It also includes how information is conveyed and how owners are treated throughout the process.
Maintaining Trust While Managing Delinquencies
Beyond legal exposure, compliance failures can affect community relationships. Owners are more likely to accept difficult outcomes when they believe the process is fair, consistent, and grounded in established rules. Confusion or surprise fees, unclear notices, or abrupt escalation can undermine confidence in board leadership.
By focusing on clarity, consistency, and documented decision-making, associations can manage delinquencies while preserving community trust.
A Preventive Approach to Compliance
Proactive governance can prevent many assessment collection issues. Periodic review of collection policies, fee authority, and procedural requirements allows boards to identify risks before they become disputes. Aligning practices with DC-specific requirements helps ensure that collection efforts support, rather than destabilize, the association’s financial health.
For community associations operating in Washington, DC, careful attention to compliance is not simply a legal obligation. It is an essential component of responsible governance that protects both the association and the individuals who serve it.