Oma Administração de Imóveis e Corretagem Ltda - São Paulo - SP

I gave it a 1 because I can't give a zero. Unfortunately, we didn't choose who would be the administrator of the condominium, and OMA came embedded in the delivery of the keys. It hasn't even been a month since the keys were handed over, and OMA already shows a total disregard for the condominium. The ideal would be for them to show a wonderful service at the beginning, guiding and showing attention and care for everyone, but the total lack of commitment, neglect and incompetence in managing whatever the case may be. Some of the employees don't know what to do, don't pay attention, don't seem to care what needs to be done and how it should be done. If we ask something, we get N different answers. If we need something to be resolved urgently, it takes 10 days to resolve. I am totally disappointed with the company. It's sad to pay dearly to practically not have a service provided, because it's so bad, it doesn't even seem to be a service.

Grade 1 because grade zero doesn't have it. What a pity! I never had to call this administrator, when I needed to because we were going to rent the barbecue between residents, I was barred from the application. When I called Oma to my surprise, I was paying my debt from the pandemic because we are self-employed and non-salaried, paying the debt and the current condominium debt correctly, I was called a defaulter by Ms. Daniela, where she informed me that defaulters cannot rent the barbecue If I wanted to, I had to ask the union. I thought this was such a lack of respect for the customer who is paying in days. I was informed by residents that people who are in default that I do not consider myself because I am fully up to date, they rent with a boleto paid in advance. And why not me? What a situation, I found this absurd. Bad administrator.

Dear, As I sent an email, on 04/25/2022, with confirmation of return, on 04/27/2022, and I had no further comment, I decided to write here. Follow the questions as sent by email. First, I would like to reaffirm that I had access problems regarding the last assembly. He had suggested to the manager of the Mobi One Frei Caneca condominium, in a telephone call, that virtual access to the assemblies be improved, as this is not the first time that this problem has occurred and other condominium members also report having this access difficulty. At the last meeting, the Governing Body (síndico, subsíndico and counselors) was elected. Although I was unable to participate, I visualized that there were less than 1/3 of the condominium members and it was approved that the liquidator would receive the salary that was previously paid by the professional liquidator. I ask: 1) being the current owner and non-professional liquidator, is it possible to receive a salary as if you were a professional liquidator? 2) Is it possible that such guidelines were deliberated even with less than 1/3 of the condominium members present? 3) Wouldn't it be the case that they called a new meeting or opened a poll? 4) Is there support in the Civil Code for these questions? At this same meeting, the expansion of the dump was approved, without the quotations being duly sent. There was also no poll so that everyone could vote whether or not they agreed with such an expansion. As everyone did not have access to the assembly, due to the difficulty to do so, we were suppressed from the right to vote and had to accept a value presented as approved. A poll could have been opened later. Regarding the coverage of entrances and exits through Rua Frei Caneca and Rua Avanhandava, I have some questions: 1) In the last contact on this point, I requested, still for the last liquidator, the sending of the budgets that he mentioned existed. He replied that they would be sent to me and so far I have not received them. 1) Can you send it to me? The former trustee informed that the amount approved, according to him the lowest quotation, was around R$76,000.00. However, the approval of this budget took place without consulting us (owners) via advance submission of such budgets. It so happens that the coverage was incomplete (at the entrance/exit of Rua Frei Caneca), with an open gap in the middle. It is worth noting that at the entrance/exit of Rua Avanhandava, the roof was made with plastic material (of poor quality) instead of glass, as reported by the OMA and the former trustee. In the ATA, there is mention that there was already a budget for such purposes (coverage of the entrances/exits of the streets [in glass] and that they would place the biometrics of the common areas). Last but not least, I come to bring you a fact that caused strangeness in several owners. This is the removal of the entrance door of the building, decided by the governing body, which did not even consult the owners and/or communicate the reason for such a decision. In addition, the governing body cannot act arbitration, in the absence of others, on a material object that belongs to everyone. In addition, recently, in a statement from an official report, the current trustee, on his behalf, addresses the joint-owners/owners through profanity. Now, being an elected representative, the lack of urbanity is legally described by our Constitution, as well as by Article 1,348 of the Brazilian Civil Code, as something that must be abolished, always preserving the principles that govern good conduct and good coexistence. between people belonging to any community whatsoever. The least that should be done, in relation to this aspect, is for the administrator to intervene with the current trustee so that this gentleman retracts himself in writing for the words used and that affect the honor of all who suffered this type of verbal aggression . Without further ado, I thank you in advance for your understanding and I await answers and measures regarding the questions raised here. Otherwise, other instances will be triggered. Sincerely. Jorge França de Farias Jr.