Safeguard Properties and Memo 1364

I suppose Safeguard Properties (SGP) simply cannot help themselves.  It would appear to me that the driving factor behind SGP is profit is profit at anyone’s expense!  I simply cannot come to any other conclusion based upon the scheme orchestrated under SGP Memo 1364 (1364) (See Bottom of Article). We received a copy of 1364 from a Contractor whom was concerned about the implications.

Here is the rub:  SGP has created an environment wherein ……Contractors whom question anything and I mean ANYTHING are in a constant of fear of both loosing their work and even being sued by SGP.

Clients of Safeguard Properties; Clients whom issue the work to SGP, would do well to take note that simply creating a workplace environment like this is a blueprint for disaster!

SGP Memo 1330 (1330) laid the groundwork for 1364.  In a nutshell here is what 1364 does,

From now on, if a Contractor does not achieve a 95% or better “compliance rate” — remember SGP is not really verifying anything only allegedly examining photos — the Contractor will have the percentage rate in error REMOVED FROM THE TOTALITY OF MONIES PAID WHICH MAY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALLEGATIONS!!!

Let that sink in for a moment.  So, you may be doing Lawn Maintenance, Inspections, REO and P&P work.  The Inspections, REO and P&P may all be 100% correct, but you have issues with your Lawn Maintenance.  Let’s say 15% of the photos have issues — A blurry photo or two, no address or street sign even though none exist, you get the point — and you bring in say 30K a month.  You are going to loose FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ACROSS THE BOARD!!!  Let me emphasize here that this is a Memo 1364 is just that:  A Memorandum!  This is NOT an Addendum to any Contract which is generally required under law!

I am no legal scholar; however, if this was going to happen to our Company I definately would hire a LEGAL SCHOLAR!  You cannot take money away from jobs which have been successfully completed.  These actions are not even legal for the Contractors to agree to the way I understand the law!  To further complicate the matter, what about the third parties bound by this?  Has SGP or even the Contractors thought about what is going to happen when the folks whom are doing this work for the Order Mills are told they don’t get paid for their 100% successful work because other work by someone else at some other location did not correctly do theirs?

SGP is no stranger to being sued.  This we all know.  Most recently they are being sued under federal racketeering allegations.  The reality is that SGP has flaunted the law for so long that I doubt they even care anymore.  Whom may begin to care about SGP’s lack of concerns over civil rights and business law are SGP’s very Clients whom issue them work.

It was a pleasure speaking with you. Just wanted to clarify the deficiency report scheme with a simple example. We complete over xxxxx [Editor’s Redaction to prevent identification] grass cut orders per month, but let’s say it’s 1000 for simplicity’s sake. So one month they audit 50 of our grass cut orders, using their checklist (which they did not provide anyone). After deducting 90 points out of a possible 450, we are told we are at 80% compliance when they are requiring us to be at 95% compliance. They tell us they will give us a month to get up to 95% and will audit us again. The following month, we are still at 80% compliance. They will then take the difference between our compliance rate and the required rate, which is 15%. So they will charge back 15% of our gross revenues for the entire month. With grass cuts paying $30 gross, that’s a minimum of $4500. But of course, it would be more because there are always shrub trims, tall grass, and other additional bits of revenue in addition to the grass cuts – none of which are related to the audit, but they would be charged back at the same rate nonetheless.

 And they want to do that every month….!!!  [Editor’s Emphasis]

That hits the nail on the head.  If every single month a Contractor is faced with loss of money upon jobs PROPERLY performed — remember this is a TOTALITY thing — no Contractor could stay in business that long.  Now, I know the Safeguard Properties’ Cheerleading Squad is going to say, “Well, you don’t have to work for them.”  These are precisely the kind of people whom need to be publicly identified.  Safeguard Properties’ presumption that its Contractors and fellow Members in the National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) are going to continue to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room may be wearing thin.  As we process the material being handed over to us, you may guarantee that we will release it to our Readers.

 

Search

Click To Advertise

Click To Apply

Credible Application

You must be logged in to post a comment Login