A friend of mine who sells revenue control equipment told me a story about when he was training some asset managers on the features of the system — an operator was going to run the system but the owner’s representatives wanted to know what it was all about. So far, so good.
When he got to the part where the system could automatically "reject" or "lock out" cards for nonpayment or when they were in passback the asset manager said "hold it, can you turn off those features?"
Yes, my friend said, however why would you want to? They are there so your garage will run more efficiently and you will receive the monies due you.
The asset manager responded: " Well, if a card is locked out, I will be the one to get the phone call and the complaint, and I want a quiet life."
Don’t for one minute think that the blame for the problems running garages rests entirely with the operator, the owner, or owner’s rep deserve much of the responsibility. My guess, however, is that if the owner heard this building manager’s comment, that fellow would be on the unemployment line before he could say "anti-passback."
JVH
One Response
In the past I’ve been told by owners to turn off passback because it might cause a backup, to put up the gates because there was some “VIP” stuck in the line, to waive untold amounts of $’s in late fees and write of innumerable past due accounts because it makes the AR look bad among a long list of other things. When an attitude of indifference toward the integrity of the audit and control proceedures is displayed at the top, the typical result is a trickle down effect that spreads throughout the operation. While the “fault” in many cases is not with the operator, it is the responsibility of the operator to diligently document instances like this and to be even more vigilant in making sure they don’t further contribute to the problem. The operator will get thrown under the bus a lot quicker than the property manager if and when these issues come to light, so they need to be prepared.