Perimeter Property Services

The habitual complaints from the tenant toward property management will continue to vigorously be defended.

The fallen tree is in no way compromising the tenants livelihood nor impacting habitable living conditions of any unit within the complex. Contrary to the accusation, landscaping service is performed at the property two times per month; which include mowing, blowing leaves and general property cleanup. The washing machine leak was repaired on 6/12/2020, nearly a month and a half prior to this Revdex.com case being opened by the tenant; further spotlighting the invalidity of the tenant's claim. The issue of the driveway being too steep should have been a factor of consideration by the tenant prior to move-in.

PPS will continue to professionally manage and diligently address any and all tenant concerns pertaining to property and unit maintenance but will not tolerate false claims that suggest otherwise.

Perimeter Property Services, LLC ("PPS") managed two properties owned by *** ("***"). A standard form Georgia Association of Realtor's property management agreement ("PMA") was entered between PPS and *** that governed the rights, obligations, and duties of PPS as to management of ***'s properties. PPS denies any wrongdoing in its management of the properties and has in fact made several concessions in an effort resolve Mr. complaints. In direct response to Mr. complaints:
1) Allegation of charging Mr. without authorization and not per contract
PPS authority to charge Mr. is defined under the PMA. Section 9. of the PMA provides that PPS may:
"make, contract, facilitate and coordinate repairs, alterations, and/or decorations to Property; to purchase supplies and pay bills therefor";
"hire, discharge and supervise all contractors as in Manager's sole opinion are necessary for the operation and maintenance of Property";
"contract with others, including affiliates of Manager, in-house staff or companies owned by Manager, to perform services including, but not limited to repairs, maintenance, improvements, accounting, data processing, and recordkeeping. Owner is hereby aware that Manager may deduct these expenses from the monies coming to Manager that are due to Owner."; and
"institute and prosecute legal actions and proceedings in Owner's name and on behalf of Owner, terminate leases for cause, remove tenants from Property, recover from damage to Property, and for such purposes, Manager may employ attorneys and incur court costs and litigation costs at Owner's expense for any and all of these things."
Importantly, there is no dollar threshold under the PMA where PPS was required to seek approval before charging Mr. for any of the above items. During its management of Mr. properties PPS charged him:
a) $818 in eviction fees paid to an attorney, $675 of which were returned to Mr. after complaint.
b) $40 general maintenance trip charge, which was return to Mr. after complaint.
c) $95.00 for key/lock replacement
d) $450.0 in HOA dues
e) $2,125 in payments to a contractor to repair the property after an eviction (in two installments), returned to Mr. after complaint.
Accordingly, PPS was authorized to charge Mr. for these items and did not have to seek approval. However, to accommodate Mr., PPS has already returned the majority of the charges that were made - mostly payments to third parties.
2) Allegation that Mr. is owed $109.02
Mr *** claim that he is owed $109.02 from PPS stems from PPS's retention of a pro-rated management fee for its final month of management duties. Under the PMA PPS is entitled to 8% of the rent collected each month. PPS transitioned management to Mr. new company mid-month, therefore it retained a pro-rated portion of 8% fee through the date of transfer.
3) Allegations that PPS lied about renovation work.
PPS hired a third party contactor to repair damage at Mr. property. Payment to the contract was to be made in two installments. PPS took the first installment upon the beginning of the contractors work. In the middle of the work being performed, Mr. terminated PPS's services as discussed previously. PPS then told the contractor to stop working while the new management transition was made. PPS inadvertently still took the second payment for the contractors work. However, PPS promptly returned the payments to Mr.. In addition, PPS offered to have the contractor finish the work.
4) Allegations of non-responsiveness
Per the PMA, PPS was to give updates and rental payments to Mr. on or about the 20th of each month. PPS endeavored to respond to Mr. constant questions; however its answers did not appear to be timely enough for Mr.. PPS is a management company that operates strictly under the PMA. PPS is not a property management tutelage company.
As stated throughout this response, PPS at all times abided by the PMA that it was contracted for under. PPS had authorization under the PMA to charge *** for issues related to the property without requiring approval. Notwithstanding this ability, PPS has tried to accommodate Mr. and has returned over $1,000 to him that PPS had paid third parties. Further, when PPS discovered the disconnect between the work being completed at the property and Mr. termination, PPS returned the funds to Mr. Zelter again. At no time has PPS attempted to retain funds that were not attributable to it. Mr. is the one that is trying to extort money from PPS.