33rd Company, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/23) */
June 19th, 2015
Revdex.com of Minnesota
220 S. River Ridge Cir.
Burnsville, MN 55337
(651) 699-1111
Attn: Otto, Mediation Coordinator
Subj: Revdex.com Case # [redacted], June 11, 2015 ICO: [redacted] (Former Tenant...

[redacted])
Encl: (1) Revdex.com Activity Report of June 11, 2015 ICO: [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Thank you for your subject complaint of June 11th, 2015, Enclosure (1). We appreciated
receiving your notice and also the opportunity to review the complaint and respond.
We have reviewed the complaint, and also the supporting information we have on file regarding
the disposition of the security deposit, and the specific charges that were applied. As you know,
33rd Company has an internal dispute resolution process that includes an invitation for the
member to meet with us to review all of the relevant invoices, photos, disposition summaries,
and vendor estimates.
Pursuant to this process, Mr. [redacted] received an invitation from us on 6/8/2015 to meet and
review with us all of this documentation, and we have not yet received a response to this
invitation.
As this offer to meet and review predated Mr. [redacted] Revdex.com complaint, we request that the
Revdex.com refer Mr. [redacted] back to us so that we can facilitate this meeting, in an attempt to
review this documentation, and reconcile any remaining concerns that he may have regarding
this issue.
Warmest Regards,
Thomas R. [redacted]
General Manager/Owner
(651) [redacted]
Sent by e-mail: 06-11-2015 [redacted]@thefirstRevdex.com.org
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/06/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am not convinced that meeting in person with 33rd Company is the best use of my time in order to reach my stated goal of receiving my full deposit back. They are requesting that I come to their office "to sit down and review the many move out photos and documentation" that they have. After the rental house was cleaned by a professional cleaning company, I walked through and took my own pictures. As a result of the walk through that 33rd Company had (not in my presence) after I turned in my keys, they mailed out a letter stating the outcome of their internal process. I in turn requested an appeal, which 33rd Company also responded to but not to my satisfaction. Their unacceptable response prompted me to contact the Revdex.com for assistance.
I have rented multiple houses and apartments in various states, and by far, 33rd Company has been the hardest rental company to work with.
Before the issue of the deposit not being returned in full, I experienced other concerns. For example, 33rd Company made a verbal commitment to remove the washer and dryer from the rental house as I had my own to use. Their commitment was stated twice, once when I first saw the house and the second time when I finalized my rental agreement. However, after I signed the contract they denied having said so. After my repeated follow ups they agreed to give a credit of just $100 to move the washer dryer myself and asked me to pay for storing, de-installation and installation.
Several months before my rental contract was to expire, I asked 33rd Company repeatedly if I had the option to renew my contract. They dragged out their response to the point where I had to give them their required 90 days notice of my departure before finding out that there was an option to stay.
After I had let 33rd Company know of my decision, they started scheduling showings without even informing me that they are going to do that. I get an email on 05 March stating it will be placed for advertisement on the 1st of the upcoming month when showings already were being scheduled. I let them know that I work from home, so it was imperative to have as much notice as possible and asked them to put a process in place so I know when they are scheduled and cancelled etc. Even then the showings were scheduled half-hazardly and I was not informed of cancellations or changes. The process worked intermittently when I called or emailed. I understand they have to lease the house so I just let it go.
I am able to provide more examples of the issues that I experienced while renting with 33rd Company, but the overall point is that 33rd Company is not holding itself to the same standards as they require of their renters. As a result, I do not feel that by meeting with 33rd Company will address my concerns as their internal processes are lacking.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2015/07/06) */
Subj: Revdex.com Case # [redacted],
June 11, 2015 ICO: [redacted] (Former Tenant [redacted])
Encl: (1) Revdex.com Activity Report of June 11, 2015 ICO: [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Mr. [redacted] was invited to meet with us, in order to review all of the relevant invoices, photos, disposition summaries, and vendor estimates that were applied to his security deposit at the end of his tenancy.
As you know, 33rd Company, Inc. has an internal dispute resolution process, and we would be happy to meet with Mr. [redacted], in order to review this information in an effort to resolve this complaint.
Thank you for providing us this information.
Warmest Regards,
Thomas R. [redacted]
General Manager/Owner
[redacted]copied and pasted from email.

Dear Revdex.com Representative, Attached please find our response to this complaint. Warmest Regards,Tom [redacted], GM33rd Company, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/29) */
Case # [redacted], October 19, 2015 {PIPE} ICO: [redacted] {PIPE} [redacted]
Encl: (1) Revdex.com Activity Report of October 19, 2015 {PIPE} ICO: [redacted]
(2) ICS Restoration Scope of work {PIPE}[redacted]
(3) ICS Vendor Service...

Photo {PIPE} Detached Gutter extension 10-14-2015
(4) Move-in Condition Photo {PIPE} Side of home 09-17-2014
(5) E-mail from [redacted] 10-19-2015
Dear Revdex.com Customer Service Representative,
Thank you for forwarding to us the subject Revdex.com complaint. We appreciate receiving your
notice, and also the opportunity to review and respond to this complaint.
We have reviewed the complaint and associated allegations made by Mr. [redacted], and also the
supporting information we have on file regarding the issues and the circumstances. We have
additionally reviewed the management contract that was approved and authorized by Mr.
[redacted] and the communications between parties that support our responses below.
On October 4th, 2015 we were notified by the tenant that there was a musty smell in the lower
level as well as evidence of microbial growth on the baseboard and carpet. A general contractor
was dispatched to determine the scope and source of the issue. Our general contractor evaluated
and found the affected area to be greater than 10 square feet and, following the EPA guidelines,
we dispatched a remediation company (ICC Encl 2). Upon inspection they found that the corner
of the bedroom had elevated microbial readings on the drywall as well as on the carpet and
padding, they took photos to document. When they walked the outside of the property they found
that the gutter was full of leaves and also the downspout extension was not secured so the water
would be draining straight down. The affected area was adjacent to the exterior downspout so
they indicated that the disconnected gutter extension was believed to be the potential source of
water intrusion.
The complaint states that: “Rental Mgmt. Co. improperly holding landlord responsible for
damage caused by tenant's removal of a downspout extension, resulting in water intrusion”.
There is in fact NO evidence that the tenants physically removed the downspout extension. The
tenants did not articulate or accept responsibility for its removal, nor is there any physical
evidence of abuse, intentional damage or negligence on the part of the tenants (Encl 3).
33rd Company, Inc. [redacted] Woodbury, MN 55125 (651)[redacted] 33rdcompany.com
Additionally, per Encl (3) it is evident that the downspout may well have detached from use,
either thru accumulated discharge pressure (as the downspout and gutter were filled with leaves),
or from the normal vibration of water flow over time, or even thru the actions of a neighborhood
child or animal. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no factual evidence that supports
that the tenants were directly responsible for its removal. As such, the complaint alleging that
the tenant’s “removed” the downspout extension is not supported by any facts.
Mr. [redacted] indicated in an e-mail (Encl 5) that: “Since the tenants did mow the lawn, they
would would have had to mow around the downspout extension (or remove it?) each time they
mowed.” Encl 4 shows the side view of the home at move-in, and that the downspout extension
is wholly contained in the landscaping bed, and does not extend into the yard. Based upon this
photo, the tenants are not required to regularly remove or detach this extension while mowing the
yard. As such, the assertion that they would have to mow around the downspout extension or
remove it is not supported by the facts.
The lease agreement with the tenant (which was disclosed to Mr. [redacted] in conjunction with
his signing up for management services) does not include any provisions for the tenant to be
required or responsible for checking all downspout extensions for inadvertent disconnection
prior to every rainfall. Such a provision would not be practical, as tenants do tend to also go on
vacation periodically. Furthermore, the tenants are not required to perform gutter maintenance at
all for liability reasons, as Mr. [redacted] has been previously informed.
As a 20 year property management company, we also wish to add that gutters are not considered
to be a solitary fix for wet basements. They can help reduce or temporarily mitigate unique
water intrusion episodes, but ultimately such issues are only permanently fixed by addressing
ALL of the contributing factors of moisture intrusion including: proper grading (which can settle
over years), fixing cracks in the foundation or cinderblock, and installing a drain tile system and
sump pump in the floor (as is required under building code). Homes with these repairs generally
do not require gutters at all. As this is now the 2nd event of water intrusion in this older home
(not including events prior to the rental as disclosed by Mr. [redacted]), we suggest it is time for
him to consider adding these repairs during the next vacancy period. Not only will this fix the
issue permanently, but it would also prevent a future tenancy from being disturbed for the sole
occurrence of a disconnected extension. It would also provide peace of mind for Mr. [redacted]
and obviate the need for him to drive by the property to check to see if an extension is connected
as it starts to rain.
Lastly, the Property Management agreement with Mr. [redacted] allows 33rd Company the ability
to negotiate settlements (paragraph 16), and it was the determination of 33rd Company that there
was no evidence to support a claim against the tenant under the lease agreement for the removal
of the gutter extension. As such, the determination made by us was already approved in the
management agreement with Mr. [redacted].
In summary, the claims made by Mr. [redacted] are not supported by the facts, nor do they align
with industry practice or the management agreement between parties, and we believe that this
complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. We additionally recommend that the Revdex.com refer
Mr. [redacted] to his insurance company to file a claim on his Rental Dwelling insurance for the
33rd Company, Inc. [redacted] Woodbury, MN 55125 (651)[redacted] 33rdcompany.com
damages from this incident, and to additionally consider adding the above permanent repairs at
the next vacancy period to prevent water intrusion in the future.
Once again, thank you for sending us this complaint, and for providing us an opportunity to
respond.
Warmest Regards,
Thomas R. [redacted]
General Manager/Owner
(651)[redacted] x115
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/10/30) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
While I appreciate the response of 33rd Company and the explanation provided, I'm at a loss to know what the recourse would be for property owners if circumstances like these arise.
Whether accidental or not, the fact is that the downspout was detached at some point. The gutter was (and is) likely leaf-filled on appearance, but, as mentioned in my initial complaint, the foam inserts are specifically designed to prevent the gutters from being clogged and do allow water to pass through and run down the downspout. Since the evidence is clear that the water ran down the downspout at that corner of the house, it follows that the gutters were obviously not clogged and functioning properly. In retrospect, it would have been better if the gutters were clogged with leaves, as that would have resulted in the water spilling over the gutters at various spots at the front of the home where the gutters are mounted as opposed to concentrating all of the water in this one spot where the downspout extension was detached.
The basic question is: To what extent do we hold the occupants of a home responsible for basic upkeep or even to simply notify the management company of a problem? If the wind blows a tree limb down and through a basement window and the tenant notices the broken window, but says nothing until a rainstorm floods the basement, does the tenant assume no responsibility for the damage that could have been prevented if the management company would have been notified when the broken window was first noticed?
If the sump pump in a home becomes unplugged from the outlet, do the tenants assume no responsibility when water begins to flow up from the floor drains and throughout the basement?
This particular situation is especially frustrating because the management company sold us on their service...on their diligence in monitoring the property we entrusted to them, yet the company in this instance, seems to be stating that there is nothing they can do until after the damage is already done.
While it is true that the new landscaping done prior to us renting out eliminated the need to remove the downspout extension when mowing or mow around it, it is clear in the photos that this extension is not hidden away behind an evergreen bush, too. The extension and the point at which it connects to the home are visible, even from the street. A person mowing on that side of the house and trimming around that same landscaping would have to work very hard to not notice the detached downspout.

As noted in the response from 33rd Company, this same type of incident, with the same results and same cause occurred while the property was being managed by this same management company. This should have resulted in a heightened awareness on their end, at the very least. Yes, a more permanent solution would be ideal, but one must note that our house sits at the peak of the highest hill in Apple Valley and the grade on all sides and all corners of the home slopes away at a rather steep pitch in most areas...certainly far exceeding any standards set in the building codes. It is difficult to justify the expense of excavating to the foundation to patch a crack that may or may not exist when a $5.00 downspout extension solves the problem (especially when Minnesotans know that foundation repairs are a crap shoot, at best...There are no guarantees of a permanent fix when it comes to foundation repair).
We lived in this home for 7 years without any such water intrusion. 33rd Company has been our management company for over three years and we have had two identical water intrusion incidents.
Finally, lest we appear to be the cheap landlords who try to avoid paying anything, it should be noted that we have paid for extensive repairs and replacements in the home at the suggestion of 33rd Company when problems have arisen in the past. When water started dripping down from the ceiling and the 33rd Company inspector discovered rotting plywood under the shingles, we replaced the entire roof at a cost of nearly $12,000 at their suggestion. When the furnace stopped functioning properly, we didn't hesitate to pay for a new furnace at a cost of $2500 (I believe). Likewise, we have paid for a new water heater, plumbing replacement/repair, and the previous water intrusion without complaint, among other things.
If we aren't allowed to actively monitor the property as landlords and our management company refuses to take any active role in monitoring or inspecting the property regularly, except when damage has already occurred and they have been notified, I don't know how we could ever avoid situations like this moving forward. Since we are essentially prohibited from stepping foot on the property unless we pay a fee and get permission, I feel like we are the last ones that should be held accountable for this, because if we are accountable, I don't know how we could do anything differently (within reason) to avoid it happening again.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/09) */
Subj: Revdex.com Case # [redacted], October 19, 2015 ICO: [redacted]
Ref: (1) Revdex.com Activity Report of October 19, 2015 ICO: [redacted]
Dear Revdex.com Customer Service Representative,
Thank you for forwarding to us the subject Revdex.com complaint response. We appreciate receiving this additional information, and also the opportunity to review and respond to this complaint.
As you know the investigation of the original complaint regarding Mr. [redacted]'s assertion that that the tenants "removed" the downspout extender, was found to be not supported by the facts.
Furthermore, there was no indication that the tenants were aware of the issue, or knew that the downspout had become disconnected and failed to reconnect it, as is now further suggested by Mr. [redacted].
Once again, we recommend that Mr. [redacted] refer the matter to his insurance company, and to additionally consider adding the above permanent repairs at the next vacancy period to prevent water intrusion in the future.
As the claims made by Mr. [redacted] are not supported by the facts, nor do they align with industry practice or the management agreement between parties, we believe that this complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
Warmest Regards,
Thomas R. [redacted]
General Manager/Owner