ACP Management

Dear Ms. [redacted] :This letter shall serve as a response to the complaint submitted by former tenant [redacted] - [redacted] . ACP Management Company (“ACP”) disputes Ms. [redacted] ’ allegations and respectfully requests that Ms. [redacted] ’ complaint be dismissed, as it is completely without merit.... Furthermore, ACP requests that the BBB restore ACP’s rating, which was wrongfully damaged by Ms. [redacted] ’ completely baseless allegations.The LeaseThis matter arises out of a Multi-Housing Rental Agreement dated September 2, 2014 (the “Lease”) that Ms. [redacted] entered into with Park Arms Apartments, which is managed by ACP. Pursuant to the Lease, the monthly rent amount was $755.00. Ms. [redacted] , a Section 8 HUD recipient, was responsible for $119.00 of that monthly rent, and HUD was responsible for the balance of $636.00. Thereafter, in or about March 2015, HUD increased its rent portion to $655.00, and Ms. [redacted] was responsible for paying $100.00 per month.Prorated Rent Dispute: $3.33 vs. $4.17The Lease ended on September 30, 2015. On October 1, 2015, Ms. [redacted] moved out of the apartment. As she occupied the unit one day beyond her last day, she was responsible for paying prorated rent for that one day. ACP prorated the October 2015 rent as follows: $755/30 = $25.17. HUD paid $21.00, leaving the rent balance owed by Ms. [redacted] in the amount of $4.17. Ms. [redacted] claimed, however, that ACP overcharged her by $0.84. She argued that since her portion of the rent was $100.00 per month, the correct pro rata share of her rent was as follows: $100.00/30 = $3.33. This is incorrect. Pursuant to the Lease, total rent due per month is $755.00. The Lease does not distinguish between HUD rental payments and tenant rental payments. Indeed, HUD vs. tenant rent percentages/assistance contributions are negotiated between HUD and the tenant according to their own HAP agreement; ACP is not involved in those negotiations. As the prorated rent totaled $25.17, and as HUD paid $21.00 of that total, Ms. [redacted] was responsible for the balance of $4.17. If Ms. [redacted] believes that HUD should have paid an additional $0.84 instead of her, that is a matter of contract between her and HUD - not ACP.ACP correctly prorated October 2015 rent and did not overcharge Ms. [redacted] . As such, ACP’s conduct was reasonable and proper.Move-out FeeNext, Ms. [redacted] claims that ACP incorrectly charged her a $35.00 fee that was not included in the Nevada Lease she signed. This $35.00 charge was a matter of oversight. ACP, which primarily does business in California, charges a $35.00 administrative fee in connection with its California residential move-outs. The corporate office, located in Santa Ana, California, mistakenly applied this California charge to Ms. [redacted] ’ Nevada move-out. Upon learning of the error, on November 12, 2015, ACP promptly issued a refund to Ms. [redacted] in the full amount of $35.00.As ACP timely refunded Ms. [redacted] the full $35.00 she was mistakenly charged, Ms. [redacted] ’ BBB complaint is without merit.$300 Cleaning FeeLast, Ms. [redacted] claims in a letter she wrote to ACP on October 20, 2015, that when she initially discussed the rental of her unit with the Park Arms manager, there was no mention of a “$300 non-refundable deposit,” and that when she went to the property to negotiate the lease, she “saw the lease terms for the first time and requested that the non-refundable deposit be refundable.” Despite her allegations, the Lease that she ultimately signed and agreed to clearly disclosed a $300.00 non-refundable cleaning fee. This cleaning fee is completely separate from the refundable security deposit also included in the Lease at Paragraph 10. Paragraph 9 of the Lease, entitled “Non-Refundable Cleaning Fee,” provides:“Upon execution of this Rental Agreement, Resident(s) shall pay to the Lessor a cleaning fee in the amount of $300.00 which shall be nonrefundable regardless of the date for termination of this agreement. Resident(s) shall be responsible for all cleaning or damages within the apartment upon move-out. Resident(s) agree that the amount set forth herein as the non-refundable cleaning is a reasonable amount to adequately and thoroughly clean the premises herein.”There is no dispute that the $300 cleaning fee was clearly stated in the Lease. In fact, Ms. [redacted] does not argue the validity of the charge; but instead, argues that ACP should pay her $300 for doing the cleaning. In her October 20, 2015 letter, she writes:“My unit upon move out on 10-1-15 was in prime clean condition — just like new! I kept it spotless! Since the cleaning was done by me and the $300 goes to the cleaner of the unit, I deserve the $300.”“If you really used money to pay cleaners, I was it! I did a great job and deserve a bonus of the $300.00.”ACP used the agreed-upon non-refundable $300.00 cleaning fee to clean, repaint, and prepare Ms. [redacted] ’ apartment for the next resident. Despite her claims, Ms. [redacted] is not owned a “bonus” of $300.00 – per the terms of the Lease, the fee was owed to ACP and was clearly and expressly disclosed to her before she signed and took possession of the unit. As such, her claims that ACP illegally and wrongfully charged her this $300.00 fee – which she claims is owed to her as a “bonus” — are completely spurious.Ms. [redacted] is a disgruntled former resident who has made unsupported allegations and complaints against ACP and Park Arms Apartments in order to scorn and punish them. We, therefore, urge the BBB to dismiss Ms. [redacted] ’ complaint and restore ACP’s rating with the BBB, which was wrongfully damaged by Ms. [redacted] ’ completely baseless allegations. The documents and items listed in support of this letter are available to the BBB upon request, should you wish to further investigate.If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

Dear Ms. [redacted]:This letter shall serve as a response to the complaint submitted by former tenant [redacted]-[redacted]. ACP Management Company (“ACP”) disputes Ms. [redacted]’ allegations and respectfully requests that Ms. [redacted]’ complaint be dismissed, as it is completely without merit....

Furthermore, ACP requests that the Revdex.com restore ACP’s rating, which was wrongfully damaged by Ms. [redacted]’ completely baseless allegations.The LeaseThis matter arises out of a Multi-Housing Rental Agreement dated September 2, 2014 (the “Lease”) that Ms. [redacted] entered into with Park Arms Apartments, which is managed by ACP. Pursuant to the Lease, the monthly rent amount was $755.00. Ms. [redacted], a Section 8 HUD recipient, was responsible for $119.00 of that monthly rent, and HUD was responsible for the balance of $636.00. Thereafter, in or about March 2015, HUD increased its rent portion to $655.00, and Ms. [redacted] was responsible for paying $100.00 per month.Prorated Rent Dispute: $3.33 vs. $4.17The Lease ended on September 30, 2015. On October 1, 2015, Ms. [redacted] moved out of the apartment. As she occupied the unit one day beyond her last day, she was responsible for paying prorated rent for that one day. ACP prorated the October 2015 rent as follows: $755/30 = $25.17. HUD paid $21.00, leaving the rent balance owed by Ms. [redacted] in the amount of $4.17. Ms. [redacted] claimed, however, that ACP overcharged her by $0.84. She argued that since her portion of the rent was $100.00 per month, the correct pro rata share of her rent was as follows: $100.00/30 = $3.33. This is incorrect. Pursuant to the Lease, total rent due per month is $755.00. The Lease does not distinguish between HUD rental payments and tenant rental payments. Indeed, HUD vs. tenant rent percentages/assistance contributions are negotiated between HUD and the tenant according to their own HAP agreement; ACP is not involved in those negotiations. As the prorated rent totaled $25.17, and as HUD paid $21.00 of that total, Ms. [redacted] was responsible for the balance of $4.17. If Ms. [redacted] believes that HUD should have paid an additional $0.84 instead of her, that is a matter of contract between her and HUD - not ACP.ACP correctly prorated October 2015 rent and did not overcharge Ms. [redacted]. As such, ACP’s conduct was reasonable and proper.Move-out FeeNext, Ms. [redacted] claims that ACP incorrectly charged her a $35.00 fee that was not included in the Nevada Lease she signed. This $35.00 charge was a matter of oversight. ACP, which primarily does business in California, charges a $35.00 administrative fee in connection with its California residential move-outs. The corporate office, located in Santa Ana, California, mistakenly applied this California charge to Ms. [redacted]’ Nevada move-out. Upon learning of the error, on November 12, 2015, ACP promptly issued a refund to Ms. [redacted] in the full amount of $35.00.As ACP timely refunded Ms. [redacted] the full $35.00 she was mistakenly charged, Ms. [redacted]’ Revdex.com complaint is without merit.$300 Cleaning FeeLast, Ms. [redacted] claims in a letter she wrote to ACP on October 20, 2015, that when she initially discussed the rental of her unit with the Park Arms manager, there was no mention of a “$300 non-refundable deposit,” and that when she went to the property to negotiate the lease, she “saw the lease terms for the first time and requested that the non-refundable deposit be refundable.” Despite her allegations, the Lease that she ultimately signed and agreed to clearly disclosed a $300.00 non-refundable cleaning fee. This cleaning fee is completely separate from the refundable security deposit also included in the Lease at Paragraph 10. Paragraph 9 of the Lease, entitled “Non-Refundable Cleaning Fee,” provides:“Upon execution of this Rental Agreement, Resident(s) shall pay to the Lessor a cleaning fee in the amount of $300.00 which shall be nonrefundable regardless of the date for termination of this agreement. Resident(s) shall be responsible for all cleaning or damages within the apartment upon move-out. Resident(s) agree that the amount set forth herein as the non-refundable cleaning is a reasonable amount to adequately and thoroughly clean the premises herein.”There is no dispute that the $300 cleaning fee was clearly stated in the Lease. In fact, Ms. [redacted] does not argue the validity of the charge; but instead, argues that ACP should pay her $300 for doing the cleaning. In her October 20, 2015 letter, she writes:“My unit upon move out on 10-1-15 was in prime clean condition — just like new! I kept it spotless! Since the cleaning was done by me and the $300 goes to the cleaner of the unit, I deserve the $300.”“If you really used money to pay cleaners, I was it! I did a great job and deserve a bonus of the $300.00.”ACP used the agreed-upon non-refundable $300.00 cleaning fee to clean, repaint, and prepare Ms. [redacted]’ apartment for the next resident. Despite her claims, Ms. [redacted] is not owned a “bonus” of $300.00 – per the terms of the Lease, the fee was owed to ACP and was clearly and expressly disclosed to her before she signed and took possession of the unit. As such, her claims that ACP illegally and wrongfully charged her this $300.00 fee – which she claims is owed to her as a “bonus” — are completely spurious.Ms. [redacted] is a disgruntled former resident who has made unsupported allegations and complaints against ACP and Park Arms Apartments in order to scorn and punish them. We, therefore, urge the Revdex.com to dismiss Ms. [redacted]’ complaint and restore ACP’s rating with the Revdex.com, which was wrongfully damaged by Ms. [redacted]’ completely baseless allegations. The documents and items listed in support of this letter are available to the Revdex.com upon request, should you wish to further investigate.If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

Review: There are a plethora (roaches, plumbing) of problems with the [redacted] apartments which are owned by ACP Management or BGN Properties, LTD as it's listed on the deposit check.

My main concern at this time is their lack of response to my request for an explanation as to why, there was so much taken from my deposit money. They charged me $110 for apartment cleaning, I left the place cleaner than when I moved in. Also, listed under "damage" is apartment painting for $330, there was no damage to the paint. I was only in the apartment for 1yr, only hung up 4-5 things using push pins. The carpet cleaning charge seems excessive $120.

The return on my deposit was $109 of the original $599, this is the lowest amount I have ever received back from a deposit in my 15+ years of renting.

I have called [redacted] the number listed on the refund check and statement 4 different times.

1. 12/21/15-4:39pm, opt 6 [redacted], Regional Resident Manager, left a voicemail

2. 12/24/15-11:41am, to the same and left a voicemail

3. 12/30/15-4:15pm, to the same and left another voicemail

4. 1/6/16- 11:17am, opt 5 [redacted], Controller, left a voicemailDesired Settlement: To know why I'm being charged so much for the apartment cleaning, carpet cleaning and apartment paint. I would like to have back what is truly owed to me from my deposit, at least $400 should have been the return.

Review: I want to file a complaint as there is no clear cut communication from leasing office to the the management company. They say one thing but next will state otherwise. They have defended eachother and based on all hearsay. We are late on our rent and they sent paperwork to attorney's office but now they are locking us out of our garage and want us to pay a $40 deposit for a garage controller that we never requested or notified in a timely manner. We have complained about the noise level from other tenants multiple times and they do not provide a full 100 percent solution. They have denied me from making any payments and forcing me to go back later and get a cash order when I can easily make a credit card payment on the spot.Desired Settlement: I would like to pay my rent and get my garage controller as when I signed the lease it said I had a garage space and it was manual opener. And I would like these fees waived for attorneys office as they have violated a lockout law. At end of day I communicated with them multiple times regarding paying the rent.

Review: upon me out of my apartment acp sent the security deposit accounting to me,they turned my "refundable security deposit " into a processing fee and deducted $35.00 .they did not declare this move out fee in the lease I signed with them .they also did not declare the cleaning fee amount to me in the initial paperwork they faxed to me while I was in california July 2014.the cleaning fee was not declared in writing until the day I signed the lease in august when I traveled from California to Vegas to sign the contract and saw that they had injected the cleaning fee as non refundable and the amount was an unagreed upon $300.00. They also kept rent without accounting for it from an overpayment I had made of $38.00 (due to me also).they owe me$39.17 at minimum and in reality they owe me $339.17 to correct all their unlawful business practice that they hav perpetrated on me.I sent a certified return receipt to [redacted] on October 27 2015 demanding my funds but they are ignoring me.will you please help me get their attention to this matter to get my money owed returned to me ?Desired Settlement: at a minimum I want my $39.17,they should include the certified return receipt fees too of $6.74 that they have forced me to incur..that is minimum which is a total of $45.93 ...But,.in reality to settle the deceptive security deposit practices they perpetrated on me they need to refund a total of $345.93 this will be a satisfactory settlement !

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]:This letter shall serve as a response to the complaint submitted by former tenant [redacted]. ACP Management Company (“ACP”) disputes Ms. [redacted]’ allegations and respectfully requests that Ms. [redacted]’ complaint be dismissed, as it is completely without merit. Furthermore, ACP requests that the Revdex.com restore ACP’s rating, which was wrongfully damaged by Ms. [redacted]’ completely baseless allegations.The LeaseThis matter arises out of a Multi-Housing Rental Agreement dated September 2, 2014 (the “Lease”) that Ms. [redacted] entered into with Park Arms Apartments, which is managed by ACP. Pursuant to the Lease, the monthly rent amount was $755.00. Ms. [redacted], a Section 8 HUD recipient, was responsible for $119.00 of that monthly rent, and HUD was responsible for the balance of $636.00. Thereafter, in or about March 2015, HUD increased its rent portion to $655.00, and Ms. [redacted] was responsible for paying $100.00 per month.Prorated Rent Dispute: $3.33 vs. $4.17The Lease ended on September 30, 2015. On October 1, 2015, Ms. [redacted] moved out of the apartment. As she occupied the unit one day beyond her last day, she was responsible for paying prorated rent for that one day. ACP prorated the October 2015 rent as follows: $755/30 = $25.17. HUD paid $21.00, leaving the rent balance owed by Ms. [redacted] in the amount of $4.17. Ms. [redacted] claimed, however, that ACP overcharged her by $0.84. She argued that since her portion of the rent was $100.00 per month, the correct pro rata share of her rent was as follows: $100.00/30 = $3.33. This is incorrect. Pursuant to the Lease, total rent due per month is $755.00. The Lease does not distinguish between HUD rental payments and tenant rental payments. Indeed, HUD vs. tenant rent percentages/assistance contributions are negotiated between HUD and the tenant according to their own HAP agreement; ACP is not involved in those negotiations. As the prorated rent totaled $25.17, and as HUD paid $21.00 of that total, Ms. [redacted] was responsible for the balance of $4.17. If Ms. [redacted] believes that HUD should have paid an additional $0.84 instead of her, that is a matter of contract between her and HUD - not ACP.ACP correctly prorated October 2015 rent and did not overcharge Ms. [redacted]. As such, ACP’s conduct was reasonable and proper.Move-out FeeNext, Ms. [redacted] claims that ACP incorrectly charged her a $35.00 fee that was not included in the Nevada Lease she signed. This $35.00 charge was a matter of oversight. ACP, which primarily does business in California, charges a $35.00 administrative fee in connection with its California residential move-outs. The corporate office, located in Santa Ana, California, mistakenly applied this California charge to Ms. [redacted]’ Nevada move-out. Upon learning of the error, on November 12, 2015, ACP promptly issued a refund to Ms. [redacted] in the full amount of $35.00.As ACP timely refunded Ms. [redacted] the full $35.00 she was mistakenly charged, Ms. [redacted]’ Revdex.com complaint is without merit.$300 Cleaning FeeLast, Ms. [redacted] claims in a letter she wrote to ACP on October 20, 2015, that when she initially discussed the rental of her unit with the Park Arms manager, there was no mention of a “$300 non-refundable deposit,” and that when she went to the property to negotiate the lease, she “saw the lease terms for the first time and requested that the non-refundable deposit be refundable.” Despite her allegations, the Lease that she ultimately signed and agreed to clearly disclosed a $300.00 non-refundable cleaning fee. This cleaning fee is completely separate from the refundable security deposit also included in the Lease at Paragraph 10. Paragraph 9 of the Lease, entitled “Non-Refundable Cleaning Fee,” provides:“Upon execution of this Rental Agreement, Resident(s) shall pay to the Lessor a cleaning fee in the amount of $300.00 which shall be nonrefundable regardless of the date for termination of this agreement. Resident(s) shall be responsible for all cleaning or damages within the apartment upon move-out. Resident(s) agree that the amount set forth herein as the non-refundable cleaning is a reasonable amount to adequately and thoroughly clean the premises herein.”There is no dispute that the $300 cleaning fee was clearly stated in the Lease. In fact, Ms. [redacted] does not argue the validity of the charge; but instead, argues that ACP should pay her $300 for doing the cleaning. In her October 20, 2015 letter, she writes:“My unit upon move out on 10-1-15 was in prime clean condition — just like new! I kept it spotless! Since the cleaning was done by me and the $300 goes to the cleaner of the unit, I deserve the $300.”“If you really used money to pay cleaners, I was it! I did a great job and deserve a bonus of the $300.00.”ACP used the agreed-upon non-refundable $300.00 cleaning fee to clean, repaint, and prepare Ms. [redacted]’ apartment for the next resident. Despite her claims, Ms. [redacted] is not owned a “bonus” of $300.00 – per the terms of the Lease, the fee was owed to ACP and was clearly and expressly disclosed to her before she signed and took possession of the unit. As such, her claims that ACP illegally and wrongfully charged her this $300.00 fee – which she claims is owed to her as a “bonus” — are completely spurious.Ms. [redacted] is a disgruntled former resident who has made unsupported allegations and complaints against ACP and Park Arms Apartments in order to scorn and punish them. We, therefore, urge the Revdex.com to dismiss Ms. [redacted]’ complaint and restore ACP’s rating with the Revdex.com, which was wrongfully damaged by Ms. [redacted]’ completely baseless allegations. The documents and items listed in support of this letter are available to the Revdex.com upon request, should you wish to further investigate.If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.