American Marketing Systems, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2014/09/03) */
Issue regarding amount charged: Consumer made reservation through Flipkey as a 3rd party providerconsumer had a direct relationship with Flipkey regarding the charges and reservation policy$is the security deposit amount,
but all rents are due prior to occupancy
Issue regarding # of guest unit can accommodate: It is true that the property was marketed having a King, Queen, and Sofa Bed instead of a Queen, Full, and sofa bedConsumer however did not make reservation for peopleWe also offered the consumer to cancel reservation without penalty, but the consumer declined
Issue regarding original unit not available: There was no bait and switch involvedThe owner of the property withdrew the unit from being available after the consumer made their reservation with FlipkeyIn our opinion the replacement unit was comparableAs indicated previously, the client was offered to terminate the reservation without penaltyThey declined and accepted the property with the stated terms
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2014/09/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The issue is in regards to AMSI Rep*** *** advertising a unit that sleeps and the unit sleeps I told *** that we were sharing the unit with familyAfter Unit *** was "under construction" he sent me the add for Unit *** stating that it sleeps 6.(I have a copy of that unit description sleeps 6) That unit has a queen and double bed and does not sleep in fact the owner came to the unit at the end of our stay and was angry that people were in the unit and that he only allowed people to stay because that is what it sleeps*** did bring over an air mattress and said there is enough floor space to sleep That is not the point, we rented a unit that advertised sleeping (beds) and that is NOT what it factually wasYou may verify this with the owner
In reference to offering a refundI called *** on July 3rd upon arrival and told him according to the AMSI Contract ** if the customer is not satisfied then AMSI would find another unit equivalent or betterI told him we need another unit that actually sleeps peopleHe said he didn't know the bedding situation and would go to the unit to verify what it wasOnce he verified it he said because of the high demand for July (Comic Con)there is nothing left in the city but we could leaveDue to the fact that we had people who shared the unit ways, $each flying in from different parts of the country,leaving is not an option if there is no where in the city to goThat is when I asked for a refundHad he followed through with the contract agreement ** of dissatisfaction and offered a unit that actually slept we would have happily left that unit
The fact is, AMSI advertised a unit that sleeps people*** blamed the owner for the listing error when in fact the owner had never rented his unit before us and said AMSI handled the process and *** did a walk through with the owner and saw in fact that it only sleeps The owner said during the walk through that he said only people can stay in his unitWe believe that we should only be charged for a rental that sleeps and want a refund of $Lastly, the contract also states that the $refund would be returned within days of departure, we have not seen a refund
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2014/10/16) */

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 11, 2015/08/24) */
AMSI stands that it has not acted unethical or with negligence. The property owner is justified in their disappointment with the tenants damage to the unit, but AMSI does not directly oversee a tenants occupation of a rental unit. We...

verified employment and previous landlord reference as provided by the tenant. We are currently investigating as to whether the tenant provided fraudulent information. The payroll check stubs provided by ADP appear customary and legitimate. The move-in inspection was provided as agreed, although it was rescheduled due to the tenant missing the original appointment date. The owner advised verbally 'not to worry' about the addendum. If this was a miscommunication then the owner had the option to not execute the leasing agreement until fully satisfied that the contract completely addressed all concerns.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 13, 2015/08/30) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Employment verification
We believe that verifying employment "as provided by the tenant" does not satisfy the "use diligence in the selection of prospective tenants" clause of the leasing agreement. Performing diligence requires investigation with a standard of reasonable care. Verifying employment using the name and number that is 1) provided by the tenant, 2) of an alleged supervisor of the tenant, and 3) not the HR or payroll department, should not be treated as exercising due diligence, especially for a company that holds itself out as experienced real estate professionals. We could pay anyone off the street minimum wage and have them to do what AMSI did. The reason we paid AMSI $1,440 is for their experience and expertise, neither of which was evident in the work they performed in our case. They are professionals and should be expected to exercise good judgment and apply professional standards in carrying out their duties. Negligence is a failure to apply reasonable standards for members of their profession. We believe that the work AMSI and [redacted] did was grossly negligent because they failed to perform the investigation that a reasonable person who is a professional in the industry would do.
We hired AMSI because they hold themselves out as a skilled real estate professional and that they can help us to find qualified tenants through a more rigorous screening process. Like any landlord screening a potential tenant would do, we trusted AMSI to satisfy their contractual obligation by verifying the current employment status of the tenant. Anyone, never mind a professional, exercising due care would have called the HR or payroll department to verify current employment, rather than rely on anybody provided by the tenant. Granted, this information could be a useful reference tool, but no reasonable person would rely solely upon it to verify current employment. Even if the paystub provided was not fraudulent, it is not determinative of his current employment status, but only that he was once employed there. As a real estate professional in the industry for 10 years and having extensive dealings with these matters, AMSI should have identified the fact that the tenant lied on his application before we executed the lease agreement and moved in our property. Our loss could have been avoided. We have tried for the past couple months to get a hold of the tenant's supervisor cited in the rental application without success. Our discussions with Rent-A-PC's HR department clearly shows that the tenant was not working for Rent-A-PC at the time the rental application was submitted (he had been terminated more than a year before). We believe that it is not outside the realm of possibility that the tenants asked his friend to pose as his employer to get through screening. Experienced real estate professionals exercising reasonable care should be able to see through the hoax.
We also tried to get a hold the tenant's prior landlord listed on the application. We tried calling multiple times in the past few months but again without success. A testimony from this person may be the only thing to prove that [redacted] indeed called and received a "glowing reference." We believe that a person's behavior does not change overnight and it is hard to believe that AMSI has performed the due care absent any detailed evidence of the call. Landlord references are essential. As a skilled professional in the industry, AMSI should have asked for more than one reference. It is entire possible that the current landlord is providing a glowing reference just to get rid of him.
Move-in inspection -
AMSI's response to this issue leaves out some key details.
Friday, 1/9 - We requested via email for [redacted] to perform the move-in inspection.
Saturday, 1/10 - [redacted], AMSI agent assigned to our lease, responds via email and agrees to do so.
Thursday, 1/15 - The lease commencement date.
Saturday, 1/17 - The date set by [redacted] and the tenant to do the inspection.
Saturday, 1/17 and Monday, 1/19 - We send emails to [redacted] asking how the inspection went. We also tried calling [redacted] without success.
Monday, 1/19 - [redacted] emails us that the tenant missed the appointment and that he instructed the tenant to take pictures himself. We learned through the tenant that [redacted] left the keys with AMSI's receptionist and told the tenant to pick up the keys and complete the move-in checklist himself.
Tuesday, 1/20, 10:00 am - We send email to [redacted] that he still needs to do the inspection and expressed what he had done was not authroized.
Tuesday, 1/20, 10:38 am - [redacted] emails the tenant to reschedule the inspection.
Wednesday, 1/21 - We perform the inspection with the tenant. [redacted] shows up as we are wrapping up the inspection.
An important distinction should be made here: a move-in date is not necessarily synonymous with a commencement date. We think it is reasonable to assume, if not already industry practice, that the tenant would not be allowed to move in before the inspection is completed. This protects not only the landlord, but also the tenant. As an experienced industry professional, AMSI should have known to not let the tenant move in before the inspection.
As our agent, AMSI had a contractual and fiduciary duty to protect our interests by performing the tasks it has been entrusted to do and to promptly disclose all facts which might affect our interests. We believe that AMSI breached its contractual and fiduciary duty because 1) AMSI did not perform the duties it had agreed to do, 2) AMSI did not promptly inform us this fact, and 3) the failure to perform its duties jeopardized our interests by giving the keys to the tenant before performing move-in inspection and without obtaining our prior approval.
As to AMSI's contention that "the move-in inspection was provided as agreed," an important point to note is that the walk-thru was rescheduled and completed only because we demanded it and [redacted] did not assist with the walk thru.
Addendum to lease contract
As to AMSI's contention that we verbally advised them that the HOA addendum was handled, we really have no recollection of this communication. We had requested [redacted], and he agreed, to have the addendum ready at the move in inspection on 1/21. [redacted] did not bring one and nothing was done. We believe that because the lease agreement had already been signed, the addendum alone would not be enough to back out of the lease agreement. Although the HOA addendum does not make-or-break the lease agreement, we believe that [redacted]'s handling of this matter is just another piece of evidence of AMSI's propensity to cut corners and disregard for professional standards for a licensed real estate professional.
False advertising
We were misled to believe that AMSI is an A+ rated Revdex.com accredited business. Should we have known that AMSI is not even Revdex.com accredited and falsely advertised as one, we would have not signed the listing agreement.