American Marketing Systems

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 11, 2015/08/24) */ AMSI stands that it has not acted unethical or with negligenceThe 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 unitWe verified employment and previous landlord reference as provided by the tenantWe are currently investigating as to whether the tenant provided fraudulent informationThe payroll check stubs provided by ADP appear customary and legitimateThe moinspection was provided as agreed, although it was rescheduled due to the tenant missing the original appointment dateThe owner advised verbally 'not to worry' about the addendumIf 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 / [redacted] (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 agreementPerforming diligence requires investigation with a standard of reasonable careVerifying 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 professionalsWe could pay anyone off the street minimum wage and have them to do what AMSI didThe reason we paid AMSI $1,is for their experience and expertise, neither of which was evident in the work they performed in our caseThey are professionals and should be expected to exercise good judgment and apply professional standards in carrying out their dutiesNegligence is a failure to apply reasonable standards for members of their professionWe 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 processLike any landlord screening a potential tenant would do, we trusted AMSI to satisfy their contractual obligation by verifying the current employment status of the tenantAnyone, 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 tenantGranted, this information could be a useful reference tool, but no reasonable person would rely solely upon it to verify current employmentEven if the paystub provided was not fraudulent, it is not determinative of his current employment status, but only that he was once employed thereAs a real estate professional in the industry for 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 propertyOur loss could have been avoidedWe have tried for the past couple months to get a hold of the tenant's supervisor cited in the rental application without successOur 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 screeningExperienced 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 applicationWe tried calling multiple times in the past few months but again without successA 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 callLandlord references are essentialAs a skilled professional in the industry, AMSI should have asked for more than one referenceIt is entire possible that the current landlord is providing a glowing reference just to get rid of him Moinspection - AMSI's response to this issue leaves out some key details Friday, 1/- We requested via email for [redacted] to perform the moinspection Saturday, 1/- [redacted] , AMSI agent assigned to our lease, responds via email and agrees to do so Thursday, 1/- The lease commencement date Saturday, 1/- The date set by [redacted] and the tenant to do the inspection Saturday, 1/and Monday, 1/- We send emails to [redacted] asking how the inspection wentWe also tried calling [redacted] without success Monday, 1/- [redacted] emails us that the tenant missed the appointment and that he instructed the tenant to take pictures himselfWe 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 mochecklist himself Tuesday, 1/20, 10: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:am - [redacted] emails the tenant to reschedule the inspection Wednesday, 1/- 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 modate is not necessarily synonymous with a commencement dateWe 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 completedThis protects not only the landlord, but also the tenantAs 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 interestsWe 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 moinspection and without obtaining our prior approval As to AMSI's contention that "the moinspection 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 communicationWe had requested ***, and he agreed, to have the addendum ready at the move in inspection on 1/ [redacted] did not bring one and nothing was doneWe believe that because the lease agreement had already been signed, the addendum alone would not be enough to back out of the lease agreementAlthough the HOA addendum does not make-or-break the lease agreement, we believe that ***'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 advertising We were misled to believe that AMSI is an A+ rated Revdex.com accredited businessShould we have known that AMSI is not even Revdex.com accredited and falsely advertised as one, we would have not signed the listing agreement