Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
All of what Mosaic wrote is just a bunch of words to cover up the fact that they did not work diligently for the $395 start up fee. They did not market the property correctly and they are the ones that told me how much to list it for based off their market comparable. As you can see here in the attached I was very upset with their tactics since the beginning. I still want my $300 back, they did not earn it nor do they deserve to keep the money. This is an untrustworthy company and they are keeping money that they know they did not earn. I want my money refunded for their false advertising.
Regards,
[redacted]
To Whom it May Concern,
As a business who deals with customer service when working with both owners and perspective tenants, we try our best to approve or deny applicants in a timely manner. It is most important that we treat everyone the same in regards to Fair Housing Laws and our company...
policy. We do our best job working with perspective applicants, but ultimately, our Owners make the final decision on who they accept as tenants in their property. In this case, the Owner chose to approve another, better applicant who then backed out of moving into the property, hence why the property was still available 50+ days later as the complaint states. Here is the timeline of events that transpired that led to this complaint.
7/24 - Applicant and Father Applied at 4:12 PM and 11:13 AM respectively
7/25 - Previous Landlord did not return Rental Verification and Applicant was Called to explain what else we needed to send application for approval
7/25 - 7/28 - Office is Closed on the Weekend. No calls were returned to us
7/28 - After neither answered our calls from before the weekend, we left voice mails again for both. At the end of the day, we still did not have answers, so we presented the application to the owner
7/30 - Owner had 2 applications to choose from. Another application was selected and this applicant was denied
7-31 - 8/1 - Called Applicant several times to Explain applicant was denied and see if they wanted to transfer application to another property. Had to leave voice mails to call us back, which took several days
In this, as well as every case, we have someone who works tirelessly on every application. The Leasing Coordinator is in constant contact with those perspective tenants throughout and keeps them informed throughout the process. This application was submitted on 7/24, a Thursday. Since our office is closed on the Weekend, we tried everything in our power to present this application before the weekend. Since we did not receive a valuable piece of information (Rental Verification) and could not talk to the applicants until after the weekend, there is nothing we could do to complete the application and present it to the owner before Monday. As you can see, the process took about a week from start to finish. If the applicant and Father were more available by phone, this could have been completed exponentially faster.
The application fee of $35/applicant over 18 years of age is used for the credit/background check and the time and effort it takes to gather other vital information needed. Our application states the application fee of $35 is non-refundable. We asked them to transfer to another property that was available, in which they wouldn't have been charged another application fee. I don't feel right about refunding application fees in this case because of the lack of communication the applicant had with us throughout the process. We continually try to improve our process to streamline the time it takes to present an application to an owner, but the applicant needs to communicate and give us sometimes the information we did not receive in the application or from their former Landlord. In this case, I feel the only reason the process took as long as it did was because that lack of communication and response from the applicant and Father. The process did not even take 10 days, let alone 10 days just to hear a response as the applicant claims in their complaint. If you need any additional information, please let us know. Thank you
At Mosaic Properties, we believe that problems are best solved when each side takes the time to listen and understand the dynamics of the situation. From this reaching a amicable resolution happen naturally and everyone learns and grows from the conversation. At times, part of the resolution may mean that Mosaic Properties offers a show of goodwill by agreeing to refund or discount the fees our clients have paid.There are times though that the details our client (past or present) shares with us do not match verifiable facts or agreed upon contractual obligations. When this is the case, we communicate our findings in a professional manner and explain that while customer satisfaction is of utmost importance to us, we do not offer refunds or goodwill adjustments in this type of situation. We will work to understand what has led to the communication breakdown and will present a plan for moving forward. Should the customer not agree with our findings or plan, we will take the time to review again and ask for third party opinions but in the end, if a customer is using sensationalism to make their case, we will not allow them to undermine the hard work of our employees or lead to higher pricing for our customers who do not resort to such tactics.In regards to [redacted] Revdex.com complaint, she has communicated inaccurate details to try to force Mosaic Properties to change what we have communicated to her over 5 months ago. She has also recently taken to internet review sites to post reviews using details that contradict her statements made in this complaint but are also just as inaccurate.We are attaching 11 files in support of our findings that we can not find claim to [redacted] suggestions of our lack of communication and marketing. We are also attaching further documentation about her first claim complaint (but changed after our response) that she is owed a sum larger than provided to us.We noticed that the attachment [redacted] uploaded last lacked any dates. When taken in the context as she shared it could support her position, but when taken in the actual time of months between and different subjects it means something much different than what [redacted] shared. With that in mind, we are including the same email conversations as attachments, but ours include the dates. Should there be any questions, please let me know. I have spent time reviewing our decision on this back in September when she asked, again in December and January when her fiance asked and again when she emailed and I left messages to discuss, so I am very in tune with the background that led to our decision.Thank you.[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
All of what Mosaic wrote is just a bunch of words to cover up the fact that they did not work diligently for the $395 start up fee. They did not market the property correctly and they are the ones that told me how much to list it for based off their market comparable. As you can see here in the attached I was very upset with their tactics since the beginning. I still want my $300 back, they did not earn it nor do they deserve to keep the money. This is an untrustworthy company and they are keeping money that they know they did not earn. I want my money refunded for their false advertising.
Regards,
[redacted]
To Whom it May Concern,
As a business who deals with customer service when working with both owners and perspective tenants, we try our best to approve or deny applicants in a timely manner. It is most important that we treat everyone the same in regards to Fair Housing Laws and our company...
policy. We do our best job working with perspective applicants, but ultimately, our Owners make the final decision on who they accept as tenants in their property. In this case, the Owner chose to approve another, better applicant who then backed out of moving into the property, hence why the property was still available 50+ days later as the complaint states. Here is the timeline of events that transpired that led to this complaint.
7/24 - Applicant and Father Applied at 4:12 PM and 11:13 AM respectively
7/25 - Previous Landlord did not return Rental Verification and Applicant was Called to explain what else we needed to send application for approval
7/25 - 7/28 - Office is Closed on the Weekend. No calls were returned to us
7/28 - After neither answered our calls from before the weekend, we left voice mails again for both. At the end of the day, we still did not have answers, so we presented the application to the owner
7/30 - Owner had 2 applications to choose from. Another application was selected and this applicant was denied
7-31 - 8/1 - Called Applicant several times to Explain applicant was denied and see if they wanted to transfer application to another property. Had to leave voice mails to call us back, which took several days
In this, as well as every case, we have someone who works tirelessly on every application. The Leasing Coordinator is in constant contact with those perspective tenants throughout and keeps them informed throughout the process. This application was submitted on 7/24, a Thursday. Since our office is closed on the Weekend, we tried everything in our power to present this application before the weekend. Since we did not receive a valuable piece of information (Rental Verification) and could not talk to the applicants until after the weekend, there is nothing we could do to complete the application and present it to the owner before Monday. As you can see, the process took about a week from start to finish. If the applicant and Father were more available by phone, this could have been completed exponentially faster.
The application fee of $35/applicant over 18 years of age is used for the credit/background check and the time and effort it takes to gather other vital information needed. Our application states the application fee of $35 is non-refundable. We asked them to transfer to another property that was available, in which they wouldn't have been charged another application fee. I don't feel right about refunding application fees in this case because of the lack of communication the applicant had with us throughout the process. We continually try to improve our process to streamline the time it takes to present an application to an owner, but the applicant needs to communicate and give us sometimes the information we did not receive in the application or from their former Landlord. In this case, I feel the only reason the process took as long as it did was because that lack of communication and response from the applicant and Father. The process did not even take 10 days, let alone 10 days just to hear a response as the applicant claims in their complaint. If you need any additional information, please let us know. Thank you
At Mosaic Properties, we believe that problems are best solved when each side takes the time to listen and understand the dynamics of the situation. From this reaching a amicable resolution happen naturally and everyone learns and grows from the conversation. At times, part of the resolution may mean that Mosaic Properties offers a show of goodwill by agreeing to refund or discount the fees our clients have paid.There are times though that the details our client (past or present) shares with us do not match verifiable facts or agreed upon contractual obligations. When this is the case, we communicate our findings in a professional manner and explain that while customer satisfaction is of utmost importance to us, we do not offer refunds or goodwill adjustments in this type of situation. We will work to understand what has led to the communication breakdown and will present a plan for moving forward. Should the customer not agree with our findings or plan, we will take the time to review again and ask for third party opinions but in the end, if a customer is using sensationalism to make their case, we will not allow them to undermine the hard work of our employees or lead to higher pricing for our customers who do not resort to such tactics.In regards to [redacted] Revdex.com complaint, she has communicated inaccurate details to try to force Mosaic Properties to change what we have communicated to her over 5 months ago. She has also recently taken to internet review sites to post reviews using details that contradict her statements made in this complaint but are also just as inaccurate.We are attaching 11 files in support of our findings that we can not find claim to [redacted] suggestions of our lack of communication and marketing. We are also attaching further documentation about her first claim complaint (but changed after our response) that she is owed a sum larger than provided to us.We noticed that the attachment [redacted] uploaded last lacked any dates. When taken in the context as she shared it could support her position, but when taken in the actual time of months between and different subjects it means something much different than what [redacted] shared. With that in mind, we are including the same email conversations as attachments, but ours include the dates. Should there be any questions, please let me know. I have spent time reviewing our decision on this back in September when she asked, again in December and January when her fiance asked and again when she emailed and I left messages to discuss, so I am very in tune with the background that led to our decision.Thank you.[redacted]