Associated Brokers Realty

Hello, sans-serif;"> I am contacting you in regard to a complaint that the Revdex.com received from an applicant to one of our rental properties against our companyThe Revdex.com case # is [redacted] [redacted] claims that we “continued to collect application fees knowing that the property was in the process of being leased”By law, property management companies are required to continue to show rental properties until we have a legally binding ratified lease for a given property (doing otherwise would be a breach of our fiduciary responsibility to the property owner); so if for example we had written a lease for an approved applicant but had not yet received the signed lease documentation back, we would be required by law to continue to process applications and show the propertyHowever this is not what happened [redacted] was the first person to apply for the property in question ( [redacted] #***) on 10/25/14, she was sent instructions on our applicant approval requirements, yet she did not deliver us income verification until late afternoon on 10/27/When we receive applications and initiate the vetting process by running the applicant’s credit and background check (which we pay for out of pocket), we collect application feesThe individuals who leased the property applied two days after [redacted] on the morning of 10/27, and delivered us all of the documents required for applicant approval before [redacted] did, ergo we approved them first and were able to send them a leaseIt is also worth noting that there were no approved applicants when [redacted] was shown the house, but she was informed that there were other applicants for the propertySimply put, if [redacted] had delivered us her income verification in a timely fashion when she submitted her application she would likely be living in one of our rental units at this very moment; however she dragged her feet in the application process and was clearly upset that she did not get the unitI am also going to forward you the email chain of conversation between myself and [redacted] ***, you will not she did not respond to my last email is it is patently clear that we operated ethically and honestly in this situation Sincerely, [redacted]

Hello,
sans-serif;">               I am contacting you in regard to a complaint that the Revdex.com received from an applicant to one of our rental properties against our company. The Revdex.com case # is[redacted]. [redacted] claims that we “continued to collect application fees knowing that the property was in the process of being leased”. By law, property management companies are required to continue to show rental properties until we have a legally binding ratified lease for a given property (doing otherwise would be a breach of our fiduciary responsibility to the property owner); so if for example we had written a lease for an approved applicant but had not yet received the signed lease documentation back, we would be required by law to continue to process applications and show the property. However this is not what happened. [redacted] was the first person to apply for the property in question ([redacted] #[redacted]) on 10/25/14, she was sent instructions on our applicant approval requirements, yet she did not deliver us income verification until late afternoon on 10/27/14. When we receive applications and initiate the vetting process by running the applicant’s credit and background check (which we pay for out of pocket), we collect application fees. The individuals who leased the property applied two days after [redacted] on the morning of 10/27, and delivered us all of the documents required for applicant approval before [redacted] did, ergo we approved them first and were able to send them a lease. It is also worth noting that there were no approved applicants when [redacted] was shown the house, but she was informed that there were other applicants for the property. Simply put, if [redacted] had delivered us her income verification in a timely fashion when she submitted her application she would likely be living in one of our rental units at this very moment; however she dragged her feet in the application process and was clearly upset that she did not get the unit. I am also going to forward you the email chain of conversation between myself and [redacted], you will not she did not respond to my last email is it is patently clear that we operated ethically and honestly in this situation.
 
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer 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.
I asked [redacted] several times during the showing of the house what the status of the leasing was, and he said that he thought there "might be" another application in other than mine.  I also asked him when I spoke with him on Sunday what necessary steps were needed to claim tenancy.  His answer was only to set up a showing.  I brought my income verification to this showing on Monday, which he would not take as "he was not going back to the office".  He also told me that leases were not signed on a first come, first served basis.  Which was, according to what they are saying, is a lie.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: I was shown a property that was advertised as available for lease. Every time I asked about the status of the property, I was told it was still available. An hour after viewing the property and submitting my paperwork and application fee, I was told the property was leased and my $45 application fee was non-refundable. They continued to collect application fees knowing the property was in the process of already being leased.Desired Settlement: Refund of my $45 application fee

Business

Response:

Hello,

I am contacting you in regard to a complaint that the Revdex.com received from an applicant to one of our rental properties against our company. The Revdex.com case # is[redacted] claims that we “continued to collect application fees knowing that the property was in the process of being leased”. By law, property management companies are required to continue to show rental properties until we have a legally binding ratified lease for a given property (doing otherwise would be a breach of our fiduciary responsibility to the property owner); so if for example we had written a lease for an approved applicant but had not yet received the signed lease documentation back, we would be required by law to continue to process applications and show the property. However this is not what happened. [redacted] was the first person to apply for the property in question ([redacted]) on 10/25/14, she was sent instructions on our applicant approval requirements, yet she did not deliver us income verification until late afternoon on 10/27/14. When we receive applications and initiate the vetting process by running the applicant’s credit and background check (which we pay for out of pocket), we collect application fees. The individuals who leased the property applied two days after [redacted] on the morning of 10/27, and delivered us all of the documents required for applicant approval before [redacted] did, ergo we approved them first and were able to send them a lease. It is also worth noting that there were no approved applicants when [redacted] was shown the house, but she was informed that there were other applicants for the property. Simply put, if [redacted] had delivered us her income verification in a timely fashion when she submitted her application she would likely be living in one of our rental units at this very moment; however she dragged her feet in the application process and was clearly upset that she did not get the unit. I am also going to forward you the email chain of conversation between myself and [redacted], you will not she did not respond to my last email is it is patently clear that we operated ethically and honestly in this situation.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.

I asked [redacted] several times during the showing of the house what the status of the leasing was, and he said that he thought there "might be" another application in other than mine. I also asked him when I spoke with him on Sunday what necessary steps were needed to claim tenancy. His answer was only to set up a showing. I brought my income verification to this showing on Monday, which he would not take as "he was not going back to the office". He also told me that leases were not signed on a first come, first served basis. Which was, according to what they are saying, is a lie.

Regards,