Associated Property Management Inc

Please see below in response to the complaint ID *** inregards to *** and *** *** at *** ** *** *** in Hillsboro and thedispute regarding the charges to their security deposit statement. The tenancy with the *** began on February 1, 2012. As they indicated, a
larger security depositwas required at move in. According toour rental criteria, an application that does not fully meet the criteria maybe considered with an additional security deposit. The *** agreed to pay $in securitydeposit and an additional $in deposit for their dogs totaling $inrefundable security deposit. Throughout the course of the tenancy, there were not anyissues that came up that would be considered abnormal. There were minor maintenance issues that wereresolved. The exterior of the home waspainted during the tenancy which included some replacement of trim boardsaround the windows. The tenants alsocomplained of ants at one point during the tenancy which were also treated.The move out process is when we discovered some substantial problemsin the home due to the tenants’ misuse and negligence. 1) The home was not left clean to ourstandards. While an attempt had beenmade to clean, a more thorough cleaning of the appliances were needed insideand out. The drawers and cabinets neededto be wiped clean. The tenants werecharged $for this work to be completed.2) There was a vertical wood blind present on thesliding door to the backyard. Themajority of the blind slats needed to be replaced as it appears their dogsscratched and nipped at them causing damage. The price to replace the damaged blind slats was more expensive than replacingthe entire blind. The cost to replacethe existing window treatment with a like blind was $plus one hour oflabor ($60) to install for a total of $charged to the tenant.3) The damage to the walls at move out was beyondwear and tear. The tenant had alarge number of wall hangings, filling holes with excessive spackle at moveout. There was a large hole in the wallunder the breakfast bar that had been badly patched over by the tenant and onewall that had more than spackled over holes. In order to repair this damage, our painter has to remove the badspackle and retexture prior to even painting the home. Had the tenants properly filled the holes oreven left them as is, we would have probably been able to touch up some of thewalls rather than requiring a full repaint. But due to the extensive damage, the repaint was necessary. The total cost to repaint the walls was$1542.00. The tenants were charged apro-rated amount based on the life the paint and the length of their tenancywhich amounted to $833.77.4) Finally, the tenants were charged a portion ofthe carpet replacement bill. The carpetin the home had excessive staining at move out as a result of urine from theirdogs. It was not possible to remove thestains or odor from the carpet. Thetotal bill for replacing the carpet was $which the tenants were charged$1127.52. Again, the charge was calculatedbased on the age of the carpet and the length of the *** tenancy. The tenants’ security deposit was issued to them on May 1,as required by Law with a full accounting of the charges. We received a dispute letter from the ***on May 5, to which we responded. They asked for an explanation of charges and refund of theirdeposit. They were issued an explanationletter on May 8th, 2015. While the initial charges were fair and legitimate, the Owner made an effortto resolve the dispute by reducing their total charges by $resulting ina net refund to the tenants of $431.50. Based on the amount of damage in the home created by these tenants andthe expense it took to restore the property to move in condition, aside fromwear and tear, the Owner was extremely fair in trying to reach anagreement. However, the tenants were notsatisfied and issued another letter to our office requesting an additionalrefund of $893.50. At this time, theOwner is unwilling to negotiate any further as the tenants should be heldaccountable for the damage they caused in the home. I would also like to mention that the tenants submitted aletter when they returned keys to the home as quoted. “We understand that the security deposit canbe applied to any damage beyond ordinary wear and tear. We expect the carpets to be cleaned/replacedas need and the walls to be patched and painted.” This letter from the tenants, along withphotos the damage to the home, are available for review by request

I feel it is inconsequential at this point to argue about the failures of the Property Management staff to properly manage the property at this point.  According to the company’s claims, the licensed contractors sent to the home by the Property Management were telling them an entirely different set of facts than were communicated to us, the tenants.  I’m not convinced this was the case, but again, it is not worth arguing over now.The crux of the matter is that we were unfairly charged for work in excess of what was necessary to repair the alleged “damage” to the property.  When we attempted to reach a reasonable settlement, as was suggested by the Property Management, their reply was that the Owner was no longer willing to negotiate.This is how we got to where we are now. We suggested a settlement based on the stated claims of the Property Management at time of move in.  This was that the additional security deposit was in place to protect the homeowner against unpaid rent, late fees, NSF checks, etc.  None of these instances occurred during our tenancy.  Therefore, we proposed having just the amount of the additional security deposit charged to us at move in be returned.  This is when we were told they were no longer willing to negotiate.Further efforts to reach a settlement would be welcomed if the Property Management has now changed their mind regarding these statements.  Otherwise, this process has been unsuccessful in bringing us to a resolution.

In direct response to their numbered claims:1) The only appliances in the home were a range, a dishwasher, and a broken microwave.  Their own maintenance technician told us months before our tenancy ended that the microwave was unusable as the ceiling repeatedly fell down, exposing metal parts and compromising the safety of its use.  Although he told the Property Management this, the matter was never  resolved and the microwave was never replaced.In contrast to what was stated by the Property Management in their response, their final accounting charged us $240.00 for 12 hours of cleaning, which was not believable or reasonable given the condition of the property at move out.  Cleaning 2 appliances and wiping down cabinets does not account for that amount of labor.2) The small amount of damage done to a few slats of the vertical blinds did not require complete replacement.  The Property Managers have failed to prove, “The price to replace the damaged blind slats was more expensive than replacing the entire blind” to our satisfaction.  Stating so does not, in fact, make it true.If they had replaced the few slats that were damaged, they could have easily found available replacement wood blind slats at a much more reasonable price, as we did (well below the >$1,000 for total replacement).  We do not believe the minimal damage justified replacement of the entire assembly, but most importantly, we are certainly not responsible for paying for it.3 & 4) The “very fair” method of accounting employed by the Property Management team involved charging us for the “remaining life” of both the paint and the carpet throughout the home.  This was figured by dividing the total amount paid by the number of years “remaining in the life” of painting and carpeting that had been applied and installed years before our tenancy began.  This is anything but a “fair” method of accounting.  We as tenants are not responsible for restoring the home to new condition, but to the condition at move in (which was far from new).  Much of the paint was peeling and revealed previous paint colors.  They had also failed to use the appropriate type of paint for bathrooms and kitchen areas that would repel water, resulting in paint damage beyond our control.Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the Property Management ignored gross inadequacies in the quality of the home despite our repeated attempts to inform them of severewater damage and dry rot to the exterior.  This eventually allowed water to enter the walls of the home––visible in the form of RUST on the screws securing curtains in the bedrooms––and endangering the health of our family.  We know both the Property Management and homeowner knew of the damage due to a lawsuit involving every home in the neighborhood, which revealed inadequate water sealing work done by the builder during construction.  The homeowner received a monetary settlement for this issue, but decided to simply paint over the growing damage in the walls of the home rather than addressing the root issue, as many other neighbors did during this time.We have been renters for over a decade and never experienced a living situation or tenant-landlord relationship as negative as this one.  We would strongly discourage anyone fromdoing business with this company in the future.  Their motives and incentives were made exceedingly clear to us through our repeated interactions in an attempt to resolve this protracted dispute.  We offered to settle for an amount much lower than what was warranted given the situation, but have been rebuffed.  Unfortunately, the company is unwilling to reach any reasonable settlement outside of seeking legal recourse.

In response to the tenants’ claims:1)     The tenant is correct about the appliancessupplied for the tenancy.  However, wewere unaware of any problems with their microwave.  Vendors used for repairs in our propertiesare independent, rather than employees of our office.  I’m not sure which vendor they communicatedthe problem with but the tenant is responsible for communicating repair issuesin writing to our office, which was not done.2)     The vertical blind on the slider that wasdamaged was a custom, special order wood blind. More than half of the slats were damaged by the tenants’ dogs.  The blind did indeed need to be replaced asthe damage was not minimal as the tenant claims.  The new blind was purchased from the samemanufacturer as the blind that was damaged in order to closely match the amenitiesin the home that were present when the tenant took possession.  There are certainly less costly windowtreatments on the market.  However, theOwner is not required to accept a substandard solution simply because thetenants do not want to pay.3 & 4)  The total cost to replace the carpet and paintthe home’s interior was $4047.68 of which the tenants were charged$1536.29.  If the tenants were charged torestore the home to new as they claim, they would have been charged$4047.68.  Instead, a formula was used inorder to calculate the life that should have been left in the carpet and paintat the end of their tenancy.  The Ownershould not have to pay the entire cost of carpet replacement to repair damagecaused by the tenants’ pets.5) The tenant claims that the Owner received a monetary settlement from theBuilder for “gross inadequacies” in the home. This is simply untrue.  There weretownhomes in the neighborhood that were part of litigation with the Builder butthe DETACHED single family homes such as this were not included.  We are now only hearing of “rust” inside thehome so that could not have been addressed during the tenancy.  As I mentioned in a previous response, thehome was in need of exterior paint, which was completed during thetenancy.  Some of the window trim on thehome had evidence of dry rot which was removed and replaced during the paintjob by a licensed, bonded contractor. Had the contractor uncovered any issues during the project that werebeyond the scope of his expertise, he would have contacted our office to takeadditional steps in resolving the problem. The tenants’ security depositstatement was issued along with a refund check of $6.50.  The tenants disputed these charges uponreceipt and asked for their file to be reviewed.  This was done and after consulting with theproperty owner, they were refunded an additional $425.00 in an effort toresolve this issue.  The tenants wereunsatisfied with this refund and requested another $893.50 for a total refundof $1325.00.  Withholding $1925 to gotowards over $5300 in necessary repairs at move out as they proposed hardly seemsreasonable.  Although the Owner has alreadyshown good faith in trying to reach a resolution, we will certainly consider areasonable settlement, should the tenants propose one.Attached you will find supportingdocuments to include:1)     Copies of the initial charges to the tenantsaccount2)     The tenants’ initial dispute letter and APM’sresponse and reduction in charges3)     The tenants’ 2nd dispute letter4)     The exterior paint invoice showing the repair tothe dry rot5)     29 of our 193 move out photos to show an exampleof how the home was turned over to us substantiating the charges to theiraccount.  This has been sent in a separate email due to size.
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]