Austin Properties

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 belowPlease be advised that the MLS did not state that there was a new roof on the main houseIt stated "NEW roof August 2013." The portion of the house that has the old tin roof is indeed a major portion of the house as a kitchen nook is not considered outside spaceThe roof is also over the enclosed porch as well as the side covered porch area which is both attached to the propertyWe, the purchasers did not notice this huge portion of the roof before purchasing the home as indicated by the company's ownerThis area was discovered during the rainfall on November 27, 2013, which was unlike any other rainfall which we have had during the seasonAs the owner/agent can attest to, an inspector only look at the outside of the roof to see if there is any damageHe would not have probed to see a deteriorating patched layer over tinHowever, the seller and agent should have disclosed this informationThe inspector not disclosing problems with the roof does not allow the seller, agent and owner/agent to mislead, misrepresent, present inaccurate, incomplete and incorrect informationThe area that the agent refer to as the main roof also incurred problems with the flashing area around the chimneyDue to poor workmanship by the individual that installed this area of the roof, an additional cost was also incurred The seller did offer to send their roofer out but not with a solution that would fix the problemPatching an already dilapidated roof which had already been patched is hardly an offer to fix the problemThe seller's roofer indicated that he was no longer in the roofing businessHe stated that he was no longer licensed, insured, or could provide a warrantyHe stated that he could no longer climb on roofs due to his age and his kneesHe stated he would "get some boys, young bucks" to patch the already patched roof with some other solutionHe would not have been able to supervise their work based upon his statementWe advised the seller that due to the above, this would present a risk to us as homeownersHe was also the individual that had provided the poor workmanship on the property; the roofer that the seller wanted to patch the property again A claim was filed in [redacted] County CourtOn February 7, 2014, the judge ruled on a decision in favor of the seller based on misrepresentations and statementsThe seller stated that she did not know about the old tin roof and denied knowing anything about the picture shown of the patched roof as if it was not the roof from the propertyThe issue was not unforeseen as the seller asked that the old tin roof be patched previously as a cost cutting measure in order to sell the propertyThe MLS was listed fraudulently regarding the roof as well as the basement stating it had been sealed with "drylock" which also leaksIt is of my opinion that the seller and agent would have stated anything in the MLS to sell the property which had been on the market for a yearIt is also of my opinion that the above information was stated in the MLS to be misleading as our agent asked for the warranty on the roof as well as the company which sealed the basement with "drylock" in which the agent stalled on numerous occasionsWe were sent a list of items from a local hardware store with the words "roof" and "warranty" written on them as a tactic to assure us that the property had a new roof as the closing date was getting nearerWe now know that warranties and other information could not be sent to us as none of the work was done by a reputable company; just incompetent handymenAfter the above incident, the seller indicated that the problem with the roof was common for old tin roofs; this lets us know that the seller knew of the problem previously as well as the agentNeighbors around the property as well as the roofer which the seller sent to repair the property stated that they could tell that the patching on the roof done before the sale would not lastIt is of my opinion that it is impossible for the seller and agent to not have known what individuals around them knew; individuals whom they trusted, and that this information was not stated to the seller and agent The remedy for the roof along with the basement will cost approximately $15,000; however only the cost of the roof has been requestedIt was hoped that this could be handled in an amicable manner, however it would seem that further litigation will be necessary as we also know that [redacted] Law requires disclosures of known problems as it relates to the above described defects Regards, [redacted]

From: Shirley [redacted] [mailto:s[redacted]@mascapi.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 12:07 PM To: drteam <[email protected]> [redacted] Subject: ID [redacted]   Good Morning,   I am responding to your response email, dated 11/8/16 regarding the above complaint.   The first question was why two plumbing technicians per service call.  In speaking with the plumbing company I was advised it is the policy of the plumbing company to have two technicians. This prevents having to reschedule if two are required and only one is there.   Second, in talking with the plumbing company supervisor,  I was advised, they would check into the concerns about the sheetrock being already cut, as well as the cleanup.  Normally, clean up refers to removing any materials or debris from the work, but of course, they should not leave the area dirty.   Third, the plumbing company did credit one half of the service call ($139.01), therefore, I have credited the account of unit 83 the amount of $139.01 leaving a balance of $139.01.   Fourth,  check #[redacted], dated November 1, 2016, in the amount of $195.89 was mailed to Mr. [redacted] on November 1, 2016.  Our records show he has paid the November assessment, leaving only the balance of $139.01.   I trust this will now put closure to the complaint.   Hope everyone has a nice week.       Shirley [redacted], President MASC [redacted] Properties, Inc. 945 Eldridge Road Sugar Land, TX 77478 (O) 713-776-1771 (F) 713-776-1777 s[redacted]@mascapi.com www.mascapi.com

Revdex.com:
This letter is to inform you that Austin Properties has carried out to my satisfaction the resolution it proposed for my complaint, filed on 1/5/2016 and assigned ID [redacted].
Regards,