Bouquet Companies, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/06) */
To whom it may concern:
We certainly understand and appreciate the concerns of the former tenant in question and he brings up a very valid point in this unique scenario. Specifically, that it would have been more cost-effective for said tenant...

to simply pay out the remainder of the lease contract. It should be further noted that this tenant chose to take the "break lease" option with the knowledge that it could cost more than the actual remainder of the lease. Only after the home did not rent to another party did said tenant express regret over having chosen the "break lease" option.
The complaint is correct in the fact that the tenant in question was offered a means to end his lease earlier than the specified termination date, per the signed lease agreement. Two points should be clarified at this time: 1) the tenant's lease ends on January 31, 2016, not January 14, 2016. Documentation of this fact can be provided at the request of the Revdex.com or of the tenant; and 2) the amount of the security deposit mentioned in the complaint is also incorrect. The deposit is $650.00, not $750.00. This information can also be supplied at the request of the Revdex.com or the tenant. Other than these inconsistencies with the complaint, the early lease termination policy outlined by the tenant is accurate. Any tenant who wishes to terminate his/her lease prior to the end date stated on the lease agreement is offered this option. Some choose to pay the remainder of the lease and some choose early lease termination. The choice is ultimately up to the tenant. Either choice has its own potential set of outcomes.
The tenant and landlord both assume a certain amount of risk under the "break lease" scenario. The home could have re-rented to a new tenant/party as of October 1st, at the expense of another home not renting elsewhere in our portfolio. This becomes a discussion of opportunity cost, which can be difficult to quantify and explain to a tenant who is already displeased with the outcome of the choice he has made. The tenant is further correct that the rental rate of the home did, in fact, increase by $200 per month. This increase was made during the summer months, prior to the "break lease" agreement being signed by said tenant. Our rental rates are accurately displayed on our website. The increase, albeit significant to the tenant, is still below current market rates for similar property in Rochester.
In regards to the alleged lack of sympathy displayed by our staff toward the tenant, that becomes a matter of opinion and shall not weigh in on the break lease policy. We do, however, apologize if our response was received as unsympathetic, as this is never our intention. We have the responsibility to uphold lease agreements, as promised in the mutually agreed-upon lease terms. We further understand that stressful personal situations can lead to misunderstandings and frustrations. The tenant in question was clearly exasperated about the situation and, verbally, used one of our staff as a punching bag--so much so, that the tenant in question made a personal visit to our office to apologize to the staff member in question. The tenant offered this apology without any prompting from us.
We have taken a deeper look into the unique scenario of this specific "break lease" circumstance. To our recollection, this is the first "break lease" scenario which has played out in this manner. As a result of this introspection, we are changing our "break lease" policy in cases where the lease breaking ends up costing more than what it would cost for the tenant to simply pay out the remainder of the lease. More specifically, the break lessee in question shall not be responsible for more than what the cost of the remainder of the lease cost is (even though we assume the aforementioned risk of the opportunity to rent another home). In this scenario, the breakeven point occurs 24 days into November (this does not include the security deposit forfeiture as we have expenses related to advertising, marketing and utilities). In this scenario, if the home doesn't re-rent to a new party prior to the 24th, we will cut a check to the tenant on November 24th in the amount of $280.
We are happy to share the math and logic behind this proposed resolution to either the Revdex.com or the tenant in question. A quick way to look at it is as follows: The "break lease" fees total $6,020. Had the tenant simply paid the remainder of the lease, it would be $5,740. In the latter option, the tenant is also responsible for utilities for the time the home remains on the market (which could be up to 4 months in this scenario).
We hope the tenant in question finds this solution to be reasonable and equitable. We wish him the best in his move to the Michigan area, under the difficult personal circumstances with which he is he dealing.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
To Whom it may concern:
I am happy to hear Bouquet agrees I'm making a valid point. Bouquet is correct that I signed a document where my lease was to end 1/31/2015 (which was longer than a year, as I moved in on 1/15/15 and paid a prorated amount my first month there) my apologies for overseeing this. Also, Bouquet is accurate that I paid a $650 deposit, instead of the $750 I claimed. Nonetheless, those inaccuracies on my part have nothing to do with my original complaint which was:
Company is making a profit on us breaking our lease. Our townhome is also being marketed for $200 more a month than what we paid. * Both statements above are true and I will reiterate these points in my response*
I appreciate Bouquet indicating they have taken a deeper look into this unique scenario and as a result of their "introspection" they are changing their break lease policy. How can they change it when it clearly states in the Policies and Information page the following, see below?
The Bouquet Policy States: Duration of Lease
Lease Term: You will be contacted by the Property Manager at least two full calendar months prior to your lease expiration date regarding your intent to renew your lease or to vacate your townhome. Remember that your NOTICE TO VACATE MUST BE IN WRITING and MUST BE RECEIVED TWO FULL CALENDAR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE OF YOUR LEASE. Example: Your lease expiration date is December 31. We must receive your written notice to vacate in our office on or before November 1. Requests for an early termination of a lease must be submitted to Management in writing. Approval of any early termination is at the sole discretion of Management and will be subject to penalties at a maximum cost of the entire lease terms. My wife and I signed this document on 12/18/15. Well, unfortunately we were penalized more than the cost of our entire lease terms.... Thus Bouquet either 1) doesn't know their own policies/procedures or 2) they were purposefully trying to take advantage of my unfortunate situation and make a profit. I'm hoping they were simply naïve about their own policy and I shouldn't be continued to be punished for their unethical practice and/or mistake.
Also, in the attached policy I presented (and my wife and I signed) there is also this verbiage about the security deposit, which states:
Security Deposit: Any refunds, including interest, due to the Resident will be mailed on or before the 21st of the following month that the lease ends. Note: If you vacate prior to the end of your lease, you will not receive this refund until after the actual end date of your lease.
Therefore, I think it would be fair for Bouquet to reimburse our $650 deposit, as this states and confirms Bouquet sometimes refunds tenants their security deposit, even if they leave early. I realize I signed a break lease document; however, as mentioned in my original complaint it is not fair to charge me $2,500 to break the lease, along with October and November's rent totaling $2,870. Plus, they have my $650 deposit bringing a grand total of $6,020. I didn't even mention I paid $252 annually for water softener and should receive $21 a month totaling $63 back for October, November, and December. Much more than what I would've owed if I finished out my lease which the grand total for that would be October rent at 1,435, November rent at 1,435, December rent at $1,435 and January rent at 1,435 which equals a grand total of $5,740. So I appreciate and agree with Bouquet cutting me a check for $280, the difference. In addition, I think I should at least get my security deposit back since they hiked up the monthly rent and didn't even know their own policy that clearly states I will be subject to penalties at a maximum cost of the entire lease. If I were to receive my $650 security deposit back plus the $280 difference, I would be happier. Originally, I requested November's check not be cashed because I still stand behind my statement that this unit would've been rented at the $1,435 a month quicker than at the $1,635 a month. I still haven't heard from Bouquet the reason why they didn't have to honor my $1,434 rent when trying to re-rent this unit. It seems very unfair to me I got stuck with this unit for 2 extra months because of this hike in price. Bouquet told me they had a lot of showings and every time I contacted Bouquet, there was another "showing" so even though it's a hypothetical, I'm certain this unit would have rented and I could've saved October and November's rent (over $2,800). I truly believe given my unfortunate circumstances where my dad was given months to a year to live, Bouquet would've done everything in their power to try to help me rather than fight me and push me to go to the Revdex.com. It doesn't seem like the ethical thing to do to make me pay 2 months of $1,435 a month ....because no one has re-rented the unit....however, at the same time request potential renter prospects to pay $1,635... (even though the initial policy we signed states Approval of any early termination is at the sole discretion of Management and will be subject to penalties at a maximum cost of the entire lease terms.) Again, we were overcharged in this break lease. Not fair. I'm more concerned with Bouquets ethics in this situation than my money. Furthermore, very concerned their break lease required $2,500 and they state my deposit was for marketing, etc. Isn't that what the $2,500 is for? If not, I'd like to know what the additional $1,000 is for when breaking the lease. I simply don't trust their practices furthermore, after reading their response claiming their "changing" their policy when in fact their original policy states they won't penalize at a maximum cost of the entire lease terms. I strongly feel like my situation warranted some mercy and sympathy; however, as stated I got the opposite from Bouquet. This all could have been avoided if my initial call was handled appropriately, fairly and ethically. Even if I was told they'd honor their original policy and I could pay out my lease, I wouldn't have had an issue. Plus that would've been the right thing to do.
In regards to Bouquet indicating I used a manager as a "punching bag" and later made a personal visit to apologize are untrue and a matter of opinion. I did make a visit, but it was a visit to drop off October's check, as I wanted a receipt. I did in fact apologize to the manager in whom I was speaking to originally because I mentioned to the manager "what goes around comes around" and I apologized to the manager for saying that and stated quote " I didn't want what happened to me to happen to anyone - even him". I'm just glad I could be the bigger person and was trying for resolution with peace. I thought by apologizing for that comment, maybe Bouquet would be sensible and do the right thing. Apparently, Bouquet saw it as "I was in the wrong..."?
Nonetheless, the facts are they attempted to make money off my break lease, despite my unusual circumstance and their policy. Bouquet responded initially with poor communication and no sympathy or mercy. We did have the mutually agreed lease terms that I had to sign...again, I had no other options and didn't want to be brought to collections, etc, as we needed a home to move into in Michigan. We were caught between a rock and a hard place and Bouquet took advantage of our situation, clearly.
So, I agree the $280 difference should be ours and I thank Bouquet for finally seeing this. It is too bad I had to go to Revdex.com because I tried resolving this numerous times before getting the Revdex.com involved. As Bouquet mentioned I even apologized and tried getting them to reason with peace. Unfortunately, Bouquet only feels they owe me $280 despite having verbiage in their policies that conflict with their handling of the situation. If anything, I still feel like I should get my November rent back but clearly that will not happen. So I humbly ask for the $280 and my security deposit of $650 back. That is the least Bouquet could do given the time and energy put into something that could've been avoided if they simply followed their own policy and did the right thing. I feel like that would be appropriate "middle ground". Sincerely,
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/25) */
We appreciate the response from the former tenant and realize they are not happy with how this unique break lease scenario played out and have offered what we believe to be a reasonable resolution. More specifically, the $280 rental refund (which was mailed on 11/24/15) so that the break lease terms don't exceed the cost of the remainder of the lease terms. As stated in our initial response, both the tenant and landlord take a bit of risk under the break lease scenario.
To recap, there are two options when someone wants to break their lease early: 1) pay out the remaining term - including all utilities; or 2) pay the break lease fees. It is at the sole discretion of the tenant which option they choose. Typically, under the break lease scenario, our homes re-rent fairly quickly after the required 30 day minimum notice period resulting in a significant savings for the individual breaking the lease. The exception to this can happen in the fall/winter months when leasing traffic slows considerably. The tenant in question chose the break lease scenario (even though the cost for the term remaining on their lease was nearly the same as the worst case scenario under the break lease option) hoping the home would re-rent to avoid further rental payments. We, too, had hoped it would rent quickly so we didn't have a vacant home to market, advertise and heat during a relatively slow lease traffic time.
A majority of the issues the tenant brings up in their 2nd response were already addressed in our initial response, so we will not address them again. One new point the tenant brings up is the cost of utilities. Under option 1 - paying out the remaining term of the lease - the tenant is responsible for all utilities until the end of that term. We had previously left this point alone as it seemed unnecessary/punitive to go back to them for even more money once they wanted to change their minds from option 2 (break lease scenario) to option 1. Lastly, our homes are marketed at the current market rate, not the rate of the departing tenant in question. Again, the market rate for these homes was adjusted months before this break lease scenario came to our attention.
As previously mentioned, this break lease scenario played out in a manner where the difference between the break lease option and the option to pay out the remainder of the lease (including utility costs and minimum charges that come out of the lease from the security deposit) was nearly equal - it came down to 6 days of rent in November. In our past experiences, the difference between the two worst case scenarios is great enough for there to be a clear cut answer on which option to choose.