I have reviewed the remaining charges on the invoice, including the owed water bills on the account The charges are in line with industry standards for the work that was performed I would need an itemized list of the transactions on the invoice the client feels are unfair and why in order to understand their objection to the remaining charges I have attached the move out accounting [redacted]
I am sorry to hear that your experience with Brickleys was less than satisfactory Brickleys strives to keep applicants to our properties informed on how our process works and what is required to be approved through our application process Brickleys application process requires two approvals When an application is received in our office it is sent to the property owner to give an initial approval At this time the owner is reviewing the information presented in the application and approving based on the length of lease, modate, and rent amount requested At this time the owner is also approving any pets that may be listed on the application and deciding on a pet fee Once the owner gives their initial approval, the applicant is contacted and advised of that Brickleys then notifies them that based on the initial approval, we will move forward with screening the applicants to ensure they are qualified for the home If the applicants are interested in moving forward we collect the screening fee When the fee is collected Brickleys explains what we will be looking at during the application process This information is also included in the initial application they submit for the property During our screening process we look at the applicants’ credit report, rental history, criminal history and income Based on review of these items Brickleys makes a decision if the applicant is qualified for the home In the [redacted] ’s case they were notified at the time their applications were submitted that the property had work in progress and was not available to be viewed When our vendor advised work was complete we notified the applicants and allowed them access to the home This was at the same time our inspector was going to the property to do a quality control check of the work completed Our inspector and the applicant both notified Brickleys of work that had been missed by our vendor We apologized to the tenant for not have the work completed during their viewing and thanked them for providing this information Our service department was then notified to have the vendor go back out to complete the missed items At the time the applicants notified Brickleys of the work needed, they agreed to move forward with screening, and submitted payment of their screening fees Upon collection of the screening fees, I was notified and immediately began the screening process The screening process took approximately minutes at which time it became clear that their credit was not in a state that Brickleys would feel comfortable moving forward Their criminal history did not show any results and their income met our requirements, but the combination of results of the credit report and lack of comparable rental history did not allow Brickleys to move forward The applicants were promptly notified by our leasing agent at which time they became very upset and requested to speak with a manager During my conversation with the [redacted] f I explained the details of what had shown up on the credit report and why that meant they were declinedThe applicants requested we reconsider and allow the property owner to review their application because they loved the home and wanted to purchase it in the future I let the applicants know as a courtesy to them we would notify the owner and provide the owner their contact information, but that the owner may not respond or reach out to them as they have hired Brickleys to make these decisions The applicants thanked me and ended the call At that time an email was sent to the property owner with the applicants screening materials and contact information The owner promptly responded that they agreed with our assessment of the screening and did not wish to contact or move forward with the applicants Thank you! [redacted] [redacted] / [redacted] Style Definitions */
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I have already described in detail in my original complaint all of the charges that I felt were unfair and overpricedAs an aside, regarding the pictures attached to business response, the color is offIn reality there were no discolorations present like that on interior or exterior wallsThe pictures do not include the rest of the house that would support that the house was very clean and well maintainedAlso there are duplicate pictures of the same areaThere were three areas of dog feces, but the pictures make it seem like many more areasWe did pay a non refundable pet deposit on top of our damage deposit I have no issue with the water bill being paid from deposit Regards, [redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
I already responded to this complaint back near August 1st, please check your records to see if you have it Thank You! After reviewing the move out accounting in more detail, I believe the following charges were overcharged to the tenant: $painting plus tax $General Landscape plus tax Total refund due to client is: $ I just need instructions on where / how they would like us to send out the refund check Thank you! [redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The response from brickleys is inaccurate of the events that took placeWe were never told that they had an investigator going to the propertyThey're was more information in that response then there was in any of the conversations I had with any of the employeesWhen we asked about the owner the manager said she would forward me a copy of the email, but I never heard backSo once again the facility lied, as they did on numerous occasions that is coming to view nowI refuse to accept this response not only because of the way we were treated, but because people in general should not be disrespected the way this company treats people Regards, [redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I do not believe this is a misunderstanding of a contract, rather it is the reluctance by you to admit wrongdoing and make yourself accountable for failing to met your duties. Your reliance on the hold harmless clause is very disappointing, your company was undeserving of my business and my trustThe contract obliged you to answer all maintenance requests by the Tenant, the hold harmless clause does not exempt you of this obligation you agreed to in the contract. I relied upon you to fulfill this obligation competently and with due diligence to ensure that the property was kept safe and address issues so that they would not become bigger problems. In consideration for the commissions I paid you I expected you to respond to all maintenance request as you had agreed to. For the plus years prior to this incident you answered ALL maintenance requests timely no matter how small and seemingly minor. You never once let a request go unanswered, and ALWAYS sent the maintenance company to investigate Because of the past history with maintenance requests you fostered a reliance that all requests would be addressed timely. You failed to have one of the initial maintenance requests responded to, and now assert that not having it addressed by the vendor was the appropriate decision because the leak stopped. This is not ordinary and reasonable care, and is not up to the standards you set by responding to prior requests. A report of a leak with obvious water damage should have been investigated promptly and thoroughly. This was not an unreasonable expectation.The second issue is that when the leak was finally addressed by the vendor he merely tightened the bolts. Again this is not a reasonable course of action. When the leak happened the second time the first action of the licensed plumber, which I hired when I took over the maintenance request, was to take apart the toilet to accurately diagnose the problem It is not possible for you to dispute of the work of the vendor objectively since it is a related party. The repair was not reasonable or adequate and I do not believe you handled my initial dispute request at arms length.The lack of having the maintenance request answered, and the improper repair facilitated the damage, damage that would have been mitigated had you responded timely and with due care that I had come to expect. Mistakes happen and I understand if this request was inadvertently missed, but the appropriate action is to take responsibility for the part this company played in facilitating the damage of this magnitudeI do not accept that your hold harmless clause exempts you from not following your other obligations as stated in the contract
Regards,
*** *** [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
I have reviewed the remaining charges on the invoice, including the owed water bills on the account. The charges are in line with industry standards for the work that was performed. I would need an itemized list of the transactions on the invoice the client feels are unfair and why in order to understand their objection to the remaining charges. I have attached the move out accounting.
[redacted]
I already responded to this complaint back near August 1st, please check your records to see if you have it. Thank You!
After reviewing the move out accounting in more detail, I believe the following charges were overcharged to the tenant:
$500 painting plus tax
$100 General Landscape...
plus tax
Total refund due to client is: $642.00
I just need instructions on where / how they would like us to send out the refund check.
In response to the complaint filed by [redacted] on November 4th, 2014, Brickleys has included the timeline and finds and conclusions sent to [redacted] on August 11th, 2014. Brickleys did not receive a response from [redacted] in regards to this letter.
The
following is a time...
line of events of any leak related work done on
the toilet and Brickleys' assessment of the damage caused.
1st
Work order: We received a work order #[redacted] on March 10th
2014 which included several items, one of which mentioned the toilet
upstairs which stated:
6) Upstairs toilet is running.
Conclusion:
This work order was scheduled on March 20tth. We were
invoiced on March 31st by [redacted] for this
repair, however, there was no charge for the repair of the upstairs
toilet, only a charge for replacing the downstairs toilet valve kit.
This conclusion was based on the following work order which states:
“The toilet was working fine after it was fixed before we left”.
2nd Work Order: We received
a work order #[redacted] on on April 6th 2014 which stated the following:
Just came home
from a one week vacation. The wood flooring in the upstairs
bathroom is discolored as if it was wet when we were gone. The
surface of the flooring was dry when we arrived home. The toilet
was working fine after it was fixed before we left and has worked
fine since we have been back home. I therefore have no idea where
this moisture has come from. It is contained only into the wood
squares around the toilet area and not into the larger sink area
of the bathroom.
Conclusion:
Because the report indicated the flooring was dry, it was not
screened in as an emergency. Before work order #[redacted] was scheduled,
we received another work order.
3rd
Work Order: On April 9th 2014 we received work order
#[redacted], which stated the following:
Just called your office to tell you that nobody had called about
my first work order Sunday involving an unknown source of water
which destroyed the upstairs wood floor around the toilet. I now
have water in the garage as well, which has also gotten into my
personal items. Spoke to Cass and told her someone needed to get
out here and find out what the source of the water is. She told
me that she will contact a vendor and try to have someone come
out here sometime this afternoon.
Conclusion:
This work order was screened in as an emergency and responded to same
day. Our vendor [redacted] found a crack in the shut off
valve in the garage leaking water. The shut off valve was replaced
and the leak stopped. Total charge on invoice was $127.74.
4th
Work Order: On June 12th 2014 we received work order
#[redacted], which stated the following:
Upstairs- wood
flooring soaked from the water closet to the loft. Wood
flooring soaking wet- water comes up when you step on the floor.
Started last night.
Conclusion:
This work order was screened in as an emergency and repaired same
day. Vendor [redacted] indicated the toilet was leaking
at the tank to bowl seal. On the invoice they said they tightened
the tank bolts and checked for cracks and indicated “All is good”.
Total invoice was $124.12.
5th
Work Order: On July 21st 2014, we received work order
#[redacted] which stated the following:
The water is leaking from the toilet and soaking underneath the
wood floor yet again upstairs.
Conclusion:
Owner was notified by phone of the emergency. Property owner
indicated she was going to take over the work order and send out a
plumber. Work order was canceled due to owner taking over work
order.
On
August 7th 2014, Brickleys received a letter from the
property owner alleging negligence by [redacted] and/or
Brickleys LLC of the handling of work orders which resulted in
significant property damage from a water leak. Property owners
indicated the water leak has caused dangerous mold and flooring
damage, both which had to be re-mediated and repaired. Property
owner estimated damages listed were approximately $6128.00.
FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSION:
Based
on the time line of events and the types of repairs that were
performed, it is my conclusion that [redacted] and/or
Brickleys LLC handled each work order appropriately and in a timely
manner and do not have any liability for the costs associated with
the water damage at the property. We recommend the property owner
file a claim with their insurance company to try and recover damages
from the water leaks.
My
conclusion is based on the following information:
1st
work order #[redacted] dated March 10th 2014 was in reference to
a running toilet and is unrelated to any water leaks.
2nd
work order # [redacted] dated April 6th 2014 reported a water
leak that had already occurred and the floor was reported as dry at
this time. Some of the water damage may have occurred during the
time the tenants were out of town, but stopped for an unknown reason
by the time the tenants returned home. There was no way for the
tenants or Brickleys to be aware of any damage occurring during the
time the tenants were out of town.
3rd
work order #[redacted] dated April 9th 2014 reported an existing
water leak problem in the garage. This work order was responded to
and repaired same day. The result of the repair was a cracked water
valve in the garage and was not related to any previous work orders
surrounding the upstairs toilet leaks.
4th
work order #[redacted] reported on June 12th 2014 reported a new
water leak around the upstairs toilet and the toilet area was soaked.
Report also said, “started last night”. Because this work order
was more than 60 days after the last repair, was reported in a
different location and was reported as recently started, it is
reasonable to conclude this new report was not related to any
previous repairs done, but was related to an intermittent, unknown
problem. The conclusion of the vendor was that the toilet was
leaking at the seal between the tank and the bowl. The vendor
tightened the seal and indicated no continued problems at the time.
Whereas a complete gasket replacement may have been a more cautious
repair, there was no information that would have indicated that a
tightening of the gasket would have not been sufficient. In
addition, because of the reports of a water leak while the tenants
were on vacation and the report of water damage on this instance, it
is reasonable to conclude the water damage had already occurred
before work order #5 was reported. The water damage appears to have
been caused by a intermittently leaking gasket that would
re-seal/stop leaking after some time, causing the problem to stop and
preventing the problem from being found. This could be explained by
normal use of the toilet of applying pressure to the tank with the
users back, causing a leak in the seal at the base of the reservoir
tank. Then, as the weight of the water settles the gasket, it stops
leaking. This appears to have been the problem that caused the
damage and repeated leaks that appeared to stop on their own.
In
conclusion, the management agreement between the property owner and
Brickleys Property Solutions LLC indicates that the property owner
holds Brickleys and its vendors harmless from any damage costs
associated with the property. This is cited on page 6, paragraph 8
of the management agreement. Therefore, unless clear evidence is
presented showing reckless and careless neglect of the client and/or
property, Brickleys and/or it's vendors do not have any liability for
property damage in this case.
The
result of property damage is unfortunate in this circumstance and we
regret the damage occurred, but feel this is an appropriate instance
to seek remedy of damages from insurance due to circumstances that
have no fault of any entity. We always strive to provide the most
professional, prompt and quality service to all of our clients and
hope the results of this investigation are clear and convincing based on the
evidence provided.
I am sorry to hear that your experience with Brickleys was
less than satisfactory. Brickleys strives
to keep applicants to our properties informed on how our process works and what
is required to be approved through our application process
Brickleys application process
requires two approvals. When an application is received in our office
it is sent to the property owner to give an initial approval. At this time the owner is reviewing the information
presented in the application and approving based on the length of lease,
modate, and rent amount requested.
At this time the owner is also approving any pets that may be listed on
the application and deciding on a pet fee
Once the owner gives their initial approval, the applicant
is contacted and advised of that.
Brickleys then notifies them that based on the initial approval, we will
move forward with screening the applicants to ensure they are qualified for the
home. If the applicants are interested
in moving forward we collect the screening fee.
When the fee is collected Brickleys explains what we will be looking at
during the application process. This
information is also included in the initial application they submit for the
property. During our screening process
we look at the applicants' credit report, rental history, criminal history and
income. Based on review of these items
Brickleys makes a decision if the applicant is qualified for the home
In the [redacted]'s case they were notified at the time their
applications were submitted that the property had work in progress and was not
available to be viewed. When our vendor
advised work was complete we notified the applicants and allowed them access to
the home. This was at the same time our
inspector was going to the property to do a quality control check of the work
completed. Our inspector and the applicant
both notified Brickleys of work that had been missed by our vendor. We apologized to the tenant for not have the work completed during their viewing and thanked them for providing this information. Our service department was then notified
to have the vendor go back out to complete the missed items.
At the time the applicants notified Brickleys of the work needed, they
agreed to move forward with screening, and submitted payment of their screening
fees
Upon collection of the screening fees, I was notified and
immediately began the screening process.
The screening process took approximately minutes at which time it
became clear that their credit was not in a state that Brickleys would feel
comfortable moving forward. Their
criminal history did not show any results and their income met our
requirements, but the combination of results of the credit report and lack of
comparable rental history did not allow Brickleys to move forward. The applicants were promptly notified by our
leasing agent at which time they became very upset and requested to speak with
a manager
During my conversation with the [redacted]f I explained
the details of what had shown up on the credit report and why that meant they
were declinedThe applicants requested we reconsider and allow the property
owner to review their application because they loved the home and wanted to
purchase it in the future. I let the applicants know
as a courtesy to them we would notify the owner and provide the owner their
contact information, but that the owner may not respond or reach out to them as
they have hired Brickleys to make these decisions. The applicants thanked me and ended the call. At that time an email was sent to the
property owner with the applicants screening materials and contact
information. The owner promptly
responded that they agreed with our assessment of the screening and did not wish
to contact or move forward with the applicants. Thank you! [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The response from brickleys is inaccurate of the events that took place. We were never told that they had an investigator going to the property. They're was more information in that response then there was in any of the conversations I had with any of the employees. When we asked about the owner the manager said she would forward me a copy of the email, but I never heard back. So once again the facility lied, as they did on numerous occasions that is coming to view now. I refuse to accept this response not only because of the way we were treated, but because people in general should not be disrespected the way this company treats people.
Regards,
[redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
[redacted], After reviewing your response, I see that understanding the contract between Brickleys and yourself is an area of concern. Brickleys makes a point to review our management agreements and answer any questions or concerns an owner may have with the agreement prior to them signing. The lack of understanding about certain clauses in the agreement leads me to believe that there is a misunderstanding about the relationship and service that Brickleys was employed for. Brickleys Property Solutions offers the service of property management to it's clients. We oversee the property and aid in minimizing risk. In order to do this Brickleys enters into an agency agreement with our clients. This agreement allows Brickleys to make decisions and act on behalf of the property owner. Acting as the owner's agent means the owner had given Brickleys the authority to make decisions based on Brickleys' opinion of the situation. Our management agreement then creates boundaries for both the property owner and Brickleys on how to make these decisions. The holds harmless clause is one of the boundardies set out in the management agreement and is a standard clause that Brickleys uses. This clause was originally developed for use in the forms offered to real estate professionals by the New Mexico Real Estate Commission. The purpose of this clause is to make clear to all parties that Brickleys, the property manager, is not assuming financial responsibility of the property and that all liability still lies with the principle party, the property owner. So, even though the owner has asked Brickleys to make decisions on their behalf, they, the property owner, are still the party responsible and held liable for those decisions.In Brickleys opinion the toilet issues were addressed in a timely manner and the vendors actions were an acceptable response to the reported issue. We stand behind Brickleys' and the vendor, [redacted]'s actions. While you are entitled to your own opinion of the events, the management agreement and its boundaries do not hold Brickleys responsibile for a difference of opinions nor does a differences of opinion transfer liability away from the owner.Brickleys understands this was an unfortunate event and recommends contacting your attorney to review the agreement you have with Brickleys and get additional advise on other options you can pursue to aid in remedying the situation.Thank you, Cass S[redacted]Brickleys Property Solutions9680 Eagle Ranch Rd NW Suite 6Albuquerque, NM 87114
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Work order #[redacted] was not addressed appropriately and timely by Brickley's LLC. The tenants reported water damage around the toilet, and Brickley's did assign the work order for repairs. Water damage does not stop for an unknown reason, and should have been properly investigated by a licensed professional especially in connection with the leak reported a month earlier. Further investigation was warranted at this time, and was my expectation that it would have been per our management agreement. I received a copy of the work order and by no responding, I relied on Brickley's to have a professional address the issue. Instead Brickley's made the decision not to address the maintenance request initialed by the tenant. Brickley's failed to meet their obligation to me to address all maintenance requests put forth by the tenant. It is not reasonable that a leak would just stop, they did not perform their obligations to me with due diligence as reasonably expected. Any reasonable person or home owner would expect that a professional plumber be engaged to investigate any water damage on the floor near a toilet. Obviously there was an issue with the toilet at this time (as evidenced by the later requests and resulting damage), and if it had been investigated and properly repaired at this time the property would not have sustained severe water damage.The repairs completed by Brickley's related party/in house vendor [redacted] on workorder #[redacted] were grossly inadequate. Tightening bolts and not thoroughly investigating the toilet for any additional issues does point to negligence. The final diagnosis of the problem in August of a licensed plumber discovered the problem as a bad gasket. [redacted] should have thoroughly inspected the toilet, as a licensed plumber would have (and eventually did) to see if this were an issue at this time. [redacted] and Brickelys were not reasonable in their assurances that this was an intermittent problem. Any property owner would expect that more than just tightening of bolts would correct the issue.If the Revdex.com would like copies of my correspondence with Brickelys and final diagnosis I would be more than happy to send them. As to the management agreement, I would never have signed nor would I believe that any property owner would, if it is understood that Brickley's and their maintenance company be held harmless for all of their actions. They had an obligation to me to address maintance requests and they failed to meet this obligation. They also had an obligation to hire a professional suitable for the job, as evidenced by the sever damage, they did not. If their defense from liability is this section of the management agreement, the Revdex.com should be made aware of this, and other prospective property owners looking to list their property with them should be warned!
Regards,
[redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I have already described in detail in my original complaint all of the charges that I felt were unfair and overpriced. As an aside, regarding the pictures attached to business response, the color is off. In reality there were no discolorations present like that on interior or exterior walls. The pictures do not include the rest of the house that would support that the house was very clean and well maintained. Also there are duplicate pictures of the same area. There were three areas of dog feces, but the pictures make it seem like many more areas. We did pay a non refundable pet deposit on top of our damage deposit. I have no issue with the water bill being paid from deposit.
Regards,
[redacted]
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Although I recognize Brickley's attempt to rectify the unfair overcharging for painting and clean up of the rental house we vacated, I do not believe the response addresses many of the other charges that were taken from our damage deposit which were unjustified and unnecessary. I would happily accept Brickley's retaining damage deposit funds for carpet shampooing and minor clean up and touch up paint which should be no more than $300-500. Which means I believe we should receive a refund of at least $1000.
Regards,
[redacted]
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
I have reviewed the remaining charges on the invoice, including the owed water bills on the account The charges are in line with industry standards for the work that was performed I would need an itemized list of the transactions on the invoice the client feels are unfair and why in order to understand their objection to the remaining charges I have attached the move out accounting [redacted]
I am sorry to hear that your experience with Brickleys was less than satisfactory Brickleys strives to keep applicants to our properties informed on how our process works and what is required to be approved through our application process Brickleys application process requires two approvals When an application is received in our office it is sent to the property owner to give an initial approval At this time the owner is reviewing the information presented in the application and approving based on the length of lease, modate, and rent amount requested At this time the owner is also approving any pets that may be listed on the application and deciding on a pet fee Once the owner gives their initial approval, the applicant is contacted and advised of that Brickleys then notifies them that based on the initial approval, we will move forward with screening the applicants to ensure they are qualified for the home If the applicants are interested in moving forward we collect the screening fee When the fee is collected Brickleys explains what we will be looking at during the application process This information is also included in the initial application they submit for the property During our screening process we look at the applicants’ credit report, rental history, criminal history and income Based on review of these items Brickleys makes a decision if the applicant is qualified for the home In the [redacted] ’s case they were notified at the time their applications were submitted that the property had work in progress and was not available to be viewed When our vendor advised work was complete we notified the applicants and allowed them access to the home This was at the same time our inspector was going to the property to do a quality control check of the work completed Our inspector and the applicant both notified Brickleys of work that had been missed by our vendor We apologized to the tenant for not have the work completed during their viewing and thanked them for providing this information Our service department was then notified to have the vendor go back out to complete the missed items At the time the applicants notified Brickleys of the work needed, they agreed to move forward with screening, and submitted payment of their screening fees Upon collection of the screening fees, I was notified and immediately began the screening process The screening process took approximately minutes at which time it became clear that their credit was not in a state that Brickleys would feel comfortable moving forward Their criminal history did not show any results and their income met our requirements, but the combination of results of the credit report and lack of comparable rental history did not allow Brickleys to move forward The applicants were promptly notified by our leasing agent at which time they became very upset and requested to speak with a manager During my conversation with the [redacted] f I explained the details of what had shown up on the credit report and why that meant they were declinedThe applicants requested we reconsider and allow the property owner to review their application because they loved the home and wanted to purchase it in the future I let the applicants know as a courtesy to them we would notify the owner and provide the owner their contact information, but that the owner may not respond or reach out to them as they have hired Brickleys to make these decisions The applicants thanked me and ended the call At that time an email was sent to the property owner with the applicants screening materials and contact information The owner promptly responded that they agreed with our assessment of the screening and did not wish to contact or move forward with the applicants Thank you! [redacted] [redacted] / [redacted] Style Definitions */
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I have already described in detail in my original complaint all of the charges that I felt were unfair and overpricedAs an aside, regarding the pictures attached to business response, the color is offIn reality there were no discolorations present like that on interior or exterior wallsThe pictures do not include the rest of the house that would support that the house was very clean and well maintainedAlso there are duplicate pictures of the same areaThere were three areas of dog feces, but the pictures make it seem like many more areasWe did pay a non refundable pet deposit on top of our damage deposit I have no issue with the water bill being paid from deposit Regards, [redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
I already responded to this complaint back near August 1st, please check your records to see if you have it Thank You! After reviewing the move out accounting in more detail, I believe the following charges were overcharged to the tenant: $painting plus tax $General Landscape plus tax Total refund due to client is: $ I just need instructions on where / how they would like us to send out the refund check Thank you! [redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The response from brickleys is inaccurate of the events that took placeWe were never told that they had an investigator going to the propertyThey're was more information in that response then there was in any of the conversations I had with any of the employeesWhen we asked about the owner the manager said she would forward me a copy of the email, but I never heard backSo once again the facility lied, as they did on numerous occasions that is coming to view nowI refuse to accept this response not only because of the way we were treated, but because people in general should not be disrespected the way this company treats people Regards, [redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I do not believe this is a misunderstanding of a contract, rather it is the reluctance by you to admit wrongdoing and make yourself accountable for failing to met your duties. Your reliance on the hold harmless clause is very disappointing, your company was undeserving of my business and my trustThe contract obliged you to answer all maintenance requests by the Tenant, the hold harmless clause does not exempt you of this obligation you agreed to in the contract. I relied upon you to fulfill this obligation competently and with due diligence to ensure that the property was kept safe and address issues so that they would not become bigger problems. In consideration for the commissions I paid you I expected you to respond to all maintenance request as you had agreed to. For the plus years prior to this incident you answered ALL maintenance requests timely no matter how small and seemingly minor. You never once let a request go unanswered, and ALWAYS sent the maintenance company to investigate Because of the past history with maintenance requests you fostered a reliance that all requests would be addressed timely. You failed to have one of the initial maintenance requests responded to, and now assert that not having it addressed by the vendor was the appropriate decision because the leak stopped. This is not ordinary and reasonable care, and is not up to the standards you set by responding to prior requests. A report of a leak with obvious water damage should have been investigated promptly and thoroughly. This was not an unreasonable expectation.The second issue is that when the leak was finally addressed by the vendor he merely tightened the bolts. Again this is not a reasonable course of action. When the leak happened the second time the first action of the licensed plumber, which I hired when I took over the maintenance request, was to take apart the toilet to accurately diagnose the problem It is not possible for you to dispute of the work of the vendor objectively since it is a related party. The repair was not reasonable or adequate and I do not believe you handled my initial dispute request at arms length.The lack of having the maintenance request answered, and the improper repair facilitated the damage, damage that would have been mitigated had you responded timely and with due care that I had come to expect. Mistakes happen and I understand if this request was inadvertently missed, but the appropriate action is to take responsibility for the part this company played in facilitating the damage of this magnitudeI do not accept that your hold harmless clause exempts you from not following your other obligations as stated in the contract
Regards,
*** *** [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
I have reviewed the remaining charges on the invoice, including the owed water bills on the account. The charges are in line with industry standards for the work that was performed. I would need an itemized list of the transactions on the invoice the client feels are unfair and why in order to understand their objection to the remaining charges. I have attached the move out accounting.
[redacted]
I already responded to this complaint back near August 1st, please check your records to see if you have it. Thank You!
After reviewing the move out accounting in more detail, I believe the following charges were overcharged to the tenant:
$500 painting plus tax
$100 General Landscape...
plus tax
Total refund due to client is: $642.00
I just need instructions on where / how they would like us to send out the refund check.
Thank you!
[redacted]
In response to the complaint filed by [redacted] on November 4th, 2014, Brickleys has included the timeline and finds and conclusions sent to [redacted] on August 11th, 2014. Brickleys did not receive a response from [redacted] in regards to this letter.
The
following is a time...
line of events of any leak related work done on
the toilet and Brickleys' assessment of the damage caused.
1st
Work order: We received a work order #[redacted] on March 10th
2014 which included several items, one of which mentioned the toilet
upstairs which stated:
6) Upstairs toilet is running.
Conclusion:
This work order was scheduled on March 20tth. We were
invoiced on March 31st by [redacted] for this
repair, however, there was no charge for the repair of the upstairs
toilet, only a charge for replacing the downstairs toilet valve kit.
This conclusion was based on the following work order which states:
“The toilet was working fine after it was fixed before we left”.
2nd Work Order: We received
a work order #[redacted] on on April 6th 2014 which stated the following:
Just came home
from a one week vacation. The wood flooring in the upstairs
bathroom is discolored as if it was wet when we were gone. The
surface of the flooring was dry when we arrived home. The toilet
was working fine after it was fixed before we left and has worked
fine since we have been back home. I therefore have no idea where
this moisture has come from. It is contained only into the wood
squares around the toilet area and not into the larger sink area
of the bathroom.
Conclusion:
Because the report indicated the flooring was dry, it was not
screened in as an emergency. Before work order #[redacted] was scheduled,
we received another work order.
3rd
Work Order: On April 9th 2014 we received work order
#[redacted], which stated the following:
Just called your office to tell you that nobody had called about
my first work order Sunday involving an unknown source of water
which destroyed the upstairs wood floor around the toilet. I now
have water in the garage as well, which has also gotten into my
personal items. Spoke to Cass and told her someone needed to get
out here and find out what the source of the water is. She told
me that she will contact a vendor and try to have someone come
out here sometime this afternoon.
Conclusion:
This work order was screened in as an emergency and responded to same
day. Our vendor [redacted] found a crack in the shut off
valve in the garage leaking water. The shut off valve was replaced
and the leak stopped. Total charge on invoice was $127.74.
4th
Work Order: On June 12th 2014 we received work order
#[redacted], which stated the following:
Upstairs- wood
flooring soaked from the water closet to the loft. Wood
flooring soaking wet- water comes up when you step on the floor.
Started last night.
Conclusion:
This work order was screened in as an emergency and repaired same
day. Vendor [redacted] indicated the toilet was leaking
at the tank to bowl seal. On the invoice they said they tightened
the tank bolts and checked for cracks and indicated “All is good”.
Total invoice was $124.12.
5th
Work Order: On July 21st 2014, we received work order
#[redacted] which stated the following:
The water is leaking from the toilet and soaking underneath the
wood floor yet again upstairs.
Conclusion:
Owner was notified by phone of the emergency. Property owner
indicated she was going to take over the work order and send out a
plumber. Work order was canceled due to owner taking over work
order.
On
August 7th 2014, Brickleys received a letter from the
property owner alleging negligence by [redacted] and/or
Brickleys LLC of the handling of work orders which resulted in
significant property damage from a water leak. Property owners
indicated the water leak has caused dangerous mold and flooring
damage, both which had to be re-mediated and repaired. Property
owner estimated damages listed were approximately $6128.00.
FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSION:
Based
on the time line of events and the types of repairs that were
performed, it is my conclusion that [redacted] and/or
Brickleys LLC handled each work order appropriately and in a timely
manner and do not have any liability for the costs associated with
the water damage at the property. We recommend the property owner
file a claim with their insurance company to try and recover damages
from the water leaks.
My
conclusion is based on the following information:
1st
work order #[redacted] dated March 10th 2014 was in reference to
a running toilet and is unrelated to any water leaks.
2nd
work order # [redacted] dated April 6th 2014 reported a water
leak that had already occurred and the floor was reported as dry at
this time. Some of the water damage may have occurred during the
time the tenants were out of town, but stopped for an unknown reason
by the time the tenants returned home. There was no way for the
tenants or Brickleys to be aware of any damage occurring during the
time the tenants were out of town.
3rd
work order #[redacted] dated April 9th 2014 reported an existing
water leak problem in the garage. This work order was responded to
and repaired same day. The result of the repair was a cracked water
valve in the garage and was not related to any previous work orders
surrounding the upstairs toilet leaks.
4th
work order #[redacted] reported on June 12th 2014 reported a new
water leak around the upstairs toilet and the toilet area was soaked.
Report also said, “started last night”. Because this work order
was more than 60 days after the last repair, was reported in a
different location and was reported as recently started, it is
reasonable to conclude this new report was not related to any
previous repairs done, but was related to an intermittent, unknown
problem. The conclusion of the vendor was that the toilet was
leaking at the seal between the tank and the bowl. The vendor
tightened the seal and indicated no continued problems at the time.
Whereas a complete gasket replacement may have been a more cautious
repair, there was no information that would have indicated that a
tightening of the gasket would have not been sufficient. In
addition, because of the reports of a water leak while the tenants
were on vacation and the report of water damage on this instance, it
is reasonable to conclude the water damage had already occurred
before work order #5 was reported. The water damage appears to have
been caused by a intermittently leaking gasket that would
re-seal/stop leaking after some time, causing the problem to stop and
preventing the problem from being found. This could be explained by
normal use of the toilet of applying pressure to the tank with the
users back, causing a leak in the seal at the base of the reservoir
tank. Then, as the weight of the water settles the gasket, it stops
leaking. This appears to have been the problem that caused the
damage and repeated leaks that appeared to stop on their own.
In
conclusion, the management agreement between the property owner and
Brickleys Property Solutions LLC indicates that the property owner
holds Brickleys and its vendors harmless from any damage costs
associated with the property. This is cited on page 6, paragraph 8
of the management agreement. Therefore, unless clear evidence is
presented showing reckless and careless neglect of the client and/or
property, Brickleys and/or it's vendors do not have any liability for
property damage in this case.
The
result of property damage is unfortunate in this circumstance and we
regret the damage occurred, but feel this is an appropriate instance
to seek remedy of damages from insurance due to circumstances that
have no fault of any entity. We always strive to provide the most
professional, prompt and quality service to all of our clients and
hope the results of this investigation are clear and convincing based on the
evidence provided.
Than
you for allowing us to serve you!
I am sorry to hear that your experience with Brickleys was
less than satisfactory. Brickleys strives
to keep applicants to our properties informed on how our process works and what
is required to be approved through our application process
Brickleys application process
requires two approvals. When an application is received in our office
it is sent to the property owner to give an initial approval. At this time the owner is reviewing the information
presented in the application and approving based on the length of lease,
modate, and rent amount requested.
At this time the owner is also approving any pets that may be listed on
the application and deciding on a pet fee
Once the owner gives their initial approval, the applicant
is contacted and advised of that.
Brickleys then notifies them that based on the initial approval, we will
move forward with screening the applicants to ensure they are qualified for the
home. If the applicants are interested
in moving forward we collect the screening fee.
When the fee is collected Brickleys explains what we will be looking at
during the application process. This
information is also included in the initial application they submit for the
property. During our screening process
we look at the applicants' credit report, rental history, criminal history and
income. Based on review of these items
Brickleys makes a decision if the applicant is qualified for the home
In the [redacted]'s case they were notified at the time their
applications were submitted that the property had work in progress and was not
available to be viewed. When our vendor
advised work was complete we notified the applicants and allowed them access to
the home. This was at the same time our
inspector was going to the property to do a quality control check of the work
completed. Our inspector and the applicant
both notified Brickleys of work that had been missed by our vendor. We apologized to the tenant for not have the work completed during their viewing and thanked them for providing this information. Our service department was then notified
to have the vendor go back out to complete the missed items.
At the time the applicants notified Brickleys of the work needed, they
agreed to move forward with screening, and submitted payment of their screening
fees
Upon collection of the screening fees, I was notified and
immediately began the screening process.
The screening process took approximately minutes at which time it
became clear that their credit was not in a state that Brickleys would feel
comfortable moving forward. Their
criminal history did not show any results and their income met our
requirements, but the combination of results of the credit report and lack of
comparable rental history did not allow Brickleys to move forward. The applicants were promptly notified by our
leasing agent at which time they became very upset and requested to speak with
a manager
During my conversation with the [redacted]f I explained
the details of what had shown up on the credit report and why that meant they
were declinedThe applicants requested we reconsider and allow the property
owner to review their application because they loved the home and wanted to
purchase it in the future. I let the applicants know
as a courtesy to them we would notify the owner and provide the owner their
contact information, but that the owner may not respond or reach out to them as
they have hired Brickleys to make these decisions. The applicants thanked me and ended the call. At that time an email was sent to the
property owner with the applicants screening materials and contact
information. The owner promptly
responded that they agreed with our assessment of the screening and did not wish
to contact or move forward with the applicants. Thank you! [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The response from brickleys is inaccurate of the events that took place. We were never told that they had an investigator going to the property. They're was more information in that response then there was in any of the conversations I had with any of the employees. When we asked about the owner the manager said she would forward me a copy of the email, but I never heard back. So once again the facility lied, as they did on numerous occasions that is coming to view now. I refuse to accept this response not only because of the way we were treated, but because people in general should not be disrespected the way this company treats people.
Regards,
[redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
[redacted], After reviewing your response, I see that understanding the contract between Brickleys and yourself is an area of concern. Brickleys makes a point to review our management agreements and answer any questions or concerns an owner may have with the agreement prior to them signing. The lack of understanding about certain clauses in the agreement leads me to believe that there is a misunderstanding about the relationship and service that Brickleys was employed for. Brickleys Property Solutions offers the service of property management to it's clients. We oversee the property and aid in minimizing risk. In order to do this Brickleys enters into an agency agreement with our clients. This agreement allows Brickleys to make decisions and act on behalf of the property owner. Acting as the owner's agent means the owner had given Brickleys the authority to make decisions based on Brickleys' opinion of the situation. Our management agreement then creates boundaries for both the property owner and Brickleys on how to make these decisions. The holds harmless clause is one of the boundardies set out in the management agreement and is a standard clause that Brickleys uses. This clause was originally developed for use in the forms offered to real estate professionals by the New Mexico Real Estate Commission. The purpose of this clause is to make clear to all parties that Brickleys, the property manager, is not assuming financial responsibility of the property and that all liability still lies with the principle party, the property owner. So, even though the owner has asked Brickleys to make decisions on their behalf, they, the property owner, are still the party responsible and held liable for those decisions.In Brickleys opinion the toilet issues were addressed in a timely manner and the vendors actions were an acceptable response to the reported issue. We stand behind Brickleys' and the vendor, [redacted]'s actions. While you are entitled to your own opinion of the events, the management agreement and its boundaries do not hold Brickleys responsibile for a difference of opinions nor does a differences of opinion transfer liability away from the owner.Brickleys understands this was an unfortunate event and recommends contacting your attorney to review the agreement you have with Brickleys and get additional advise on other options you can pursue to aid in remedying the situation.Thank you, Cass S[redacted]Brickleys Property Solutions9680 Eagle Ranch Rd NW Suite 6Albuquerque, NM 87114
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Work order #[redacted] was not addressed appropriately and timely by Brickley's LLC. The tenants reported water damage around the toilet, and Brickley's did assign the work order for repairs. Water damage does not stop for an unknown reason, and should have been properly investigated by a licensed professional especially in connection with the leak reported a month earlier. Further investigation was warranted at this time, and was my expectation that it would have been per our management agreement. I received a copy of the work order and by no responding, I relied on Brickley's to have a professional address the issue. Instead Brickley's made the decision not to address the maintenance request initialed by the tenant. Brickley's failed to meet their obligation to me to address all maintenance requests put forth by the tenant. It is not reasonable that a leak would just stop, they did not perform their obligations to me with due diligence as reasonably expected. Any reasonable person or home owner would expect that a professional plumber be engaged to investigate any water damage on the floor near a toilet. Obviously there was an issue with the toilet at this time (as evidenced by the later requests and resulting damage), and if it had been investigated and properly repaired at this time the property would not have sustained severe water damage.The repairs completed by Brickley's related party/in house vendor [redacted] on workorder #[redacted] were grossly inadequate. Tightening bolts and not thoroughly investigating the toilet for any additional issues does point to negligence. The final diagnosis of the problem in August of a licensed plumber discovered the problem as a bad gasket. [redacted] should have thoroughly inspected the toilet, as a licensed plumber would have (and eventually did) to see if this were an issue at this time. [redacted] and Brickelys were not reasonable in their assurances that this was an intermittent problem. Any property owner would expect that more than just tightening of bolts would correct the issue.If the Revdex.com would like copies of my correspondence with Brickelys and final diagnosis I would be more than happy to send them. As to the management agreement, I would never have signed nor would I believe that any property owner would, if it is understood that Brickley's and their maintenance company be held harmless for all of their actions. They had an obligation to me to address maintance requests and they failed to meet this obligation. They also had an obligation to hire a professional suitable for the job, as evidenced by the sever damage, they did not. If their defense from liability is this section of the management agreement, the Revdex.com should be made aware of this, and other prospective property owners looking to list their property with them should be warned!
Regards,
[redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I have already described in detail in my original complaint all of the charges that I felt were unfair and overpriced. As an aside, regarding the pictures attached to business response, the color is off. In reality there were no discolorations present like that on interior or exterior walls. The pictures do not include the rest of the house that would support that the house was very clean and well maintained. Also there are duplicate pictures of the same area. There were three areas of dog feces, but the pictures make it seem like many more areas. We did pay a non refundable pet deposit on top of our damage deposit. I have no issue with the water bill being paid from deposit.
Regards,
[redacted]
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Although I recognize Brickley's attempt to rectify the unfair overcharging for painting and clean up of the rental house we vacated, I do not believe the response addresses many of the other charges that were taken from our damage deposit which were unjustified and unnecessary. I would happily accept Brickley's retaining damage deposit funds for carpet shampooing and minor clean up and touch up paint which should be no more than $300-500. Which means I believe we should receive a refund of at least $1000.
Regards,
[redacted]
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]