C & B Realty

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:I disagree with C&Bs rebuttal My response is based on facts, not conjecture, or irrelevant points of references Their response is unrelated to the facts and misleading at bestWe believe we are entitle to the withheld money ($268), or at a minimum, for other consumers to be fully aware of C&B Realty practices and give them the opportunity to take their business elsewhere I will address each point of their responseC&B: “We have not violated the act and comply with all requirements of the act.”False They refused to recognize retirement orders as PCS orders, as is required by law in accordance with the SCRA and JTRThey acknowledge the fact that “would not be able to break the lease due to retirement” in their rebuttal C&B clearly stated they were not PCS orders and we based our decision to move on this The SCRA (2013) and JTR(2014) clearly defines a PCS, as I spelled out in my initial complaint C&B: “The tenant declined the renewal and stated that he wanted to renew on a month to month basis due to impending retirement and the completion of his new home.”This point is misleading and irrelevant We were considering retirement at this time, but still waiting for news on promotion or reassignment We were not building a home and actually live in an apartment and are not in the process of buying or building a homeWe never were building a home and never stated that we were C&B: “We explained that a month to month renewal was not being offered and that if he renewed for one year he would not be able to break the lease with the early termination for military service paragraph of the lease due to retirement and completion of his new home due to the area restrictions.” On the document we received it had the option of renewing the lease or month-to-month When we told them we wanted month-to-month they stated they don’t do that because it’s difficult to rent in the fall months They also related that a month-to-month is not convenient to them This is clearly different than me simply refusing the month-to-monthoption C&B clearly states in their rebuttal that “he would not be able to break the lease with the early termination for military service paragraph.” This is what we based our moving out decision on, and their practice clearly violates the SCRA law Retirement orders are clearly defined in the JTR, [redacted] .The SCRA outlines the law, [redacted] .We were not building a home or buying a home Nor are we currently building or buying a home The “area restrictions” are completely unrelated to this claim and is cited from an outdated document (2012) See #for further details The JTR reference C&B cites is both outdated (2012, when current is published) and completely irrelevant to this claimTheir point is based on a mile distance to relocate That has nothing to do with the decision they made based on not recognizing retirement orders as PCS orders When they made their decision I hadn’t retired from the military yet, so my options for service were still open We didn’t have a new address yet, so the “50-mile distance test” is irrelevant and should be discarded This paragraph from the JTR has nothing to do with this claim This may actually relate to a no cost/low cost PCS move, which I’ve experienced in my career C&B: “Distance TestThe distance test is met when the new PDS is at least miles further from the employee's current residence than the old PDS is from the same residence.” Irrelevant and completely unrelated point At the time of their decision, we didn’t even know where we were moving or possible address This is an attempt to mislead C&B: “The tenant had stated that he would contact the JAG office on the base which we indicated was no problem and as of this date we have not received any notification orclarification from that office of his position regarding his lease.” It is not our responsibility to provide guidance and clarification of an existing law to a business that clearly wants to hide behind the law, then deflect to the customer/tenant of theresponsibility to follow the law We based our decision to move on simply not wanting to deal with ignorance and the lack of professionalism exhibited by C&B We wanted to move on, until they kept our money and attacked our integrity C&B: “It is standard procedure during our move out inspections of the property to photograph the condition (this is not a violation of SRCA).”Correct I would contest that the photographs would demonstrate, just like their own words referring to the SCRA, that our claim is validC&B: “We make every effort to assure that we are in compliance with SRCA and that we work with the service members within the parameters of the lease (governed by Texas Property Code paragraph 92.017).” They made no effort to work with me the service member and hide behind Texas Codes as their guidance The Federal guidance of the SCRA and JTR are the governing guidelines, of which they either ignored or willfully violated C&B: “The items which the tenant disputes are cleaning which was not completed prior to move outThough the tenant certainly made the attempt to leave the property in atidy condition there were items missed which required an additional cleaning prior to moving in a new tenant.” The home was cleaned to the point of being move in ready We did not take any photographs, which we now regret, but photos were taken I would argue these photos taken by C&B (“this is not a violation of SCRA”) would show the condition of the house and not dirty to the point of $cleaning charge When I asked to see receipts, I was told they weren’t required to show me, even though I was charged for the “service” Considering my experience with C&B and their misleading practices, I would hope the Revdex.com would want to see this receipt as proof I would also hope Revdex.com asks for the photos that [redacted] took Considering the number of moves we made over our military career, the claim that “thetenant certainly made the attempt” is a direct attack to our integrity and characterC&B: “The reference to the garbage disposal gasket was not made on the tenant move in condition form which was supplied to him to complete at the time of lease signing.” I concede that we did not [redacted] the disposal gasket as missing, but it was not supplied at move in as they stated I’m sure the previous tenant (homeowners) were fully aware of this safety concern This charge is excessive They state that I didn’t consider labor costs, but this part takes less than a minute to install, which includes removing from the package If they used the same maintenance personnel to install this part as the ones that installed the ceiling fans, which we purchased for the house, then I fully understandthis charge They took hours (this is a 15-min job) to install the first fan, while being confused by the instructions I’m assuming they weren’t licensed electricians, which the homeowner wanted a professional installation, as he agreed to pay for this serviceC&B: “The reference to salt for the water softner is also valid as the softner was not adequately filled at the time of move outThe tenant states that there was a problem with the water softner, however we had the device checked by a professional company and were told that the amount of salt that the unit uses is determined by the amount of water used by the occupant and that the amount indicated by the tenant as being used would indicate more water usage and would not be unusual.” Invalid point by C&B We put salt in the water softener prior to moving out and the house was vacant for two weeks before the end of the lease The “professional company” is 100% correct We used no water, because we weren’t in the house Thereby, the “unit uses is determined by the amount of water used by the occupant” points to my claim the water softener isn’t operating correctly It does a “purge” every day at am, which should be once a week, while we were there This point was made to [redacted] when he did a walk through about days before the end of the lease and (again) he was surprised when told that the service people hadn't been out since that time This again points to the validity of my claim and C&Bs misguiding practices“The tenant feels that the items charged were charged at too high of cost for the itemsWhat the tenant does not take into account is the time and labor we must pay to have these items done.” We should not be charged at all for these items/services But the fact that the charges are excessive for the very basic services provided is part of the reason for why I filed a claim I was not provided receipts of any of the charges, as they stated they weren't required to present them If I'm being charged for parts and labor, then I have a right to know exactly what I'm paying for I completely disagree with C&Bs counter-claim and believe we are entitled to the full $refunded to us My points are fact based and supported by current SCRA and JTR references I did not point to or attempt to bring in irrelevant information or misdirection Their unfair business practices and active deception is unsettling I am happy to further explain why our claim is valid and C&B’s points are invalid Regards, [redacted]

[redacted] Dear Sirs: This letter is in response to the complaint of Mr [redacted] (id # [redacted] ) regarding his lease with our companyI will address the complaint in two sectionsThe first complaint is that we violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)We have not violated the act and comply with all requirements of the actThe tenant had a lease with our company that expired on 7/31/and was offered a renewal of one yearThe tenant declined the renewal and stated that he wanted to renew on a month to month basis due to impending retirement and the completion of his new homeWe explained that a month to month renewal was not being offered and that if he renewed for one year he would not be able to break the lease with the early termination for military service paragraph of the lease due to retirement and completion of his new home due to the area restrictionsIn accordance with the "Military Flight Personnel" regulations section C5B- [redacted] ) (1.Authorization/ApprovalTravel and transportation allowances may be authorized/approved incident to a PCS when the PCS is aIn the GOVT's interest (responding to a vacancy announcement; is not at the employee's request), and bTo a new PDS that meets the 50-mile distance test in parC5080-Fbelow, and cResults in a residence relocationIn determining that the residence relocation is incident to the PCS, the AO must consider commuting time and distance between the: (1) Residence at the time of PCS notification and the old and new PDSs, and (2) The proposed new residence and the new PDSOrdinarily, a residence relocation is not incident to a PCS unless the employee's proposed new residence is closer to the new PDS than the employee's old residence (i.e., the residence from which the employee commuted daily to the old PDS)See parC5080-Ffor exceptionsDistance TestThe distance test is met when the new PDS is at least miles further from the employee's current residence than the old PDS is from the same residenceFor example, if the old PDS is miles from the current residence, then the new PDS must be at least miles from that same residenceThe distance between the PDS and residence is the shortest of the commonly traveled routes between them.)The tenant had stated that he would contact the JAG office on the base which we indicated was no problem and as of this date we have not received any notification or clarification from that office of his position regarding his leaseThe tenant then stated that he would give his notice to vacate which we acceptedIt is standard procedure during our move out inspections of the property to photograph the condition (this is not a violation of SRCA).I respectfully disagree with the tenant's assessment of the application of SRCA in this situationWe make every effort to assure that we are in compliance with SRCA and that we work with the service members within the parameters of the lease (governed by Texas Property Code paragraph 92.017)At this time it is our position that the lease expired on terms and no renewal was accepted.The second complaint is that we unfairly or unjustly charged the tenant for items at the move outThis is a totally separate issue and not related in any way to SRCAIn, accordance with the written lease and agreed upon terms we have made an accounting of the deposit in full to the tenant and we have submitted his refund to himThe items which the tenant disputes are cleaning which was not completed prior to move outThough the tenant certainly made the attempt to leave the property in a tidy condition there were items missed which required an additional cleaning prior to moving in a new tenantThe reference to the garbage disposal gasket was not made on the tenant move in condition form which was supplied to him to complete at the time of lease signingWe use this form at the time of move out to insure that we do not charge a tenant for an item that was present at their move inThis was explained to the tenant at the time of lease signing and the form was completed by the tenant with no assistance from our staff This is to insure that the tenant is free to notate all items they note to be deficientThe reference to salt for the water softner is also valid as the softner was not adequately filled at the time of move outThe tenant states that there was a problem with the water softner, however we had the device checked by a professional company and were told that the amount of salt that the unit uses is determined by the amount of water used by the occupant and that the amount indicated by the tenant as being used would indicate more water usage and would not be unusualThe tenant feels that the items charged were charged at too high of cost for the itemsWhat the tenant does not take into account is the time and labor we must pay to have these items doneWe do not surcharge any items and simply pass on the cost charged by our contractor.There will be no return of security deposit beyond the amount previously refunded to the tenantWe respectfully request that this complaint be closed as settled and be known that we are in full complianceI am enclosing copies of our documentation for your review.Sincerely, [redacted] [redacted] ***

Dear Sirs:The following is our response to complaint ***.Mr*** was a resident in our property from 6/25/through 6/22/and did pay rent on time as statedAt the time of our move out inspection the tenant was not present nor was his wifeNo forwarding address was received by
our officeAs per Texas Property Code we are not required to account for the deposit until a forwarding address is received, however our policy is to do the accounting and send to the address in the event the tenant has left a forwarding address with the post officeWe sent our accounting to the address on July 31, (copy enclosed)We did not receive our letter back by return mail so it is assumed that the tenant received itWe gave the tenant sufficient time to respond and make full payment which they did not do; resulting in a referral to our collection agencyAt this time there is a balance due of $plus the collection fees of 40%.Attached please find pictures which were taken at the time of our move out inspection on 6/22/clearly showing the damages and debris left by the tenantAccording to the lease the tenant was responsible for all cleaning of the property, removal of all personal belongings, and carpet cleaning (must provide a receipt from professional carpet cleaner)None of these items were done.The tenant was never at any time authorized to do any repairs at the property nor pay for any repairs doneAny items they may have repaired was strictly prohibited and not reported to our office in writing as required by the lease.At this time no adjustment will be made to the amount owed by the tenantAll charges are verified and due at this time

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:We did leave personal items, small kitchen appliances & other miscitems behind which is why I did not bother requesting for my DEPOSITI moved over seas and didn't have sufficient time to remove these items from the property. This house is entirely equipped with very old and out dated appliances, lighting, ceiling fans, doors, door knobs, door stops, closets, windows (house built in 1962)I completely deny damaging the property (i.ecloset shelf missing) and due to age & out dated home it is only reasonable that a door stop broke, toilet paper holder missing, closet door hinge never worked, and so onit is not tenants responsibility to prepare house for a move in ready conditionproperty management company used my deposit for so called "repairs" which were over charged. Regards,*** ***

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:I disagree with C&Bs rebuttal.  My response is based on facts, not conjecture, or irrelevant points of references.  Their response is unrelated to the facts and misleading at best. We believe we are entitle to the withheld money ($268), or at a minimum, for other consumers to be fully aware of C&B Realty practices and give them the opportunity to take their business elsewhere.  I will address each point of their response.1. C&B: “We have not violated the act and comply with all requirements of the act.”False.  They refused to recognize retirement orders as PCS orders, as is required by law in accordance with the SCRA and JTR. They acknowledge the fact that “would not be able to break the lease due to retirement” in their rebuttal.  C&B clearly stated they were not PCS orders and we based our decision to move on this.  The SCRA (2013) and JTR(2014) clearly defines a PCS, as I spelled out in my initial complaint.2.  C&B:  “The tenant declined the renewal and stated that he wanted to renew on a month to month basis due to impending retirement and the completion of his new home.”This point is misleading and irrelevant.  We were considering retirement at this time, but still waiting for news on promotion or reassignment.  We were not building a home and actually live in an apartment and are not in the process of buying or building a home. We never were building a home and never stated that we were.  3. C&B: “We explained that a month to month renewal was not being offered and that if he renewed for one year he would not be able to break the lease with the early termination for military service paragraph of the lease due to retirement and completion of his new home due to the area restrictions.” On the document we received it had the option of renewing the lease or month-to-month.  When we told them we wanted month-to-month they stated they don’t do that because it’s difficult to rent in the fall months.  They also related that a month-to-month is not convenient to them.  This is clearly different than me simply refusing the month-to-monthoption.  C&B clearly states in their rebuttal that “he would not be able to break the lease with the early termination for military service paragraph.”  This is what we based our moving out decision on, and their practice clearly violates the SCRA law.  Retirement orders are clearly defined in the JTR, 2014 [redacted].The SCRA outlines the law, [redacted].We were not building a home or buying a home.  Nor are we currently building or buying a home.  The “area restrictions” are completely unrelated to this claim and is cited from an outdated document (2012).  See #4 for further details.4.  The JTR reference C&B cites is both outdated (2012, when current 2014 is published) and completely irrelevant to this claim. Their point is based on a 50 mile distance to relocate.  That has nothing to do with the decision they made based on not recognizing retirement orders as PCS orders.  When they made their decision I hadn’t retired from the military yet, so my options for service were still open.  We didn’t have a new address yet, so the “50-mile distance test” is irrelevant and should be discarded.  This paragraph from the JTR has nothing to do with this claim.  This may actually relate to a no cost/low cost PCS move, which I’ve experienced in my career.5.  C&B: “Distance Test. The distance test is met when the new PDS is at least 50 miles further from the employee's current residence than the old PDS is from the same residence.” Irrelevant and completely unrelated point.  At the time of their decision, we didn’t even know where we were moving or possible address.  This is an attempt to mislead. 6.  C&B: “The tenant had stated that he would contact the JAG office on the base which we indicated was no problem and as of this date we have not received any notification orclarification from that office of his position regarding his lease.” It is not our responsibility to provide guidance and clarification of an existing law to a business that clearly wants to hide behind the law, then deflect to the customer/tenant of theresponsibility to follow the law.  We based our decision to move on simply not wanting to deal with ignorance and the lack of professionalism exhibited by C&B.  We wanted to move on, until they kept our money and attacked our integrity.7.  C&B: “It is standard procedure during our move out inspections of the property to photograph the condition (this is not a violation of SRCA).”Correct.  I would contest that the photographs would demonstrate, just like their own words referring to the SCRA, that our claim is valid.8. C&B: “We make every effort to assure that we are in compliance with SRCA and that we work with the service members within the parameters of the lease (governed by Texas Property Code paragraph 92.017).” They made no effort to work with me the service member and hide behind Texas Codes as their guidance.  The Federal guidance of the SCRA and JTR are the governing guidelines, of which they either ignored or willfully violated.9.  C&B: “The items which the tenant disputes are cleaning which was not completed prior to move out. Though the tenant certainly made the attempt to leave the property in atidy condition there were items missed which required an additional cleaning prior to moving in a new tenant.” The home was cleaned to the point of being move in ready.  We did not take any photographs, which we now regret, but photos were taken.  I would argue these photos taken by C&B (“this is not a violation of SCRA”) would show the condition of the house and not dirty to the point of $160 cleaning charge.  When I asked to see receipts, I was told they weren’t required to show me, even though I was charged for the “service”.  Considering my experience with C&B and their misleading practices, I would hope the Revdex.com would want to see this receipt as proof.  I would also hope Revdex.com asks for the photos that [redacted] took.  Considering the number of moves we made over our military career, the claim that “thetenant certainly made the attempt” is a direct attack to our integrity and character.10. C&B: “The reference to the garbage disposal gasket was not made on the tenant move in condition form which was supplied to him to complete at the time of lease signing.” I concede that we did not [redacted] the disposal gasket as missing, but it was not supplied at move in as they stated.  I’m sure the previous tenant (homeowners) were fully aware of this safety concern.  This charge is excessive.  They state that I didn’t consider labor costs, but this part takes less than a minute to install, which includes removing from the package.  If they used the same maintenance personnel to install this part as the ones that installed the ceiling fans, which we purchased for the house, then I fully understandthis charge.  They took 2 hours (this is a 15-30 min job) to install the first fan, while being confused by the instructions.  I’m assuming they weren’t licensed electricians, which the homeowner wanted a professional installation, as he agreed to pay for this service.11. C&B: “The reference to salt for the water softner is also valid as the softner was not adequately filled at the time of move out. The tenant states that there was a problem with the water softner, however we had the device checked by a professional company and were told that the amount of salt that the unit uses is determined by the amount of water used by the occupant and that the amount indicated by the tenant as being used would indicate more water usage and would not be unusual.” Invalid point by C&B.  We put salt in the water softener prior to moving out and the house was vacant for two weeks before the end of the lease.  The “professional company” is 100% correct.  We used no water, because we weren’t in the house.  Thereby, the “unit uses is determined by the amount of water used by the occupant” points to my claim the water softener isn’t operating correctly.  It does a “purge” every day at 3 am, which should be once a week, while we were there.  This point was made to [redacted] when he did a walk through about 60 days before the end of the lease and (again) he was surprised when told that the service people hadn't been out since that time.  This again points to the validity of my claim and C&Bs misguiding practices.12. “The tenant feels that the items charged were charged at too high of cost for the items. What the tenant does not take into account is the time and labor we must pay to have these items done.” We should not be charged at all for these items/services.  But the fact that the charges are excessive for the very basic services provided is part of the reason for why I filed a claim.  I was not provided receipts of any of the charges, as they stated they weren't required to present them.  If I'm being charged for parts and labor, then I have a right to know exactly what I'm paying for.  I completely disagree with C&Bs counter-claim and believe we are entitled to the full $268 refunded to us.  My points are fact based and supported by current SCRA and JTR references.  I did not point to or attempt to bring in irrelevant information or misdirection.  Their unfair business practices and active deception is unsettling.  I am happy to further explain why our claim is valid and C&B’s points are invalid.   Regards,[redacted]

[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] Dear Sirs: This letter is in response to the complaint of Mr. * (id #[redacted]) regarding his lease with our company. I will address the complaint in two sections. The first complaint is that we violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief...

Act (SCRA). We have not violated the act and comply with all requirements of the act. The tenant had a lease with our company that expired on 7/31/2015 and was offered a renewal of one year. The tenant declined the renewal and stated that he wanted to renew on a month to month basis due to impending retirement and the completion of his new home. We explained that a month to month renewal was not being offered and that if he renewed for one year he would not be able to break the lease with the early termination for military service paragraph of the lease due to retirement and completion of his new home due to the area restrictions. In accordance with the "Military Flight Personnel" regulations section C5B-18 [redacted]) (1.Authorization/Approval. Travel and transportation allowances may be authorized/approved incident to a PCS when the PCS is a. In the GOVT's interest (responding to a vacancy announcement; is not at the employee's request), and b. To a new PDS that meets the 50-mile distance test in par. C5080-F2 below, and c. Results in a residence relocation. In determining that the residence relocation is incident to the PCS, the AO must consider commuting time and distance between the: (1) Residence at the time of PCS notification and the old and new PDSs, and (2) The proposed new residence and the new PDS. Ordinarily, a residence relocation is not incident to a PCS unless the employee's proposed new residence is closer to the new PDS than the employee's old residence (i.e., the residence from which the employee commuted daily to the old PDS). See par. C5080-F3 for exceptions. 2. Distance Test. The distance test is met when the new PDS is at least 50 miles further from the employee's current residence than the old PDS is from the same residence. For example, if the old PDS is 3 miles from the current residence, then the new PDS must be  at least 53 miles from that same residence. The distance between the PDS and residence is the shortest of the commonly traveled routes between them.). The tenant had stated that he would contact the JAG office on the base which we indicated was no problem and as of this date we have not received any notification or clarification from that office of his position regarding his lease. The tenant then stated that he would give his notice to vacate which we accepted. It is standard procedure during our move out inspections of the property to photograph the condition (this is not a violation of SRCA).I respectfully disagree with the tenant's assessment of the application of SRCA in this situation. We make every effort to assure that we are in compliance with SRCA and that we work with the service members within the parameters of the lease (governed by Texas Property Code paragraph 92.017). At this time it is our position that the lease expired on normal terms and no renewal was accepted.The second complaint is that we unfairly or unjustly charged the tenant for items at the move out. This is a totally separate issue and not related in any way to SRCA. In, accordance with the written lease and agreed upon terms we have made an accounting of the deposit in full to the tenant and we have submitted his refund to him. The items which the tenant disputes are cleaning which was not completed prior to move out. Though the tenant certainly made the attempt to leave the property in a tidy condition there were items missed which required an additional cleaning prior to moving in a new tenant. The reference to the garbage disposal gasket was not made on the tenant move in condition form which was supplied to him to complete at the time of lease signing. We use this form at the time of move out to insure that we do not charge a tenant for an item that was present at their move in. This was explained to the tenant at the time of lease signing and the form was completed by the tenant with no assistance from our staff This is to insure that the tenant is free to notate all items they note to be deficient. The reference to salt for the water softner is also valid as the softner was not adequately filled at the time of move out. The tenant states that there was a problem with the water softner, however we had the device checked by a professional company and were told that the amount of salt that the unit uses is determined by the amount of water used by the occupant and that the amount indicated by the tenant as being used would indicate more water usage and would not be unusual. The tenant feels that the items charged were charged at too high of cost for the items. What the tenant does not take into account is the time and labor we must pay to have these items done. We do not surcharge any items and simply pass on the cost charged by our contractor.There will be no return of security deposit beyond the amount previously refunded to the tenant. We respectfully request that this complaint be closed as settled and be known that we are in full compliance. I am enclosing copies of our documentation for your review.Sincerely,[redacted]