Coldwell Banker Sudderth Nelson, Inc.

Maintenance
requests for [redacted] were sent to the property owner [redacted]
via email on Aug. 4, 2015.  These requests
included:
 
Repair services for the dishwasher
which was not draining properly.
2.    Repair to an under sink cabinet...

that
sustained previous water damage.
3.    Repairs to carpet has worn and tack
strip is exposed in 3 places.
4.    Repair to a ceiling fan in the master
bedroom because the fan light chain had broken off at the fan mechanism.
5.    Repair to the master bath jet tub
which does not appear to have power.
 
The Ms. [redacted] requested estimates only of all of these items and did not authorize
repairs for any of the items at that time.  Ms. [redacted] was
informed by our office that several of these items may not be available for a
free estimate but would require a service call paid to a qualified company to
address the situation.   On August 7, 2015 Ms.
[redacted] responded by email that she had declined
having an electrician check the fan as she did not want to pay a service
call.  Ms. [redacted] had
also by that time failed to approve service calls for any of the other items on
the list.  Ms. [redacted] did however
request updates on each of the repairs.  In
response to Ms. [redacted], the Property Manager Tamalyn F[redacted] wrote an email
on August 7, 2015 to again seek approval for repairs and confirm the status of
each issue.  This email included the
following specific request for her approval on services:
“In closing,
we need to know from you,
1) Can we
send the appliance service for the dishwasher?
2) Do you
want carpet repair/ replacement estimates?
3) Do you
want service sent to repair/replace the fan?”
 
In response
to the email Ms. [redacted] called our office and spoke with Ms. F[redacted].  During the conversation Ms. [redacted]
confirmed she had previously approved the under sink cabinet repair.  The prior tenant had requested that the
repair wait until they vacated as they did not want the inconvenience of the
work while they were in the home.  Now
that that tenant had vacated arrangements were being made to allow the repair
to happen for the new tenant.   Ms.
[redacted] acknowledged this arrangement but also stated that since so much time
had passed since she initially approved the under sink repair she felt like now
Coldwell Banker should not move forward with the repair until she decided to
give an updated approval to do so. 
 
During this
phone call Ms. [redacted] also addressed the ceiling fan issue.   Ms.
[redacted] indicated
that she wanted Coldwell Banker to call the tenant and ask them to try to
determine the best route for repair of the fan. 
Ms. [redacted] said the tenant should take the fan apart and
determine if the chain was broken in the motor or not. Ms. F[redacted] let Ms.
[redacted] know that we would not instruct the tenant to do so as this could
cause potential harm to the tenant.  The
tenant would possibly need to use a stool or ladder to reach the fan and would
also be disassembling an electric component. 
This could result in a fall or shock and would potentially jeopardize
the tenant’s safety.  Ms.
[redacted] said this is a simple issue that Coldwell Banker should ask the
tenant to perform and insisted that Coldwell Banker do so at her request as the
property owner.  Ms. F[redacted] responded
that Coldwell Banker could not comply with her request.  Ms. [redacted] then said if Coldwell Banker
would not ask the tenant to do this she would ask the tenant directly.  Ms. F[redacted] indicated this would be against
the advice of the property management company. 
Ms. [redacted] then asked “would this get
me out of my contract with you?”.  Ms.
F[redacted] responded that if Ms. [redacted] wanted out of her management
agreement that could be arranged but there would be associated fees for
breaking the agreement.  Ms.
[redacted] responded that she did
want out of the contract but that she did not want to pay to get out. 
 
Ms. [redacted] sent another email on August
7, 2015 that she was still considering carpet repairs.  Ms. [redacted] indicated that she believed
that there was carpet wrapped in plastic somewhere in the garage attic.  Ms. [redacted] wrote that Coldwell Banker
should have the tenant determine if it is still there.  This seems to indicate that Ms. [redacted]
would expect the tenant to climb stairs or a ladder into the attic and look
around in the attic for this material. 
This is another instance where Ms. [redacted] seems to be asking to
sacrifice the tenants’ health and safety rather than pay a qualified service
person to perform work at the property. 
 
Ms. [redacted] has,
to this date not provided approval for any of the items on the list except the
under sink damage for which she later revoked her approval.    
 
Ms. [redacted] was notified via email on August 10, 2015
that her expressed interest in terminating her management agreement is
acceptable to Coldwell Banker.  Coldwell
Banker informed her that it was apparent from the tone of Ms.
[redacted]’s
emails and her phone conversations with our office staff that there is a
communication issue between the office and herself.  
 
Ms. [redacted] was informed that there was
a history of her writing to Coldwell Banker and then contradicting her instructions
for the property with verbal communications where Ms. [redacted] would change or
retract her statements.  Ms.
[redacted] was informed that the request that Coldwell Banker have the
tenant perform mechanical services at the property (such as servicing the ceiling
fan) holds a potential for harm to the tenant. 
Coldwell Banker would request a professional service that
provides workman's compensation for their employees to perform such a
service.   Ms. [redacted]’s response
that she would require Coldwell Banker do or ask the tenant directly is a
directive against our policies.
 
Ms.
[redacted] was informed that per management agreement Coldwell Banker could charge
for management fee compensation through the term of the agreement which expires
March 19, 2017 or to the end of the current lease term which is July 31,
2017.  Coldwell Banker is willing to reduce this fee to the equivalent of
1 years management fees equaling $1200.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: the owner of the business did not even address the fact that his agents were showing my home without permission or the fact that I had not been made aware of the repairs that needed to be done. Also, the picture that he sent of the refrigerator did not address the area where there is a crack and the picture is from before the tenants even moved out. I feel like they do not want to take any ownership over their mistakes and lack of management. 
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 the complaint will be closed Answered]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I feel that the response of the company to get the flooring fixed was not conducted in a timely manner. I was unaware of any issues with the flooring when I moved out of the house in January 2015. The complaint was made by the tenants in August 2016, yet was not attended to until December 2016. Also, on move out inspection there were many items such as missing closet doors and broken blinds that were not noted. Coldwell continually told me that they were not sure of the previous condition so they did not want to charge the tenants any more. This goes against what they are now claiming, as they are now referring back to the initial inspection. I do not feel that they did their jobs in attending to the property. I am not asking them to cover any additional costs I have incurred. I am asking to be reimbursed for management fees since I do not feel that they have adequately managed my property. 
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 the complaint will be closed Answered]

RESPONSE TO COLDWELL BANKER referencing complain number [redacted] 1]. I disagree with Mr. N[redacted]’s following statement; “After negotiating with the Sellers, the Sellers agreed to put the funds in escrow and have the roof repairs completed after closing.  The Purchasers did not agree and wanted the roof repairs completed “prior to closing.” REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT: a). Coldwell Banker never provided to me any type of signed physical document which I could review, that defined or mentioned that the Sellers agreeing to escrow thousands of dollars for roof repairs occurring after the closing. As a result, I could not have agreed or disagreed. Therefore, the statement presented to the Revdex.com by Mr. N[redacted] is intentionally misleading. b). Also, in Mr. N[redacted]’s next statement which I’ve identified as 2 ~ he states the Sellers received a roofing estimate from a local New Mexico licensed roofing company, but the work start date would be delayed because of prior company commitments. Mr. N[redacted] further states a delayed work start date was unacceptable to the Sellers i.e. the Seller did not want to postpone the closing date. c). In my opinion, there is no physical documentation or evidence available that I have had the opportunity to comment on which lends validity to the statement Mr. N[redacted] presented to the Revdex.com. d). Perhaps the document Mr. N[redacted] is referencing is Coldwell Banker’s General Amendment number 4-2016 [which we did not sign]? In this document, Mr. N[redacted] recommended to the Sellers to phrase the $10,500.00 dollars as a credit. There is no mention of escrow funds; regardless, the statement is not factual and it is misleading. e). Mr. N[redacted] has failed to mention or take any responsibility for Coldwell Banker’s GA 2-2016 contents, specifically item 2 i.e. disregarding the 5-year workmanship warranty and the 10-year product warranty. f). If Mr. N[redacted] is going to make future statements, it would be appreciated if he’d specifically identify the document or law or regulation he’s using to support his statement ; this information is applicable so cross referencing can be less time-consuming and I might be more timely with my future responses to the New Mexico Revdex.com.    2]. I agree with Mr. N[redacted]’s statement;  “The Sellers had received an estimate from [redacted]; however, [redacted] was going to be leaving on vacation to Florida and would not be able to start and complete the repairs until 3-4 weeks later, which would postpone our closing for four more weeks.  This was unacceptable to the Sellers.  They asked if I knew of another roofer that could possibly complete it sooner” CAVEAT: To the best of my knowledge, the property owners were living in California and doing business with Mr. N[redacted] via phone and e-mail. Apparently, based upon a recommendation made to the Sellers by Mr. N[redacted], the Sellers made a business decision to hire a Texas based roofing company to travel  and make the roof repairs in New Mexico . 3]. I disagree with Mr. N[redacted]’s statement: “A prior customer had given me the name and phone number of [redacted], a roofing company in El Paso that had come highly recommended.  I called them, an Owner/Foreman, “[redacted]” came out, gave us an estimate.  Mr. [redacted] (Buyer) accepted the estimate dated 10/8/16 and [redacted] started on the roof.” REASON FOR DISAGREEMENT: As the buyer or third party, I made no such acceptance of the estimate start date as Mr. N[redacted] claims I did on 10/8/16. As a third party, I cooperated.Accepted: The only signed physical documentation defining what I considered acceptable exists in Coldwell Banker’s General Amendment #2-2016; specifically, “The Seller will have the roof repaired prior to closing see [redacted] Estimate dated 10/8/2016 which is part of this agreement.” CAVEAT: per the [redacted] Estimate Mr. N[redacted] refers, there is no defined work start date or work end date. The only date defined on these documents is apparently the date the document was provided to the Seller through Mr. N[redacted] from [redacted]. Therefore, the statement provided to the Revdex.com is misleading and confusing 4]. I disagree with Mr. N[redacted]’s statement: “[redacted] from [redacted] said he had to order the skylight lenses and it would take 3 weeks to come in.  The cost of the lenses, $500, was held in escrow until they came in and would be installed.” REASON FOR DISAGREEMENT: a). Mr. N[redacted] stated at the end of his “message from business” that “I empathize with the Buyers but, I feel that this complaint should be against [redacted] as they are the party not fulfilling their contractual obligations.” Mr. N[redacted] has stated in his reply to the Revdex.com reference my complaint that he had no idea or information that [redacted] had not finished the job; however, Mr. N[redacted] spoke to [redacted] from [redacted] and as a result he did have knowledge the completion of the roof work had be delayed and the delay pushed the completion date beyond the closing date of 10/20/2016. b). In addition, Mr. N[redacted] had access to knowledge which would have informed him the escrowed funds remained unclaimed [reasonably suggesting the roof work remained unfinished] CAVEAT:   Mr. N[redacted] states that the cost of the lenses, $500.00, was held in escrow; I’ve searched all available documentation which defines the cost of the lenses referenced totaled $500.00 dollars. The estimate document defines lens installation, not cost / purchase fee.  In my opinion, the $500.00 dollars held in escrow is what [redacted] estimated the installation of the lens would be, not the cost of the lenses as stated by Mr. N[redacted]  5]. I disagree with Mr. N[redacted]’s statement: “[redacted], the [redacted]s’ Realtor®, extended their closing for October 20, 2016, since the [redacted]s were “not” going to close until the roof was completed.  In conversations with Mrs. [redacted], both she and I thought the roof had been completed.” REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT: a). In Mr. N[redacted] previous paragraph, he stated, “[redacted] from [redacted] said he had to order the skylight lenses and it would take 3 weeks to come in”…. this comment suggests Mr. N[redacted] knew and understood the roof work would not be completed by closing. b). In the estimates provided to Mr. N[redacted] and the Sellers by [redacted]ing outlining the proposal of work, there exists verbiage suggesting the roof repair  timeline would extend beyond closing date of 10/20/2016CAVEAT: Mr. N[redacted] needs to investigate [redacted]ing’s doing-business in New Mexico licensing status, before suggesting to the Revdex.com of New Mexico that he is not responsible for his action and inaction.   6]. I disagree with Mr. N[redacted]’s Statement:  “In conclusion, the [redacted]s (Buyers) have stated in their complaint that the roofer was paid in full prior to the start of the job, which is inaccurate.  [redacted] was paid at closing.  The $10,500 amount is identified on the HUD settlement statement.  Funds for any uncompleted work are held in escrow until all repairs are completed, such as the $500 still being held for the skylight repairs.  If either Realtor* were aware of the roof repair not being completed prior to closing, we could have requested that some additional funds of the $10,500 be held until final completion.   Mrs. [redacted] has told me that she was unaware that the roof repairs were not completed.REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT: a). Mr. N[redacted] needs to reread my statement because I specifically said the word “suggested” i.e. suggesting the roofer was paid in full. I’ve attached my complaint’s exact statement for simplicity; “a receipt exists in the amount of $10, 500.00 dollars from the roofing company’s representative, Mr. [redacted], which suggests the company was paid in-full prior to the start of the job; $500.00 dollars would be held in escrow and paid to the contractor upon completion of the proposal of work . As of 03/14/2017 the funds remain in escrow.” b). Mr. N[redacted] states that the $10,500.00 dollars is identified on the HUD settlement statement; with all due respect, I have no documentation in any form to support Mr. N[redacted]’s statement. In this regard, the “at closing amount” of $10,500.00 dollars is unaccounted for based upon all available and reviewable signed documents I’ve been provided. c). Mr. N[redacted] had prior knowledge the contractor he hired had to delay completion of the work; he stated that a Company representative spoke to him about it; and I remind Mr. n[redacted] that [redacted] estimate documentation has it outlined. It seems convenient to me that Mr. N[redacted] is redirecting and reflecting contractual responsibility because he/she were unaware. Mr. N[redacted] states “If either Realtor were aware”….. “prior to closing”…. additional funds could have been held until final completion. In Mr. N[redacted]’s response, he has presented the Revdex.com conflicting statements including but not limited to i.e. he stated “[redacted]” told him the special order skylight could take as long as 3-weeks; Mr. N[redacted] reviewed the proposal of work estimate provided to Coldwell Banker by [redacted] which defined the 3-week delay; he had easy access to inquiry about escrowed funds; and he made a business decision not to investigate the Texas based contractor’s New Mexico license status  [redacted], ###-###-####......nothing follows

CBSN
thoroughly addressed the issues expressed in Ms. [redacted]’s’ original complaint.  The response included a timeline of the events
and issues as supported by email and documentation.  Ms. [redacted]’s refusal to accept the
CBSN response seems to be based on three central concerns. 
 
Maintenance requested by the tenant.Ms. [redacted]’s instructions regarding
the tenant perform maintenance.The management termination fee.
 
This
response will counter that rejection as well as report how CBSN has already
contacted Ms. [redacted] on what appear to be her above mentioned specific
concerns at the root of the complaint.
 
Ms.
[redacted] states in her rejection of the response that “I then asked if
I could contact the tenant myself and Tamalyn advised it would be in violation
of my contract.”  This is
inaccurate.  Ms. [redacted] was not told
that simply contacting her tenant was a violation.  Ms. [redacted] was informed that asking her
tenant to perform service or make a technical diagnosis on the fan would be against
the recommendation of CBSN (for the previously stated reasons included in the
original response relating to possible tenant harm).  Ms. [redacted] was additionally informed by
Mike Nelson of CBSN on Aug. 12, 2015 that some of Ms. [redacted]’s decisions
would contradict with office policies and could put CBSN at risk.  To illustrate these issue; Ms. [redacted]
acknowledges in her own writing that she had requested both the tenant and CBSN
employees perform services that should be left to a qualified service person.
Specific cases include the ceiling fan and carpet issues when Ms. [redacted]
requested the tenant to disassemble the fan and either the tenant or CBSN staff
search in her attic for materials. 
 
CBSN
did contact Ms. [redacted] by email on Aug. 17, 2015 in regards to both the maintenance
requested by the tenant and the management termination fee.  Ms. [redacted] was informed that the tenants
communicated to CBSN that the maintenance issues had been resolved and they indicated
no further maintenance requests at this time. 
CBSN also informed MS. [redacted] that in order to resolve her concerns
in a timely manner CBSN would forgo charging the management termination
fee.  Ms. [redacted] did confirm receipt
of this email correspondence by replying to the email.
 
To conclude, CBSN has addressed the issues as presented by Ms. [redacted].
 
Maintenance requested by the tenant.  Ms. [redacted] was informed that the tenant
has reported they have no maintenance issues of concern at this time.MS. [redacted] was not refused the
ability to contact her tenants she was only advised that asking the tenant to
perform certain maintenance would contradict with CBSN policy. Ms. [redacted] acknowledges she did discuss
the termination but her resistance is based on the desire not to be charged a
fee for termination.  The management agreement
is terminated, the fee is waived.

[redacted] and [redacted] (Owner) requested to enter into a property management agreement with Coldwell Banker Sudderth N[redacted], Inc. (CBSN) in December 2014 when they were preparing to vacate their property at [redacted], Alamogordo, NM 88310.  They completed the required paperwork and provided...

access to the property in January 2015.  The property management agreement is an arrangement to allow the agent to provide administrative services to the Owner in leasing their property.  The management agreement allows for the Agent to assist both the Owner and Tenant in the leasing transaction and to provide guidance to help ensure that both the Owner and Tenant act within the boundaries of the New Mexico Uniform Owner Resident Relations Act.  However, this agreement specifically precludes the agent being held responsible for the actions or omissions of either the Owner or the Tenant.  Further, as a condition of the agreement the Owner agrees to hold the Agent harmless from all damage and costs incurred in the management of the property.  It is unfortunate for the Owner that they believe they had a less than satisfactory experience with their tenants.  However, these issues are in no way represent negligence in the service provided as defined by the property management agreement.   In maintaining any property the Owner should expect to experience expenses for maintenance and repairs.  It is our understanding that the fact that the shed flooring had some imperfection was a known issue to the owners during their occupancy as the information that the floor was warped was annotated on the intake inspection conducted when the owner vacated the property and brought it into our management in January 2015.  We were not informed by the owner what the cause of the floor warping was and it may have been perceived as a cosmetic imperfection. We are now informed, by the vendor selected for repairs by the owner, that the cause was a long-term rotting of the sub floor under the structure.     On Aug. 25, 2016 the tenant reported that a section of the shed flooring caved in.  Our office contacted the owner [redacted] by phone and she approved us to obtain estimates for repairs.  We made the first request for repairs that same day.  However, the first vendor contacted as well as the next two vendors contacted were unable or unavailable to complete repairs.  The fourth vendor we contacted provided an estimate on Dec. 29, 2016 which was subsequently approved by the owner.    We have been informed that water from the alley was getting under the shed and causing rot and deterioration to the sub-floor from below. This was not a short-term issue and the underlying damage to the sub-floor was disguised by the serviceability of the tile on top of the sub-floor. Until the tile portion gave way in Aug. 2016 there was no way to know that the sub-floor was rotting from water exposure.  The vendor who replaced the floor installed vinyl instead of tile, this way should the damage reoccur there would not be another issue with cracking tile.  The vendor also offered the owner an estimate to construct a barrier to alleviate the water issue in the future and the owner declined.    The house was initially leased effective March 1, 2015.  In May of 2016 an annual inspection was performed which did not reveal any significant changes. The owner was informed that the home had been inspected and that at that time the home was being kept in generally good shape.  The final inspection was conducted on Dec. 22, 2016.  The tenant had vacated without cleaning the home.  Move-out cleaning and damages were assessed and the owner was informed on Dec. 30, 2016 of the initial report of cleaning and damages.  There were multiple contacts with the owner throughout the completion of the move-out charges and assignment of repairs.  In general, the cleaning and damages were common items such as house cleaning, yard cleaning, carpet cleaning, replacement of light bulbs, and replacement of damaged blinds.  There were 2 more expensive items to include a kitchen faucet and a shed door which the owner requested be billed in full to the tenants.  The faucet sprayer was pulled loose from the main faucet and could not be held back in place, the Owner indicated no prior knowledge of such damage resulting in the Tenant being charged the cost of repair.  The door repair was necessitated by the Tenant failing to properly secure the shed door which allowed the wind to tear the door from the frame.  The Owner asked that the Tenant be charged the full cost of the door replacement.  The owner did this with the understanding that the tenant charges would exceed the security deposit and the owner would need to make payment for the charges and that CBSN would seek reimbursement from the Tenant.  We have actively communicated with the Owner throughout the term of the lease and move-out process.  We are, as of this date, still attempting to collect from the Tenant on the owner’s behalf.   The property management agreement includes many services such as applicant screening, rent collection, accounting services for the property owner, maintenance scheduling, bill payment, and addressing Tenant issues.  CBSN acted in good faith to complete the requirements of this agreement and even exceeded the requirements in assisting the owner with the flooring repairs.   The referenced floor repairs are outside of the bounds of routine maintenance and would have allowed CBSN to request the Owner pay separate compensation for this service.  However, CBSN provided the Owner with additional assistance and service at no additional cost to them.