Initial Business Response /* (1000, 4, 2015/05/22) */
Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Inchas been in operation since 1986, registered with the Revdex.com since 1999, an accredited business with the Revdex.com since 2008, has held and still currently holds an A+ Revdex.com rating, and has recently been awarded
Gold Star status by the Revdex.com for receiving zero complaints in years
Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Inchas always been and will always continue to be sensitive to the needs of our clients and customers and fully intend to treat this complaint with the same respect and diligence that we exercise in all our customer service efforts
The individual bringing forth this complaint, (hereby referred to as "applicant") alleges that our administration fee; a fee that is associated only with the signing/execution of a lease, and not with the application process, is "deceptive, dishonest, and exploitative." Applicant felt this way as the administration fee; a fee that has been disclosed, agreed to, and paid by hundreds of past and current tenants, may not have disclosed during the application process, a process independent and separate from the leasing processJudging by the fact that applicant stated "a sudden and previously undeclared $administration fee was levied after I had already paid them a $non-refundable fee..." and "...the only fee that was mentioned as being part of the process was a $non-refundable application processing fee," Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incfeels that applicant is confusing the nature of the $non-refundable application fee that is relegated to the costs of screening applicants with the $administration fee that is relegated to the costs associated with executing a formal lease
Before further consideration of this complaint can be justified, an understanding of the application and leasing process, and differentiating between the two, is imperativeAny prospect who has viewed a property available for rent must submit an application to be considered before we are able to offer a leaseThe application carries a $non-refundable charge, which is clearly stated and disclosed at multiple times during the application process (See Rental Application Attachment)Once an applicant has been qualified as eligible to rent, they move from the application phase, to the leasing phaseDuring the leasing phase, a tenant is offered the chance to review the lease in its entirety, and either sign, or withdraw their interest should they object to any clause in the lease
While it is common and routine practice for Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incto habitually disclose the administration fee prior to the application phase; and any contention as to whether or not it was disclosed in this particular case is certainly disputable, an application does not ensure a prospect will be approved or ensure the offering of a lease, and as such, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incdoes not feel that there is any sense of urgency or obligation to offer the refund of an unrelated charge that was clearly disclosed multiple times as non-refundable; especially as the administration fee is written into the physical lease, as a lease clausePhoenix Realty and Property Management, Inchas an eight page lease with thirty-one clauses that can be objected to, all of which are not presented to an applicant until they have been deemed qualified for residency via the application process and offered a lease (See Rental Agreement Attachment)
In regard to this complaint, applicant is objecting to clause number three in our lease, known as the administration fee clauseThis objection is no different than an applicant objecting to imposed late fees, or lease break penalties, both of which are disclosed at the same time as the administration feeAny reasonable person would find it unreasonable to refund an application fee simply because an applicant did not agree with the "no smoking" clause in a lease, and this instance should be treated no differentlyAs such, we feel this complaint and demand for a refund of the application fee lacks any integrityThis is not a fee that was imposed, disclosed, or levied subsequent to the execution of legally binding contractual documentsIt was disclosed immediately after the application process, at the inception of the leasing process, and done so in an appropriate manner common to the industry
As the $non-refundable application fee disclosed via telephone, in-person, and in writing prior to the submission of applicant's application has already been applied to the costs of running applicant screening software, evaluating application data, and the cost of employing labor to investigate applications, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incdoes not feel that the refunding of the application fee is warranted or justified based on the assertions applicant has made herein and feel that this complaint lacks colorable meritFurthermore, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incfeel the assertions and accusations by applicant of Phoenix Realty as "deceptive, dishonest, and exploitative" are unjust, misinformed, and slanderousAs such, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incdoes not agree to the desired resolution proposed by applicant/complainant
Complaint Response Date bumped because: Holiday
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 6, 2015/06/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Phoenix Realty and Property Management first asserts that the complaint is based on "confusion" between the intended purpose of the two fees (the $application fee and the $lease fee)This is incorrect
The complaint is not predicated upon a lack of understanding regarding the distinction between the two feesRather, it is predicated on the fact that I would not have applied and handed over the nonrefundable $fee in the first place had the additional $fee been disclosed
Phoenix Realty's withholding of germane financial information as it applies to the rental process prohibited me from making an informed decision as to whether I wanted to initiate the process at all, and thereby enabled them to collect a nonrefundable $fee that they would not have collected had they informed me of the additional fee they planned to levy
Furthermore, Phoenix Realty and Property Management has essentially made the case that the inclusion of the $fee in the lease terms absolves them of any responsibility to notify the applicant that the fee exists before that pointThey hold that an applicant objecting to this practice is akin to an applicant objecting to any other parts of a lease
By this logic, Phoenix Realty could hypothetically build into a lease a fee of $500, or $1000, or $million, and not notify the applicant-- before the applicant forks over their nonrefundable application fee-- that they will later be expected to pay an additional feeIndeed, in Phoenix Realty's language, "any reasonable person would find it unreasonable" to claim that simply because the fee was a term of the lease renders it professionally acceptable to withhold this information before the applicant invests a non-refundable fee in the process
Ultimately, if Phoenix Realty refuses to refund the application fee-- which, again, is not predicated upon a lack of understanding regarding the distinction between the two fees, but, rather, on the basis that the applicant would not have applied and paid the $in the first place had the additional $fee been disclosed-- then it is important that other potential applicants be made aware on the Revdex.com site that they can expect this additional fee to be imposed, since the company itself refuses to inform consumers
It is also important that future applicants be made aware that Phoenix Realty's lease stipulates that:
1) It is the responsibility of the tenant to take care of any routine repairs and maintenance that cost up to $50, and
2) In contravention of Chapter 12-2: Landlord-Tenant Relations of the Boulder Revised Code (sections 12-2-and 12-2-through 12-2-7), Phoenix Realty will retain "any interest accrued on security deposit"
Both of these are in Phoenix Realty's lease terms but are not disclosed before the applicant pays a nonrefundable application feeAdditionally, neither of these terms are industry standard-- the latter being in contravention of Boulder law-- and so it cannot be argued that an applicant would expect to be presented with such terms
If Phoenix Realty and Property Management is unwilling to rectify the situation, and they continue to withhold from their customers that, after the applicant has paid a nonrefundable fee, Phoenix Realty intends to present them with terms that demand an additional $fee; include a refusal to address routine maintenance and repairs up to $50; and feature a clause that they will retain the interest on the security deposit; then future consumers deserve to be informed of this through the Revdex.com
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 4, 2015/05/22) */
Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Inchas been in operation since 1986, registered with the Revdex.com since 1999, an accredited business with the Revdex.com since 2008, has held and still currently holds an A+ Revdex.com rating, and has recently been awarded
Gold Star status by the Revdex.com for receiving zero complaints in years
Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Inchas always been and will always continue to be sensitive to the needs of our clients and customers and fully intend to treat this complaint with the same respect and diligence that we exercise in all our customer service efforts
The individual bringing forth this complaint, (hereby referred to as "applicant") alleges that our administration fee; a fee that is associated only with the signing/execution of a lease, and not with the application process, is "deceptive, dishonest, and exploitative." Applicant felt this way as the administration fee; a fee that has been disclosed, agreed to, and paid by hundreds of past and current tenants, may not have disclosed during the application process, a process independent and separate from the leasing processJudging by the fact that applicant stated "a sudden and previously undeclared $administration fee was levied after I had already paid them a $non-refundable fee..." and "...the only fee that was mentioned as being part of the process was a $non-refundable application processing fee," Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incfeels that applicant is confusing the nature of the $non-refundable application fee that is relegated to the costs of screening applicants with the $administration fee that is relegated to the costs associated with executing a formal lease
Before further consideration of this complaint can be justified, an understanding of the application and leasing process, and differentiating between the two, is imperativeAny prospect who has viewed a property available for rent must submit an application to be considered before we are able to offer a leaseThe application carries a $non-refundable charge, which is clearly stated and disclosed at multiple times during the application process (See Rental Application Attachment)Once an applicant has been qualified as eligible to rent, they move from the application phase, to the leasing phaseDuring the leasing phase, a tenant is offered the chance to review the lease in its entirety, and either sign, or withdraw their interest should they object to any clause in the lease
While it is common and routine practice for Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incto habitually disclose the administration fee prior to the application phase; and any contention as to whether or not it was disclosed in this particular case is certainly disputable, an application does not ensure a prospect will be approved or ensure the offering of a lease, and as such, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incdoes not feel that there is any sense of urgency or obligation to offer the refund of an unrelated charge that was clearly disclosed multiple times as non-refundable; especially as the administration fee is written into the physical lease, as a lease clausePhoenix Realty and Property Management, Inchas an eight page lease with thirty-one clauses that can be objected to, all of which are not presented to an applicant until they have been deemed qualified for residency via the application process and offered a lease (See Rental Agreement Attachment)
In regard to this complaint, applicant is objecting to clause number three in our lease, known as the administration fee clauseThis objection is no different than an applicant objecting to imposed late fees, or lease break penalties, both of which are disclosed at the same time as the administration feeAny reasonable person would find it unreasonable to refund an application fee simply because an applicant did not agree with the "no smoking" clause in a lease, and this instance should be treated no differentlyAs such, we feel this complaint and demand for a refund of the application fee lacks any integrityThis is not a fee that was imposed, disclosed, or levied subsequent to the execution of legally binding contractual documentsIt was disclosed immediately after the application process, at the inception of the leasing process, and done so in an appropriate manner common to the industry
As the $non-refundable application fee disclosed via telephone, in-person, and in writing prior to the submission of applicant's application has already been applied to the costs of running applicant screening software, evaluating application data, and the cost of employing labor to investigate applications, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incdoes not feel that the refunding of the application fee is warranted or justified based on the assertions applicant has made herein and feel that this complaint lacks colorable meritFurthermore, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incfeel the assertions and accusations by applicant of Phoenix Realty as "deceptive, dishonest, and exploitative" are unjust, misinformed, and slanderousAs such, Phoenix Realty and Property Management, Incdoes not agree to the desired resolution proposed by applicant/complainant
Complaint Response Date bumped because: Holiday
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 6, 2015/06/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Phoenix Realty and Property Management first asserts that the complaint is based on "confusion" between the intended purpose of the two fees (the $application fee and the $lease fee)This is incorrect
The complaint is not predicated upon a lack of understanding regarding the distinction between the two feesRather, it is predicated on the fact that I would not have applied and handed over the nonrefundable $fee in the first place had the additional $fee been disclosed
Phoenix Realty's withholding of germane financial information as it applies to the rental process prohibited me from making an informed decision as to whether I wanted to initiate the process at all, and thereby enabled them to collect a nonrefundable $fee that they would not have collected had they informed me of the additional fee they planned to levy
Furthermore, Phoenix Realty and Property Management has essentially made the case that the inclusion of the $fee in the lease terms absolves them of any responsibility to notify the applicant that the fee exists before that pointThey hold that an applicant objecting to this practice is akin to an applicant objecting to any other parts of a lease
By this logic, Phoenix Realty could hypothetically build into a lease a fee of $500, or $1000, or $million, and not notify the applicant-- before the applicant forks over their nonrefundable application fee-- that they will later be expected to pay an additional feeIndeed, in Phoenix Realty's language, "any reasonable person would find it unreasonable" to claim that simply because the fee was a term of the lease renders it professionally acceptable to withhold this information before the applicant invests a non-refundable fee in the process
Ultimately, if Phoenix Realty refuses to refund the application fee-- which, again, is not predicated upon a lack of understanding regarding the distinction between the two fees, but, rather, on the basis that the applicant would not have applied and paid the $in the first place had the additional $fee been disclosed-- then it is important that other potential applicants be made aware on the Revdex.com site that they can expect this additional fee to be imposed, since the company itself refuses to inform consumers
It is also important that future applicants be made aware that Phoenix Realty's lease stipulates that:
1) It is the responsibility of the tenant to take care of any routine repairs and maintenance that cost up to $50, and
2) In contravention of Chapter 12-2: Landlord-Tenant Relations of the Boulder Revised Code (sections 12-2-and 12-2-through 12-2-7), Phoenix Realty will retain "any interest accrued on security deposit"
Both of these are in Phoenix Realty's lease terms but are not disclosed before the applicant pays a nonrefundable application feeAdditionally, neither of these terms are industry standard-- the latter being in contravention of Boulder law-- and so it cannot be argued that an applicant would expect to be presented with such terms
If Phoenix Realty and Property Management is unwilling to rectify the situation, and they continue to withhold from their customers that, after the applicant has paid a nonrefundable fee, Phoenix Realty intends to present them with terms that demand an additional $fee; include a refusal to address routine maintenance and repairs up to $50; and feature a clause that they will retain the interest on the security deposit; then future consumers deserve to be informed of this through the Revdex.com