Edina Realty

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/07/15) */ This is the response of Edina RealtyFirst and foremost, we regret it when any transaction does not meet with the expectations of both partiesWe strive for highest standards in customer service and go to great lengths to treat all parties fairly and honestly In this case, a few significant misunderstandings must be correctedThe Edina Realty agent did not access the lockbox to the lake property without permissionOn Friday, June 26, the seller's agent (not an Edina Realty agent) made it clear to everyone that he was removing his signs and lockbox from the propertyBecause he removed the lockbox, the seller's agent turned the key over to the buyers and the buyers' agent, stating that the seller would not be returning to the property prior to closingAt that point, the Edina Realty agent simply assumed that the buyers would hold the key until closing Unfortunately that was an erroneous assumption, because the buyers accessed the property to begin cleaning and repairs, which is what they were doing on June 28th when Edina Realty received a call from the seller's agent saying the buyer had entered the propertyThe Edina Realty agent immediately called the buyers, who quickly left the property upon request It should be emphasized that the buyers accessed the property primarily for purposes of cleaning and repairsThey did not sleep there on any of the nights prior to closingWe can understand why the seller might have misunderstood that; apparently, the buyers removed some bedding in order to wash it, and we imagine this made the beds look unkempt In any event, the buyers had the key because it was turned over by the seller's agentIn retrospect, we regret that our agent did not have a conversation with the buyers warning against access before closingBut we simply had no reason to believe they would enter the property earlyNevertheless, Edina Realty apologizes for not making this clear to the buyers In view of the actual events, Edina Realty did not pay the seller $as rent for the propertyBecause the buyers accessed the property to clean and make repairs - not to stay or sleep overnight - a rent payment is inappropriate We regret the whole incident and wish we could have avoided a very frustrating event for the seller Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2015/07/24) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The party who entered our lake home without permission from us "the owners" were not there to do cleaning and repairs as Edina Realty has statedThe ***'s took many photo's that clearly show the party had moved inKandiyohi Power company shows kilowatt usage during this period with the highest usage on Saturday June The kilowatt usage should have been zero.The MN attorney general has advised us to sue in small claims court of which we will doThe MN Department of Commerce is also investigating which will prolong this caseThis case is clear that the party moved in to our lake home which was the fault of Edina Realty and the reason we have submitted a demand of rent payment in the amount of $This demand will increase slightly once we file in court due to the electricity usage during the period of June 26th, 27th & 28th Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 12, 2015/08/06) */ Edina Realty is certainly not in any position to comment on the kilowatt usage in the property on the date in question because no representative of Edina Realty was presentThe company does, however, stand by our earlier statement, based on the buyer's report, that the buyer did not stay overnight in the propertyIn any event, Edina Realty was unaware that the buyer intended to enter the property at all

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/07/15) */
This is the response of Edina Realty. First and foremost, we regret it when any transaction does not meet with the expectations of both parties. We strive for highest standards in customer service and go to great lengths to treat all parties...

fairly and honestly.
In this case, a few significant misunderstandings must be corrected. The Edina Realty agent did not access the lockbox to the lake property without permission. On Friday, June 26, the seller's agent (not an Edina Realty agent) made it clear to everyone that he was removing his signs and lockbox from the property. Because he removed the lockbox, the seller's agent turned the key over to the buyers and the buyers' agent, stating that the seller would not be returning to the property prior to closing. At that point, the Edina Realty agent simply assumed that the buyers would hold the key until closing.
Unfortunately that was an erroneous assumption, because the buyers accessed the property to begin cleaning and repairs, which is what they were doing on June 28th when Edina Realty received a call from the seller's agent saying the buyer had entered the property. The Edina Realty agent immediately called the buyers, who quickly left the property upon request.
It should be emphasized that the buyers accessed the property primarily for purposes of cleaning and repairs. They did not sleep there on any of the nights prior to closing. We can understand why the seller might have misunderstood that; apparently, the buyers removed some bedding in order to wash it, and we imagine this made the beds look unkempt.
In any event, the buyers had the key because it was turned over by the seller's agent. In retrospect, we regret that our agent did not have a conversation with the buyers warning against access before closing. But we simply had no reason to believe they would enter the property early. Nevertheless, Edina Realty apologizes for not making this clear to the buyers.
In view of the actual events, Edina Realty did not pay the seller $1750 as rent for the property. Because the buyers accessed the property to clean and make repairs - not to stay or sleep overnight - a rent payment is inappropriate.
We regret the whole incident and wish we could have avoided a very frustrating event for the seller.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/07/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The party who entered our lake home without permission from us "the owners" were not there to do cleaning and repairs as Edina Realty has stated. The [redacted]'s took many photo's that clearly show the party had moved in. Kandiyohi Power company shows kilowatt usage during this period with the highest usage on Saturday June 27 2015. The kilowatt usage should have been zero.The MN attorney general has advised us to sue in small claims court of which we will do. The MN Department of Commerce is also investigating which will prolong this case. This case is clear that the party moved in to our lake home which was the fault of Edina Realty and the reason we have submitted a demand of rent payment in the amount of $1750.00. This demand will increase slightly once we file in court due to the electricity usage during the period of June 26th, 27th & 28th.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2015/08/06) */
Edina Realty is certainly not in any position to comment on the kilowatt usage in the property on the date in question because no representative of Edina Realty was present. The company does, however, stand by our earlier statement, based on the buyer's report, that the buyer did not stay overnight in the property. In any event, Edina Realty was unaware that the buyer intended to enter the property at all.