Forbes Management

I am responding to the February 18, 2015 letter from Forbes Management, LLC. First, Forbes Management, LLC admits that their business practice is to retain a “deposit” and make it non-refundable before the prospective tenant has an opportunity to review a proffered lease. Indeed, the lease isn’t even prepared by Forbes. Please see last sentence in the second paragraph which states “A lease is then created and relayed to the customer . . . .” Second, Forbes indicates that ours is the first complaint of this nature. How many deposits representing an amount equivalent to a full month’s rent have been forfeited under the provisions of their application? Further, failure of others to complain of an unjust and unfair or deceptive trade act or practice does not make the practice just, or in compliance with consumer protection laws. Third, in the fourth paragraph, Forbes indicates that we clearly knew that we had 48 hours after submitting the deposit with which to decide whether we would sign a lease. However, Forbes had not submitted a proposed lease until well past the 48 hour timeframe. Therefore, we could not know whether the lease was acceptable or not. Forbes’ logic is that once they accept your application, you have 48 hours, before even looking at a lease, to decide whether you will sign an unseen (unprepared) lease. How is that fair? Fourth, it was not, despite their contrary statement, represented to us that we would not have seen the lease until after the deposit became non-refundable. If we had known that, we would have declined to file the application let alone provide the application fee and deposit. Finally, Mr. [redacted] ’s telephone call indicating that he would not sign the lease, while received on February 5, 2015, was within 2 days after receipt of the proposed lease. A proposed lease was emailed to us on February 3rd, 2015, which was the first time we had the opportunity to review the proposed lease. The phone call was placed on February 5th, 2015, two days after we received the proposed lease, which is within the 48 hour timeline that Forbes provides. I highly doubt the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s laws and statutes suborn contracts of adhesion. I cannot imagine any instance in which a Court would support Forbes’ proposition that a prospective tenant forfeits deposit money even before Forbes prepares and gives the prospective tenant the legal contract (the lease) to review. There could have been no meeting of the minds regarding the rental of the apartment until the lease is prepared and signed. Therefore, the only sum to which Forbes is legally entitled is the application or processing fees, which we do not contest. Sincerely, [redacted] and [redacted]

I am responding to the February 18, 2015 letter from Forbes Management, LLC. 
 
               First, Forbes Management, LLC admits that their business practice is to retain a “deposit” and make it non-refundable before the prospective tenant has an opportunity to review a proffered lease.  Indeed, the lease isn’t even prepared by Forbes.  Please see last sentence in the second paragraph which states “A lease is then created and relayed to the customer . . . .” 
Second, Forbes indicates that ours is the first complaint of this nature.  How many deposits representing an amount equivalent to a full month’s rent have been forfeited under the provisions of their application?  Further, failure of others to complain of an unjust and unfair or deceptive trade act or practice does not make the practice just, or in compliance with consumer protection laws. 
               Third, in the fourth paragraph, Forbes indicates that we clearly knew that we had 48 hours after submitting the deposit with which to decide whether we would sign a lease.  However, Forbes had not submitted a proposed lease until well past the 48 hour timeframe.  Therefore, we could not know whether the lease was acceptable or not.  Forbes’ logic is that once they accept your application, you have 48 hours, before even looking at a lease, to decide whether you will sign an unseen (unprepared) lease.  How is that fair? 
Fourth, it was not, despite their contrary statement, represented to us that we would not have seen the lease until after the deposit became non-refundable. If we had known that, we would have declined to file the application let alone provide the application fee and deposit. 
Finally, Mr. [redacted]’s telephone call indicating that he would not sign the lease, while received on February 5, 2015, was within 2 days after receipt of the proposed lease. A proposed lease was emailed to us on February 3rd, 2015, which was the first time we had the opportunity to review the proposed lease. The phone call was placed on February 5th, 2015, two days after we received the proposed lease, which is within the 48 hour timeline that Forbes provides.   
               I highly doubt the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s laws and statutes suborn contracts of adhesion.  I cannot imagine any instance in which a Court would support Forbes’ proposition that a prospective tenant forfeits deposit money even before Forbes prepares and gives the prospective tenant the legal contract (the lease) to review.  There could have been no meeting of the minds regarding the rental of the apartment until the lease is prepared and signed.  Therefore, the only sum to which Forbes is legally entitled is the application or processing fees, which we do not contest. 
Sincerely,
[redacted] and [redacted]

I am writing in response to the complaint filed by [redacted], ID #[redacted]First, I would like to explain Forbes Management’s policy regarding applications submitted for apartmentrentals. When someone wishes to be considered for residency in one of Forbes Management’s units...

anapplication must be submitted along with the application fee and a deposit of the first month’s rent Oncewe receive the completed applications the application fee is immediately nonrefundable whether or notthe application is approved or not approved. Once approved, the deposit becomes nonrefundable after 48hours of the deposit submission. A lease is then created and relayed to the customer by mail or by handdepending on the applicant’s preference.All Forbes Management employees are very much aware of our policies and relay them to potentialrenters many times in a day. We have yet to have a dispute involving a misrepresentation of thesepolicies until now. With the hundreds of leases written annually certainly a misrepresentation of thesefacts would have surfaced prior to this incidentObviously a misunderstanding had occurred regarding what the rental agent relayed about the deposit.This should have been cleared up when the applicants signed the second page of the application whichclearly states “I understand that if I decide that I do not wish to sign a lease for the apartment, I mustnotify the leasing office within 48 hours of submitting the deposit I understand that if I fail to do so, I willforfeit my earnest money”.A copy of the application has been included with this letter so that you can see that this information is notin “extremely fine print at the bottom of the page”, but is in fact in the same font size as the entire pageand is placed in the upper half of the document above the srgnature line. This document was signed byMr. [redacted] on January 27, 2015. The phone call from Mr. [redacted] stating that they were no longerinterested in the apartment was received on February 5, 2015, nine days after the application was signed.Forbes Management takes it reputation seriously and we make every effort to avoid these types of issuesby putting our application policies in writing.Please give me a call if you would like to discuss this matter further.Sincerely,[redacted]Forbes Managment, LLC

Review: Please accept this formal complaint against Forbes Management, LLC a/k/a Forbes management in [redacted](Forbes). Forbes violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and

Consumer Protection Law SS 201-1- 201-9.2 (Act). This Act defines unfair or deceptive acts or practices and makes the

commission of the same illegal. The Act is essential to make those in the stream of commerce act fairly and honestly with

consumers who have unequal bargaining power. The following explains how and why Forbes is in violation of the Act.

On January 26, 2014 my roommate and I signed an application for the one of the apartment units,

namely, [redacted] available for rent by Forbes. The rental term discussed was one

(1) year lease beginning August 1, 2015. Before signing the application, we were told by Forbes’ leasing agent

that we needed to remit checks with the application. She further represented to us that only the application fee of $40 per

person, including our additional co-signer, was non-refundable and that the security deposit check of $1,075 would be

escrowed to hold the apartment until we received a proposed lease, had a chance to read the lease and if we approved it,

signed the lease. I emphasize that Forbes’ agent represented that the only non-refundable portion of the monies tendered

was the application fee. She also told us that we had until February 4, 2015 to sign the lease. On January 28, 2014 the

security deposit check of $1,075 was processed by Forbes; at the time Forbes negotiated the check, we had yet to receive

or have an opportunity to review a proposed lease.

On February 3, 2015, we still had not received the lease, so I called Forbes. I was told that they placed the lease in the

mail. Given the deadline to execute the lease, I asked for and received an emailed copy of the lease on February 3, 2015.

After review for the first time, we did not agree with certain parts of the lease and decided to rent with another company.

We called Forbes on February 5, 2015 to advise them that we would not be signing the lease and verbally demanded the

return of the $1,075 security deposit check. We did not ask for nor seek the return of the three application fees ($120.)

since we were told that those were non-refundable and agreed to the same.

Forbes failed, neglected and refused to properly return our security deposit check, citing extremely fine print at the bottom

of the application page. This was never explained to us by Forbes’ agent who expressly represented that only the

application fee was non-refundable. Had we been told or known that Forbes would keep a security deposit of $1,075

BEFORE even showing us a proposed (very one-sided) lease, there would have been neither application made nor a

tender of funds to be held in escrow.

You should also know that Forbes only gave us 24 hours to complete the application and to write the checks in order to

see a proposed lease. So there wasn’t a lot of time to study the application. We reasonably relied upon the

representations of Forbes’ agent. Additionally, Forbes processed a security deposit check before tendering a proposed

lease. This defies logic, normal and reasonable expectations and constitutes illegal conversion of our funds.

Prior to sending out this letter, I contacted my father, who is a licensed lawyer in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, who

advised me to contact Forbes directly about their violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

and to ask again for our $1,075 back. I contacted Forbes for a second time February 5, 2015 asking again for the $1,075.

We spoke with the office manager of Forbes, and after stating our case, she expressed zero concern for

their misrepresentation and still refused to give us our money back. After we stated our intentions of seeking legal actions,

her words were “We’re confident in our business practices; we’ve been in business a long time.” Throughout the multiple

encounters we have had regarding this issue with Forbes we have been given similar responses by the office manager. The

rude and disrespectful manner in which we were treated throughout the whole process has proven to show no remorse for

their misrepresentation and deceitful nature of their illegal actions.

In short, Forbes’ agent misrepresented to us the sums that would be non-refundable, misrepresented the time for delivery

of a proposed deed and misrepresented the refundablity of the security deposit check. We would not have given the

security deposit check to Forbes had we known it was non-refundable. It defies logic that one would pay over $1100 for

the “privilege” of looking at a proposed lease. It is a blatant misuse of the commonly accepted definition of term security

deposit. Forbes engaged in deceptive practices regarding the security deposit check. Forbes, through its’ agent,

misrepresented material facts in order to entice us to give them money the tender of which was on the representation that

only $120 was non-refundable. In order to be made whole for the losses suffered due to Forbes illegal practices, and its’

violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, we should be compensated for the $1,075 they

illegally took from us.

Thank you for your time and attention.Desired Settlement: We want to be refunded our check of $1,075.

Business

Response:

I am writing in response to the complaint filed by [redacted], ID #[redacted]First, I would like to explain Forbes Management’s policy regarding applications submitted for apartmentrentals. When someone wishes to be considered for residency in one of Forbes Management’s units anapplication must be submitted along with the application fee and a deposit of the first month’s rent Oncewe receive the completed applications the application fee is immediately nonrefundable whether or notthe application is approved or not approved. Once approved, the deposit becomes nonrefundable after 48hours of the deposit submission. A lease is then created and relayed to the customer by mail or by handdepending on the applicant’s preference.All Forbes Management employees are very much aware of our policies and relay them to potentialrenters many times in a day. We have yet to have a dispute involving a misrepresentation of thesepolicies until now. With the hundreds of leases written annually certainly a misrepresentation of thesefacts would have surfaced prior to this incidentObviously a misunderstanding had occurred regarding what the rental agent relayed about the deposit.This should have been cleared up when the applicants signed the second page of the application whichclearly states “I understand that if I decide that I do not wish to sign a lease for the apartment, I mustnotify the leasing office within 48 hours of submitting the deposit I understand that if I fail to do so, I willforfeit my earnest money”.A copy of the application has been included with this letter so that you can see that this information is notin “extremely fine print at the bottom of the page”, but is in fact in the same font size as the entire pageand is placed in the upper half of the document above the srgnature line. This document was signed byMr. [redacted] on January 27, 2015. The phone call from Mr. [redacted] stating that they were no longerinterested in the apartment was received on February 5, 2015, nine days after the application was signed.Forbes Management takes it reputation seriously and we make every effort to avoid these types of issuesby putting our application policies in writing.Please give me a call if you would like to discuss this matter further.Sincerely,[redacted]Forbes Managment, LLC

Consumer

Response:

I am responding to the February 18, 2015 letter from Forbes Management, LLC.

First, Forbes Management, LLC admits that their business practice is to retain a “deposit” and make it non-refundable before the prospective tenant has an opportunity to review a proffered lease. Indeed, the lease isn’t even prepared by Forbes. Please see last sentence in the second paragraph which states “A lease is then created and relayed to the customer . . . .”

Second, Forbes indicates that ours is the first complaint of this nature. How many deposits representing an amount equivalent to a full month’s rent have been forfeited under the provisions of their application? Further, failure of others to complain of an unjust and unfair or deceptive trade act or practice does not make the practice just, or in compliance with consumer protection laws.

Third, in the fourth paragraph, Forbes indicates that we clearly knew that we had 48 hours after submitting the deposit with which to decide whether we would sign a lease. However, Forbes had not submitted a proposed lease until well past the 48 hour timeframe. Therefore, we could not know whether the lease was acceptable or not. Forbes’ logic is that once they accept your application, you have 48 hours, before even looking at a lease, to decide whether you will sign an unseen (unprepared) lease. How is that fair?

Fourth, it was not, despite their contrary statement, represented to us that we would not have seen the lease until after the deposit became non-refundable. If we had known that, we would have declined to file the application let alone provide the application fee and deposit.

Finally, Mr. [redacted]’s telephone call indicating that he would not sign the lease, while received on February 5, 2015, was within 2 days after receipt of the proposed lease. A proposed lease was emailed to us on February 3rd, 2015, which was the first time we had the opportunity to review the proposed lease. The phone call was placed on February 5th, 2015, two days after we received the proposed lease, which is within the 48 hour timeline that Forbes provides.

I highly doubt the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s laws and statutes suborn contracts of adhesion. I cannot imagine any instance in which a Court would support Forbes’ proposition that a prospective tenant forfeits deposit money even before Forbes prepares and gives the prospective tenant the legal contract (the lease) to review. There could have been no meeting of the minds regarding the rental of the apartment until the lease is prepared and signed. Therefore, the only sum to which Forbes is legally entitled is the application or processing fees, which we do not contest.

Sincerely,

[redacted] and [redacted]