Hornig Company Inc

We have received *** ***’s complaint and investigated her concerns. I have personally corresponded with Ms*** through email (at her request). Regarding her security concerns, our property managers maintain that they only entered her apartment after receiving complaints that
her dog was barking very loudly, disturbing other neighbors. The managers have been at the property for over years and pride themselves on going above and beyond to ensure problems are addressed. I advised the managers not to check on the dog again and to contact Ms*** immediately if they get any future complaints while she resides at the property. Regarding the mail, I advised her to file a complaint with the USPS if she is concerned about the security of her mail and that we have never had any issues with mail security at the property before. We also agreed to her requested $concession on her May rent and that her move out inspection will be done by another Hornig Companies staff member on Thursday, June at 5:30pm. I have directly asked Ms*** if there is anything else we can do to address her issues or if we have satisfied her concerns and she seemed satisfied with our mutually agreed upon resolution. Thank you!

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/11/16) */
November 16,
Hornig Companies has owned and managed rental properties in Uptown, the Twin Cities and greater Minnesota areas for over yearsOn July 1, Hornig Companies purchased and began managing buildings formerly managed by
Apartment Management CompanyThis purchase includes buildings located at***
On October 31, Hornig Companies distributed letters to residents, including those on Dean Parkway buildings, describing snow removal policies and procedures for the winter monthsThe notices describe how we will alert residents when situations arise where we will be plowing outside parking lots and also the need for residents to move their cars during plowing so that the work can be carried outResidents are also notified that if cars are not moved for plowing that they may be towed so that a thorough plowing can be accomplished
The residents of the Dean Parkway buildings, including Mr***, are still on the previous lease agreement from Apartment Management Company that does not address snow plowing proceduresPlease see the attached copy of Mr***'s leaseIn order to ensure residents living on Dean Parkway are familiar with the procedures that have been used at the other Hornig buildings for the past several winters we notified them of this building rule with notes delivered to each apartment as well as with notes posted near the building entrance doorsPlease see the attached notice copies
If you need further information or have questions please contact me
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/11/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The landlord response was essentially a restatement of facts and an offer to settleI will respond to it, but also propose at settlement
Landlord state: "The residents of the Dean Parkway buildings, including Mr***, are still on the previous lease agreement from Apartment Management Company that does not address snow plowing procedures."
My response: Landlord correctly states there is nothing in the paper lease or other paperwork, outside of the Oct notice, regarding parkingHowever, with years of parking experience at this residence that did not require moving cars, an oral deal was in placeThus, I had a month-to-month lease with parking that did not require rapid moving of my car and instead, by implicit agreement by behavior (how people acted), I am allowed parking without rapid movement of my carAny change to this must be in the form of lease amendment and the courts view bad notice is no noticeThe above can referenced in Eastman v Vetter and Oesterreicher vRobertson
But who wants to get towed and go to court to prove at point? Not me
So I propose that the landlord set aside a couple of spots in the garage that can be rented at a premium for week blocks ($per wk) for residents like me who know they are going to be traveling and unavailable to move their cars
Thank you

In response to complaint:[redacted] states that our pricing for our garage spaces is being gender discriminative. This is false. Our procedure when renting a garage stall is the following: Garage stalls rent at market price at the time of the request.  Currently, October 2016 the...

market rent is $65/month per garage stall. This can be seen as [redacted] started renting his garage stall in August of 2012 and at that time the market price for a garage was $45. In addition, there are two residents who started renting garage stalls in 2011 who are paying $35 per month, again the market price from when they started renting those garages. The residents who started renting garage stalls in 2013 and 2014 are being charged $50/month. [redacted] as well as another resident within the building started renting their garage stalls at the current market rate of $65 in 2016.[redacted] is a 16 unit multifamily apartment building with no on-site leasing office.  Therefore, we are unable to provide package acceptance service to our residents. [redacted] does have a controlled entry system at the building.  Residents are encouraged to shut the doors behind them and not allow access to anyone other than their guests. If you encounter an issue with a missing package please contact Amy [redacted] at Hornig Companies directly @ ###-###-####. To ensure proper delivery from multiple delivery companies, we suggest you have them shipped with signature required or have them held at the delivery vendor location for pick-up.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/02/19) */
The consumer contacted us to say that she was backing out because we didn't have a garage for her. Initially, when the customer applied, we told her that there was a wait list for garages and that we didn't think that we would have one until...

March or April (she was going to move in March 1st). She choose to move forward with the application anyway. The manager audited the garage list that afternoon, double checked the actual garages the next morning and found one for her. When the manager contacted her to let her know that we had a garage, she said that she was no longer interested because there wasn't a garage available. The manager explained that she had a garage for her and had never said that she wouldn't have one by the time she moved in. We were able to meet her needs, but she insisted that she had changed her mind and demanded her deposit back. Per our pre-lease deposit, if an approved applicant changes his/ her mind, after the apartment is reserved and taken off the market, the deposit is retained. See attached pre-lease agreement with consumer's signature on it. The customer then contacted our home office and spoke to the Portfolio Manager who then explained her options: move in (with a garage) or back out and loose the deposit. The customer did not want to move in so we retained her deposit per the agreement.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/02/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I was not told initially I had to wait for a garage. I was told one would be available upon move in. When I was contacted and told I had been approved, this is when I was told a garage was not available until approximately April or May. Then and only then did I change my mind. The next day after I requested the return of my deposit is when I was told that mysteriously now a garage was available. I MUST have a garage as I explained due to a domestic situation which involved damage to my vehicle. This is the whole reason for the move in the dead of winter. There is no way I would except a apartment without a garage. Horning broke the agreement by lying to me saying they would have one upon move in because they knew they would steal my deposit. Again, I was told the day I was approved they had no garage, not before so therefore I did not break the agreement. The staff at Rose Mall did and I disserve my deposit back. I was also told that they had several applications for this same unit that "did not work out" so they were determined to steal my deposit seemingly because others had backed out or were not approved. In addition, To keep the entire $400.00 is unreasonable. I may have agreed if it was a portion but I still did not break the agreement Rose Mall staff did by lying to me just to get that trouble some unit rented. I was purposely and conveniently told after I was approved they had no garage. This was and is deceptive practice. This is way to dangerous for my family and myself to agree to no garage. I would not do that as I have stated. I was completely taken advantage of and lied to. I DID NOT BREAK THE AGREEMENT, Hornig did.