Housing Hub LLC

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/10/06) */ Mr [redacted] violated MN Statute "Issuance of a Worthless Check" four times during his tenancy and was charged a service fee of $for each instance$is the amount allowable by this statuteSubd 2.(a) The dates Mr [redacted] issued a worthless check were: 7/22/2014, 10/20/2014, 4/13/2015, 6/30/(which was the last payment issued by tenant) Mr [redacted] was also in violation of MN Statute 504BSubd where the tenant knowingly and intentionally used his Security Deposit to pay for his last months rent chargeUnfortunately, with his NSF fees, late fees (as Mr [redacted] was late on his rent out of the months of his tenancy), unpaid utility charges which was his responsibility according to his lease and the amount of damages and cleaning that needed to be taken care of after he vacated the property, Mr [redacted] still has a balance of over $owed to the owner of the property Attached is Mr [redacted] 's Tenant Ledger showing all payments and charges during his tenancyThis ledger shows there is no grounds for this complaint and we await Mr [redacted] 's payment Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/10/08) */ Yes, my rent was late maybe even more months out of the My pay check cycle with the Tile shop was every 7th & 21stHousing Hub Allows you until the 6th to pay rent or you get another large late feeWith the bill rotation I already had we just decided to eat that late fee and pay on the 7thSo as it may have been late it was always paidI also worked on commission so some times I couldn't pay the entire amount right away, and I take responsibility for that but we always let Housing Hub knowRent was always paidIn October, a check I gave them was returnedAccording the the Branch Manager of the Roseville location at the time, and my bank statements, it was not a fault of the bank, or lack of moneyThey said Housing Hub must have stopped paymentWhen I brought this to the attention of Tom Gallagher at Housing Hub he was defensive, and rude, but after all the proof he seemed to acknowledge I had the money in my account, and it was a mistakeBut they do all their transactions online, and they have not allowed me my transaction history after I've asked many times recently, but they did not take it off of my history and continuously harassed me on the phone until our last month I decided to not pay them until they took it offWe had already moved out but at eviction court the only money they were asking for was the rent, and not the hundreds of fees over that October incidentThis lead me to believe their guilt, so we let one of our security deposits pay the rentThe Department of Commerce has advised me not to pay anything else until they investigateAttached you will find that they are not asking for $30, they are taking $Proof of this is in a receipt they sent me when I was actually months ahead on rent, and in their lease agreementI had forgotten to cancel that months E Check after I had paid months rent, and they still charge me an NSF for the stopped checkThis we have discovered is illegalThe multiple returned checks would happen when I would setup Electronic Bill Pay for a date around the 5th, and then discover I did not make enough that paycheck, so the E Check would bounceThat is my fault yes, but the fees are still 3x the legal limitI have attached emails between Tom and I, as well as the other documents I mentioned, as well as the email showing the Department of Commerce has opened an investigation Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2015/10/09) */ The tenant admits paying late and having banking issues as well, which I can assume contributed to his payments not clearing and coming back as NSFOur current policies reflect exactly what the State of MN requires in the case a tenants payment comes back from our bank as NSF which is a service charge of $We use a 3rd party online service to accept and process e-paymentsIt is not within our control to stop or reject a paymentMr [redacted] has indicated that "I am filing this complaint to express that Housing Hub has been charging everyone these fees and it's inappropriate." I don't understand the language used in his Desired Outcome of this complaint, so I can only assume he is asking for some kind of refund of any alleged over payments in regards to the several times his rent payments were rejected as NSFWe attached his current ledger in our original response to his complaint and as it stands today regarding all NSF fees that we actually collected, which was $30/per occurrence and is within the guidelines of the State of MNThere is no merit to this complaint as his accounts stands today because there are no overpayments/overcharges to refund

This tenant has a Lease Agreement which indicates that their rent is due on the 1st day of every monthThey have a grace period to pay the balance owed by the end of the business day on the 5th day of the month without penaltyThese tenants have been more than days late on their rent, out of the last months and has accrued several late fees as well as unpaid rentAs of 9/6/2016, the tenants owed a balance of $1,Between 9/and 9/14, at least attempts were made to contact the tenants to alert the them to their balance owed and that it needed to be paid in full to avoid an eviction being filed, in which they would be responsible for the legal costs of doing so, according to their lease agreementThe Housing Hub office made these attempts via phone, email and text messaging with no responseAt that time, with a large balance owed and no response from the tenants for almost TWO WEEKS, the owner made a decision to initiate the eviction process for non payment of rentThe tenant finally contacted our office on or around 9/14/indicating that they would be paying the entire balance in full as of that dateThey failed to do soAn eviction request on these tenants was forwarded to Housing Hub's legal team the next day, on 9/15/The tenants then called into the Housing Hub office and made a Credit Card payment of $the next day on 9/16/The legal fees that would have been added to the tenants ledger was able to be removed as the filing, which was scheduled for later that day, had yet to occurAs of 9/16/2016, these tenants have a zero balance.The Lease Agreement that the owner's of this property and these tenants signed has no hidden fees included and all charges that have been added to this tenants ledger have been result of owed or unpaid rent amounts, late fees, utility payments or pet feesHousing Hub is merely a manager of this property and we work at the direction and at the discretion of the ownerAfter reviewing the tenants files and account, there is no "negligence" to be found and our Lease Agreements are available for review if requestedHousing Hub is requesting that this case be closed as there is nothing to dispute at this time

At this time, Housing Hub has responded to or is in the process of responding to any outstanding issues at this propertyHousing Hub is a 3rd party management company and does not own the property that the tenants live in, that means that we only work at the direction and discretion of the owner
We are sorry that we did not meet the tenants expectations in regards to the timeliness of our response to their maintenance requests, but nothing in their requests were deemed Emergency or Urgent Status when they submitted themThe tenants are asking to be released from their lease agreement and the owners of the property have been agreeable to release the tenants from their Lease Agreement as of 9/30/16, which is one month before the end of the leaseThe owner wants to work with these tenants but also needs enough time to find new tenants for this property if the current tenants are going to vacate earlyHousing Hub, on the direction of the owner, also offered to give a rent credit of $to the tenantsThat is a $24.00/day rent credit for the days their toilet wasn't working properly, the days that they were without hot water (due to the gas being shut off on the incorrect meter by Xcel Energy - this is certainly out of the owners control) and a $rent credit to cover the month of trash service that they paid for but did not receiveAs of today, the tenant rejected this offer verbally over the phoneHousing Hub has addressed the tenants maintenance concerns and have offered to release them from their lease early with a reasonable rent creditThis is what they have requested in the original Revdex.com complaintNot sure what else we can offer to them at this time

All of the tenants maintenance concerns have been addressed or are currently being addressedThere are no outstanding issues right now that our office is aware ofThere are no work order submissions regarding mold of any kindWe can only address issues that are properly submitted to our Maintenance systemWe have offered compensation for the days without a working toilet and no hot waterWe offered to refund for the month where they paid for trash service and didn't received the serviceWe also offered to release them from their lease early and they have rejected all of theseWe think our offer was fair and reasonable and if the tenant has trust issues with certain staff, any agreement we would've come to would, of course, would have been placed in writingWe are not prepared to offer anything further at this time and would respectfully request this case be closed by the Revdex.comThank you

I am rejecting this response because:
Was the first rejection I sent with an explanation not received ?

This tenant has a Lease Agreement which indicates that their rent is due on the 1st day of every month. They have a grace period to pay the balance owed by the end of the business day on the 5th day of the month without penalty. These tenants have been more than 5 days late on their rent, 4 out of...

the last 6 months and has accrued several late fees as well as unpaid rent. As of 9/6/2016, the tenants owed a balance of $1,361.12. Between 9/6 and 9/14, at least 6 attempts were made to contact the tenants to alert the them to their balance owed and that it needed to be paid in full to avoid an eviction being filed, in which they would be responsible for the legal costs of doing so, according to their lease agreement. The Housing Hub office made these attempts via phone, email and text messaging with no response. At that time, with a large balance owed and no response from the tenants for almost TWO WEEKS, the owner made a decision to initiate the eviction process for non payment of rent. The tenant finally contacted our office on or around 9/14/2016 indicating that they would be paying the entire balance in full as of that date. They failed to do so. An eviction request on these tenants was forwarded to Housing Hub's legal team the next day, on 9/15/2016. The tenants then called into the Housing Hub office and made a Credit Card payment of $1361.12 the next day on 9/16/16. The legal fees that would have been added to the tenants ledger was able to be removed as the filing, which was scheduled for later that day, had yet to occur. As of 9/16/2016, these tenants have a zero balance.The Lease Agreement that the owner's of this property and these tenants signed has no hidden fees included and all charges that have been added to this tenants ledger have been result of owed or unpaid rent amounts, late fees, utility payments or pet fees. Housing Hub is merely a manager of this property and we work at the direction and at the discretion of the owner. After reviewing the tenants files and account, there is no "negligence" to be found and our Lease Agreements are available for review if requested. Housing Hub is requesting that this case be closed as there is nothing to dispute at this time.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/06) */
Mr. [redacted] violated MN Statute 604.113 "Issuance of a Worthless Check" four times during his tenancy and was charged a service fee of $30.00 for each instance. $30.00 is the amount allowable by this statute. 604.113 Subd 2.(a)
The dates Mr...

[redacted] issued a worthless check were: 7/22/2014, 10/20/2014, 4/13/2015, 6/30/2015 (which was the last payment issued by tenant).
Mr. [redacted] was also in violation of MN Statute 504B.178 Subd 8 where the tenant knowingly and intentionally used his Security Deposit to pay for his last months rent charge. Unfortunately, with his NSF fees, late fees (as Mr [redacted] was late on his rent 7 out of the 12 months of his tenancy), unpaid utility charges which was his responsibility according to his lease and the amount of damages and cleaning that needed to be taken care of after he vacated the property, Mr. [redacted] still has a balance of over $500 owed to the owner of the property.
Attached is Mr. [redacted]'s Tenant Ledger showing all payments and charges during his tenancy. This ledger shows there is no grounds for this complaint and we await Mr. [redacted]'s payment.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/10/08) */
Yes, my rent was late 7 maybe even more months out of the 12. My pay check cycle with the Tile shop was every 7th & 21st. Housing Hub Allows you until the 6th to pay rent or you get another large late fee. With the bill rotation I already had we just decided to eat that late fee and pay on the 7th. So as it may have been late it was always paid. I also worked on commission so some times I couldn't pay the entire amount right away, and I take responsibility for that but we always let Housing Hub know. Rent was always paid. In October, a check I gave them was returned. According the the Branch Manager of the Roseville location at the time, and my bank statements, it was not a fault of the bank, or lack of money. They said Housing Hub must have stopped payment. When I brought this to the attention of Tom Gallagher at Housing Hub he was defensive, and rude, but after all the proof he seemed to acknowledge I had the money in my account, and it was a mistake. But they do all their transactions online, and they have not allowed me my transaction history after I've asked many times recently, but they did not take it off of my history and continuously harassed me on the phone until our last month I decided to not pay them until they took it off. We had already moved out but at eviction court the only money they were asking for was the rent, and not the hundreds of fees over that October incident. This lead me to believe their guilt, so we let one of our 2 security deposits pay the rent. The Department of Commerce has advised me not to pay anything else until they investigate. Attached you will find that they are not asking for $30, they are taking $85. Proof of this is in a receipt they sent me when I was actually 2 months ahead on rent, and in their lease agreement. I had forgotten to cancel that months E Check after I had paid 2 months rent, and they still charge me an NSF for the stopped check. This we have discovered is illegal. The multiple returned checks would happen when I would setup Electronic Bill Pay for a date around the 5th, and then discover I did not make enough that paycheck, so the E Check would bounce. That is my fault yes, but the fees are still 3x the legal limit. I have attached emails between Tom and I, as well as the other documents I mentioned, as well as the email showing the Department of Commerce has opened an investigation
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/10/09) */
The tenant admits paying late and having banking issues as well, which I can assume contributed to his payments not clearing and coming back as NSF. Our current policies reflect exactly what the State of MN requires in the case a tenants payment comes back from our bank as NSF which is a service charge of $30.00. We use a 3rd party online service to accept and process e-payments. It is not within our control to stop or reject a payment. Mr. [redacted] has indicated that "I am filing this complaint to express that Housing Hub has been charging everyone these fees and it's inappropriate." I don't understand the language used in his Desired Outcome of this complaint, so I can only assume he is asking for some kind of refund of any alleged over payments in regards to the several times his rent payments were rejected as NSF. We attached his current ledger in our original response to his complaint and as it stands today regarding all NSF fees that we actually collected, which was $30/per occurrence and is within the guidelines of the State of MN. There is no merit to this complaint as his accounts stands today because there are no overpayments/overcharges to refund.