Kaufman O'Neil Architecture, LLC

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I have reviewed the response and here is the information they need to further look into the situation. The account is ID # [redacted] and the apartment is leased to my son---[redacted] [redacted]. I am is father and the person filing the compalint. I was the one who paid by e check.Regards,
[redacted]

I am writing in response to the complaint submitted on February 4, 2016 by Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] mentioned that his realtor gave him incorrect information, or information that was misunderstood prior to signing his lease. While Mr. [redacted]’s situation with his realtor is unfortunate,...

he was presented with the lease and given the option to review it prior to signing the document. The lease states in several places that while 512 Realty does initially receive the bill for gas, water, stormwater/drainage, and trash, the bill is split equally between all occupants of the building and the cost allocated back to each tenant. This can be found both on page 1 of the TAA lease contract, and the following addenda to the lease: Lease Addendum for Allocating Water/Wastewater Costs, Lease Addendum for Allocating Trash Removal and Recycling Costs, Lease Addendum for Allocating Natural Gas Costs, and Lease Addendum for Allocating Stormwater/Drainage Costs. All tenants of this lease were given an opportunity to read and review each page of the lease prior to signing the document electronically. Mr. [redacted] inquired about why he is being billed for gas at the property, when all the internal appliances in his apartment are powered only by electricity. The tenants of this building are billed for gas because the water heaters on the property are powered by gas. While no appliances in the apartment are powered by gas, all hot water on the property is powered by gas. Mr. [redacted] stated that he was unaware of his requirement to replace light bulbs and air filters until after his lease had already been signed. Mr. [redacted]’s lease states on page 7, section 40, that he is responsible for replacing light bulbs. It also states on the addendum titled “Addendum to Lease Rules, Regulations, and Policies” that he is responsible for replacing his air filter monthly. All tenants were given an opportunity to read and review each page of the lease prior to signing the document electronically. Mr. [redacted] stated that 512 Realty only offers online payment for rent, and he was uninformed of any other way to make his monthly rental payment. As stated on page 1 of Mr. [redacted]’s lease, 512 Realty offers payment both through our online payment site, or at our office located at 2404 Rio Grande Street, Austin, TX 78705. When the initial account-holder set up the online payment account, the initial account holder did agree to the fifty cent processing fee for online payments. After speaking with Mr. [redacted] directly, he admitted that this account was initially set-up by his fellow lease-holder, Jessica Rios. However, 512 Realty has offered a $6 credit onto Mr. [redacted]’s account to cover the 12 fifty cent convenience fees that would occur through his lease if he continued to pay online once a month. 512 Realty also offered him the option to pay with a check with no penalty. The $50 fee that was referenced is a fee for returned payments due to non-sufficient funds. While the representatives at 512 Realty are apologetic that Mr. [redacted] had issues paying his rent, the fee related to returned payments cannot be removed. In regards to the pool issue Mr. [redacted] outlined, Mr. [redacted] notified our office of this on August 24th, 2015. As of the following day, August 25th, 2015, a 512 Realty representative contacted our pool maintenance company to remedy the issue. 512 Realty had no further contact from Mr. [redacted] about this issue until this complaint was made on February 4th, 2016. 512 Realty will act with customary diligence to repair any pool issue that is brought to our attention. Additionally, 5% of the total water bill for the property is deducted from the tenants’ allocated portions for common area usage such as the pool, so no tenant is penalized for pool situations such as overflow. As Mr. [redacted] has stated, 512 Realty has attempted to send pest control to his apartment several times, and 512 Realty regularly has the exterior of the property treated by a professional pest control representative. However, since Mr. [redacted] has had consistent issues without relief, 512 Realty has agreed to credit him a refund for the past 8 months of pest control charges that were placed on his account. 512 Realty has also agreed to send pest control to his apartment weekly to remedy the issue he has been experiencing. Mr. [redacted] correctly that an outside company, Coinmach, owns the laundry machines at his current apartment complex. 512 Realty is under a contract with this company and legally cannot touch, repair, remove, or replace the existing laundry machines. 512 Realty agrees that the service Coinmach has provided has been less than adequate and 512 Realty plans to pursue whatever means necessary to get all laundry machines at the complex operational again. 512 Reaty has also placed a small credit on Mr. [redacted]’s account for money lost in the inoperative machines. Total billing adjustment issued by 512 Realty to Mr. [redacted]: $25 for pest control and laundry, $6 for monthly rental payment convenience fees to 12 monthly rental payments.

In regards to the roach issue the tenant reported, 512 Realty was initially contacted by the tenant about this issue on August 24th, 2015. The tenant and his roommate took possession of the apartment in question on July 22, 2015. This evidence does not support the tenant’s claim that roaches were found “immediately upon move-in.” However, after receiving notice of a pest issue on August 24th, 2015, 512 Realty responded to this request within the time frame allotted by state landlord requirements. When the initial response did not address the issue, the tenant made another complaint. 512 Realty did reach out to Heat Wave Pest Control, again within the time frame allotted by state landlord requirements. The tenant’s claim that this company is under the 512 Realty “umbrella” and that it is the “only company” used by 512 Realty on this property is incorrect. This company is not under contract with 512 Realty. It is it the only pest control company utilized by 512 Realty, nor is 512 Realty the only customer of this pest control company. Heat Wave Pest Control did ask that furniture be moved 6 inches away from the wall, not the 1 foot that the tenant cited. The tenant hired a moving company of his own free will, rather than questioning this pest control requirement, or asking for help from either the pest control company or 512 Realty. Hiring this company was his personal decision, and 512 Realty does not assume responsibility for this cost. 512 Realty has and does still agree to have the property inspected by two reputable pest control companies of the tenant’s choosing. If there is an inspection cost, 512 Realty will cover it. However, 512 Realty did not agree for these companies to treat the property. This decision will be based on the findings of each company’s inspection. 512 Realty also required that the tenant contact us with his pest control company choices prior to them coming to the property. The tenant has yet to contact us with his pest control company choices. In regards to the illegal activity the tenant believes is occurring in the apartment below his, 512 Realty has made contact several times with the tenant in the apartment below in regards to this matter, including issuing a lease violation related to noise level. 512 Realty can take no further action without specific noise complaints, citing time, date and duration, from this or other tenants. 512 Realty has neither seen nor heard evidence from local law authority that the actions of the apartment below are illegal. 512 Realty is not a law enforcement agency and does not conduct investigations in these matters. If the tenant believes illegal activity to be occurring, 512 Realty has and continues to suggest that the tenant contact the proper authorities. In regards to the rental payment fees the tenant mentioned, 512 Realty has agreed to waive the $10 check processing fee for this tenant. However, since this overdraft and 50 cent convenience fee seem to be a lack of communication on 512 Realty’s part prior to the tenant’s move-in, 512 Realty has agreed to credit the tenant the $50 insufficient funds fee which was charged to his account when his rental payment returned. 512 Realty will not waive any such insufficient funds fees in the future since the tenant is now aware that the 50 cents will continue to be charged if they choose to pay online. Please refer to our previous response that cites a credit to the tenant of $6 as a refund for these fees if the tenant chooses to continue to pay rent online. 512 Realty appreciates feedback and we are working to resolve all the issues this tenant has brought to our attention. Our response has been timely in all matters.

Complaint: [redacted]
  I reject 512’s resolution of this complaint.   There was a roach issue with this unit/building long before I moved in. 512 has failed to produce any evidence that a pest control treatment was made before allowing tenants to occupy the space. Roaches were found immediately following move in. In order to get a spray treatment in my apartment I needed to move all furniture a foot away from the wall. The same furniture that was all just moved in. I am not capable of moving my large dresser, bed, entertainment center, kitchen table, large area rugs, and couch with mechanical recliners as they are too heavy for me. A moving company was required to do this. A $75 bill was sent to 512 at the end of September to cover this moving expense, and still remains unpaid. Choosing to wait until after tenants moved in to schedule a pest control treatment was 512’s choice, not mine.   512 agreed by telephone, but made no mention here, that I get to choose 2 independent pest control companies to come evaluate and treat the property. These visits will be paid for by 512 realty. These two companies will not be under 512’s financial umbrella as is ‘Heat Wave’ pest control, the only company ‘used’ on this property.   There was also no resolution or mention of the illegal activity being conducted in the unit underneath me, #[redacted] and in the common area. There is drug use and distribution as well as consumption of alcohol by minors. This is on top of the amplified band practice conducted weekly, and against the terms of the lease.   512 wrote, “As stated on page 1 of Mr. [redacted]’s lease, 512 Realty offers payment both through our online payment site, or at our office located at [redacted], Austin, TX 78705. When the initial account-holder set up the online payment account, the initial account holder did agree to the fifty cent processing fee for online payments.”   What they failed to mention is that the only payment you can conduct by coming to their office, is to pay by cashier’s check or money order, which carries a $10 processing fee. The initial account holder that authorized the $0.50 charge, was only given the choice to pay $0.50 or $10 each time payment was made. Where is the free option? Where is the option to pay what I agreed in my lease? There is none. This fee was presented after the lease was reviewed and signed electronically; days after. The $50 fee on my account must be paid by 512 realty. The overdraft occurred because more money was charged to the card, than was agreed upon in our lease.   On top of the $31 credit already applied to my account, I wish for a refund of $50 for the overdraft fee and $75 for the moving fee. $125 I also require a detailed summary of your actions ensuring the illegal activity beneath me and in the common area stop immediately and the noise levels fall to a tolerable level.  
[redacted]