Kingdom Properties LLC.

Kingdom Properties is in receipt of the customer complaint assigned an ID of [redacted] letter dated July 6, 2015 and received in this office on July 10, 2015. The Lease-Rental Agreement between Customer (Tenant) and Kingdom Properties as Owner is dated April 14, 2014 for the premises known as [redacted]...

[redacted]. The Lease-Rental Agreement clearly states in Section III.H that Tenant specifically covenants and agrees that no pets will be kept in, on or about the premises or running loose in the area. Violation of this clause forfeits the right to all security deposit refunds. In addition to forfeiture of security deposit, tenant is responsible for all damages to the apartment, Kingdom Properties would not normally demand that the tenant get rid of their pet but certainly expects the Tenant to be responsible in housing the pet. In response to any unannounced visits to the apartment, Kingdom Properties would either be responding to a Tenant initiated service call or showing the apartment to prospective Tenants as provided for in the lease.In regards to the time period in question, which was the critical time in our business of showing the apartment to prospective tenants for the next school year, I entered said property in April of 2015 with prospective tenants. Upon entrance we immediately were confronted with an intense foul smell obviously due to the two dogs in the apartment. In addition to the urination and defecation odors, interior destruction to floor coverings both carpet and floor tile was observed and was clearly a result damage caused by the pets as evidenced by the chewed and torn areas. These particular prospects along with several after this, refused to proceed past the front entrance due to the horrendous odors and the unrestrained dogs. I contacted the Tenant regarding the pets and communicated that we could not show the apartment in its current condition and that the pets must be removed. Tenant assured me that the odor situation would be remedied and that the animals would be relocated to Tenants parent's house. This never happened and our attempts to show the apartment was in vain due to the prospective tenant's refusal to enter the apartment as a result of the smell.Toward the last month of the Tenant's lease, she conveyed to me personally that she would be vacating the apartment early and that she agreed that we could perform the necessary work to restore the property to presentable condition in order to show the apartment. All floor coverings in the property had to be removed, deodorization efforts employed and all floor covering replaced. The existing floor coverings in the apartment at the time Tenant moved in were in good condition and had been newly installed in the 3 years prior to moving in. Pet urination, defecation and chewed up areas resulted in the inability to save the floor coverings. Tenant assured me that she would bear the cost of the replacement. Kingdom Properties will oftentimes only charge a portion of the actual replacement cost of the carpet/floor coverings to fairly allow for normal wear and tear. Although the actual cost to replace the carpet and vinyl was $1,270.30, Kingdom Properties only charged the Tenant $1,000.00 which was more than fair considering the good condition of the floor coverings, A copy of the invoice and 11 pictures depicting the awful condition of the apartment are enclosed with this letter.In response to damages to Tenants personal items, Kingdom Properties maintenance representatives responsibly packed up the items left behind. Any broken or damaged items would not have been caused by our employees who have over 15 years of experience handling these types of situations. These claims are clearly an attempt to not reimburse Kingdom Properties for damages caused by the Irresponsible actions of the pet owner.Again, a complete package of support documentation inclusive of pictures, invoice for cleaning of the apartment, invoice for carpet/vinyl replacement, maintenance reports at move out and a complete summary of charges as provided to the Tenant is enclosed. Kingdom Properties rents to over 250 college students and individuals each year who live responsibly in our apartments. Taking advantage of our tenants or college students is the last thing we would want to do, Kingdom Properties will however seek reimbursement of damages caused by irresponsible tenants.In summary, the cost to restore the apartment in question to a presentable condition and the lost rent due to not being able to rent the apartment on the designated lease date was considerably more than the Tenant was charged. As provided in the Lease-Rental Agreement, Kingdom Properties has the right to charge Tenant the actual cost to repair damages in addition to the forfeited security deposit when pets are involved. Kingdom Properties did not choose to invoke this provision but clearly reserves the right to do so if Tenants account is not settled.Respectfully,ManagerKingdom Properties