Lakeshore Pearl Apartments

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:The explanation of charges provided by the business was only for some of the charges I received, citing "damages exceeding wear and tear"I was also charged cleaning fees (which were not addressed in the response) for several items that I do not believe fell outside of "wear and tear"I have contacted the property manager several times, and they have been unable to tell me how they define "wear and tear" and why my apartment fell outside of that definition.Additionally, the response I was sent stated that the carpet was replaced due to pet damage, however, on the document that was sent, "Pet damage" was not selected as a reason for the carpet replacement"Pet odor" does not strike me as a valid reason for carpet replacement (vs carpet cleaning), nor as "damages exceeding wear and tear"So there seems to be inconsistency Regards, [redacted]

October 31, 2017*** ***
*** * *** *** *** ** ***Dear ***This letter is in response to your Revdex.com complaint. The photos included with this letter demonstrate damages exceeding wear and tearOnly minimal charges were assessed to your account for
cleaning. The carpet was replaced due to stains and heavy pet odor which didn’t result from wear and tear. High traffic areas that became worn over time is what is considered to be wear and tear for carpetYou were charged $for the carpet being replaced which included giving credit for the depreciation value of the carpetThe photos are included for your review along with the carpet cleaning proposal from the carpet companyI hope this helps clarify for you why your account was charged carpet and cleaning fees. If you have any further questions, feel free to reach out to the local property manager or assistant property manager in the leasing office at (***Sincerely,*** ***Senior Collections and Auditing Specialist

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The explanation of charges provided by the business was only for some of the charges I received, citing "damages exceeding normal wear and tear". I was also charged cleaning fees (which were not addressed in the response) for several items that I do not believe fell outside of "normal wear and tear". I have contacted the property manager several times, and they have been unable to tell me how they define "normal wear and tear" and why my apartment fell outside of that definition.Additionally, the response I was sent stated that the carpet was replaced due to pet damage, however, on the document that was sent, "Pet damage" was not selected as a reason for the carpet replacement. "Pet odor" does not strike me as a valid reason for carpet replacement (vs carpet cleaning), nor as "damages exceeding normal wear and tear". So there seems to be inconsistency. 
Regards,
[redacted]