Landmark Apartments

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:This was not a question of roommate compatibility. "Roommate compatibility" is in regards to assigning the remaining roommates in the apartment. My "daughter and her friend" went to landmark together to get a room together. They signed a lease for a 4xwith the understanding they would be roommates. They understood that the remaining two rooms would be filled by Landmark, and Landmark did not guarantee "roommate compatibility" for the remaining two roommates, i.eyou may not like the other two roommates.As far as the resolution, we were forced to pay higher rent for a room that had a "feature wall" i.edifferent paint. Landmark should have given the girls the other room for the price quoted in the original lease. If they were unwilling to do that, they should have given the girls the option to get out of the lease. Instead, Landmark said they had no choice but to not be roommates or pay a higher rent to be moved to an available 4xapartment.Also, trying to get this resolved in a timely manner was impossible. They refused to return calls. They only have college students working the desk who are incapable of making a decision. Landmark could have easily resolved t his by giving my daughter and her friend the upgrade room at the original price in the lease. My daughter and her friend were price sensitive to the rent when they originally signed the lease. They did a "re-let" so that they could get the lower rent of $per month. The two girls signed the "re-let" with the expectation that this ensured they would be roommatesForcing the girls to pay the higher rent of $was ridiculous for a company that is charging people $a month ($total) for a square foot apartment Dealing with Landmark and the sales tactics they used was worse than the proverbial "used car salesman".Regards,
*** ***

July 30, 2016Landmark College Park received a complaint submitted on 07/06/assigned an ID of #*** from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC and Eastern Pennsylvania.In response to the customer concerns regarding erroneous charges on her son's account has been further investigatedAs a
conclusion of the investigation, management found the charges that were added to the account to be completely accurate and validAttached are several email correspondences between management at Landmark and *** *** (tenant), as well as *** *** (guarantor) in regards to the disputed chargesThe complaint primarily stems from health and safety inspections that were conducted on May 04, where there was a lease violation noted within ***'s apartmentCharges to ***'s account included - $Smoking Fine & $Specialized Cleaning Charge, inspection reports are also included as wellIn lieu of the dispute, we do believe in maintaining positive relationships with our current tenants, as well as our past tenantsWe are willing to reduce the specialized cleaning charge by 50%, reducing the overall charges from $to $Landmark will personally reach out to both the tenant and the guarantor in regards to the revised charges.We appreciate the Revdex.com alerting us about this complaint and apologize about the delayed responseLandmark College Park has transitioned to a new Property Manager as of 07/11/which was the primary reason for the delayIf there are any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at ***@landmarkcollegepark.com or *** ext***Best regards,Kimberly CGeneral Manager

Landmark College Park received a complaint submitted on 08/17/assigned an ID of #*** from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC and Eastern Pennsylvania.In response to the customer's concerns regarding roommate preferences, on page 5, #13a of the legally binding lease agreement (attached) that
was executed on 07/21/it clearly states - "Roommate compatibility is not guaranteed." Roommate preferences are done on a first come, first serve basis and solely based on availabilityWe offered to transfer the resident, however the only availability that would honor the request was at a higher rateUnfortunately, I could not offer a lower rate for a higher requested floor plan.In resolution, on 8/22/a new lease for $was executed in order for the resident to be roomed with her requested roommate requestThe case has been settled and closed on our end.We appreciate the Revdex.com alerting us about this complaint and apologize about the delayed responseIt is my hopes that this response can be updated in our files and will not negatively impact the reputation of our propertyIf there are any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or ###-###-####Best regards,Kimberly C*** General Manager