Lewis Management Corp.

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/03/18) */ Customer misstates some of the factsAlthough Customer indicates that Customer leased from February through March 2016, that was the term of the lease that Customer breached when Customer vacated the apartment in August, after being there only monthsWhen Customer decided to breach his lease, Customer asked about the early buy out with negotiated settlement clause contained in the lease which he refers to as the "Skip Clause." The negotiated buy-out would have required a 30-day notice and the payment of one month's rentCustomer did not pay the negotiated settlement amount of one month's rentAs such, the early buy-out option does not apply in Customer's case Customer is subject to the damages provided in CA Civil Code which means that Customer would be liable for any lost rent through the term of the lease subject to our duty to try to mitigate our lossesWe were able to lease the apartment again; however, it was at a reduced rental rate and not immediately after Customer vacatedThere is always some confusion what loss rent damages will be as we are unable to tell the Customer what those damages are until a new lease has been executedWe are sorry for the confusionLoss rent damages can only be estimated prior to the new lease being executedWe explained this to Customer several times and as damages were able to be calculated, revised statements were sent outAs we explained to Customer, we would be willing to work out a payment arrangement for the money owed; however, we do not agree that Customer states he only owes $Customer is under the mistaken impression that Customer is able to exercise the early buy-outAs stated previously, the buy-out does not apply in this instance, which is actually to Customer's benefit, as lost rent damages were less than the one month's rentWe have audited the file, removed some of the charges and have adjusted the amount owed to $This amount was calculated as follows: $(in damages from the extensive physical damage to the apartment carpeting as a result of an unauthorized pet, the vinyl was damaged and had to be replaced, the apartment not being left in a clean condition, and the final utility bill) + $(lost rent damages for breaching the lease) - $(deposit) - $(misccredit to account) = $We will send out a new breakdown of all of the charges Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2016/03/24) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I just want the dollar credit to the accountI had sent in a check for dollars in januarySo the total would be If you could adjust it to reflect that that would be acceptable [redacted] Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2016/03/25) */ The $will be applied and that will further reduce the amount to $ Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (2000, 11, 2016/03/28) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) The settlement is fairThis is what I should oweI am elated that we were able to reach an agreementThank you to all involved in helping us achieve this settlement [redacted]

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/07/02) */ AC concerns: 4/12/2014- first work order received regarding AC unit not working properlyOn 4/12/14- our AC vendor came to check AC systemVendor found the thermostat was defectiveVendor replaced the thermostat and showed the resident how to operate it properly 5/16/2014-Second Work order received regarding AC unit not working properly5/16/2014- maintenance found AC condenser coils clogged with dryer lintMaintenance cleaned coils and tested ac unitAC unit was found to be working properly, maintenance took a temperature reading of the cold air blowing in the home from the ac ventsSupply air from AC was measured at degrees FahrenheitTest was conducted in front of resident and was shown temperature readings of degrees Fahrenheit 9/1/2014- Third work order received regarding AC unit not working properly9/1/Maintenance checked AC unit and found the AC lines were frozen9/2/2014- Vendor serviced AC unit and added refrigerantSystem was restored and was working properly 4/23/2015- Fourth work order received regarding AC unit not cooling properly4/24/15- Vendor came back to service AC unitFound unit to be low in refrigerantIsolation test was requested to eliminate the possibility of any leaksResident was explained by maintenance that their AC will be down for a few days in order to conduct the testDue to the cooler temperatures at that time, the resident agreed to the testVendor conducted the isolation testOn 4/28/Vendor returned to check ac unit for any leaksThere were no leaks found in the system and the AC system was working properly 6/1/2015- Fifth work order received regarding AC unit not working properly6/1/Landlord contacted Vendor to service the AC6/5/Vendor arrived to service AC; however, Resident was not home and did not give permission to enterManager contacted resident to make them aware of Vendor's arrivalResident cancelled appointment and stated they would call back to rescheduleResident never called back to rescheduleResident has refused management's attempt to have the AC serviced Discrepancies with billing: Resident had discrepancy with a utility bill from our third party utility billing companyIn May of 2015, resident received a bill in the amount of $The office found that was an error in their billing cycle for billing dates 4/1/to 4/30/The error was corrected and resident's ledger was billed for the correct amount of $for water usage between 4/1/to 4/30/Resident was credited $to honor the mistake that was made and was left owing $for water usage dates of 4/1/to 4/30/15, which is the same amount shown on the bill by the utility billing company To date, the Resident has an outstanding balance of close to $that remains outstandingAfter refusing management's offer to work out a payment plan, Resident received a notice for unpaid utilities Contradictions with rental agreements: Resident currently has two leases on file with usThe first lease is dated from 10/14/to 11/13/The second lease is dated from 11/14/to 7/13/Rent has remained the same since the original lease from 10/14/ Resident has made many demands to management including receiving a final amount due upon move-outAs there is no way to ascertain what will be owed, it is impossible to provide such a number until Landlord is in possession of the unitAn estimate of damages can be provided, but not final move-out charges as Resident demanded

Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (2000, 6, 2015/10/16) */ This matter has been resolved

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/12/10) */
Brand new carpet was installed in this unit on April 23, (the invoice for this installation will be sent to Revdex.com)Resident moved in on September 7, At the time resident moved in the carpet was only months oldAt this time
the carpet was in excellent condition, as evidenced by the mowalk through sheet signed by the residentThe resident had a pet and there was pet damage to the carpet (see pictures sent to Revdex.com)All of the carpeting had to be replaced; however, the resident was not charged the entire cost of replacing the carpetThe resident was only charged for the prorated remaining useful life of the carpet which amounted to approximately $Resident is correct that the file was not noted regarding the vinyl being damaged by maintenanceThe vinyl charge of $will be reversed; however, resident will still owe as a result of the charges that remained unpaid at move-out (unpaid rent, utilities, carpet damage, and apartment cleaning feesBadocumentation will be sent to Revdex.com
With respect to resident's statement about hiring a carpet cleaning company to clean the carpets and indicating there was a lot of damage, resident had been living in the premises for months with a petResident cannot say the damage was attributable to someone else as this contradicts what resident acknowledged at mowhen resident inspected the premisesAs such, we did not cause the damage to the carpet nor did any prior resident as the carpet was only months old when resident moved in and it was in excellent condition
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 13, 2015/12/11) */
The picture taken does not show the carpet had to be replacedYes, I had a pet whom was trainedI say the carpet was cheap because prior to me getting the dog the carpet needed to cleanI asked the carpet cleaning company to come clean it again and he stated that the carpet was cheap and was damagedThen you take a picture of my dollar diploma that I have been looking for and I cal the office and the state they trashed itWho would trash a diploma with the name on itEverything that is gong on here is very unprofessionalThen you state what I owe for the carpet dollarMy deposit was dollar which would only make the carpet worth My rent was paid for the month of SeptemberCleaning charges I don't have a problem withThe carpet was paid with the deposit so why are they sending me a bill for And now I want my dollar diploma that they trashed
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2015/12/17) */
The carpet that was in your unit is the same type of carpet that we use throughout the communityIt is not cheap carpetingThe bill for the carpet that was put in your unit, as well as, the bill to replace the damaged carpet were submitted to Revdex.com and you received a copy in accordance with the lawAfter your move out, it was discovered by our Maintenance Supervisor that you had left your diploma hanging on the wallAt this time, our Business Manager attempted to reach you and left a message to let you knowAs a courtesy, the diploma was kept in the leasing office for over a month; however, you never responded or claimed itWhen you vacated the premises and returned keys, it was your responsibility to make sure that you had removed all of your valuable, personal belongingsThe diploma was not mentioned by you anywhere in your previous e-mails to the Business Manager nor listed in the on-line complaintPlease review the Final Statement of Charges which was sent to youWe did not receive a check for September's rentWe will look to see if there was an accounting error; however, that is not commonIf you can provide a copy of the canceled check we can more easily research itBetween rent owed, utilities owed, cleaning charges for the condition of the apartment, and replacement of the carpet--which was prorated (you were not charged the full cost of replacing it), you owed a balance that exceeded your deposit
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 17, 2015/12/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This is all a personal matter! Not once did your office attempt to call me to pick up my diploma! Yes, I did pay September rentJust like your staff over looked the linoleum issue your staff have over looked the payment issues and lied about calls made to me referencing my diploma I will provide phone statements and bank cashier check as evidence
You don't ever take personal matters into business practice!

•Painting throughout the apartment in the amount of $
This amount reflects a prorated charge for painting to restore the apartment back to its original conditionThe resident lived in the apartment home for thirteen monthsWe determine a percentage of the cost based on the length of time
the resident has lived in the apartmentOur policy is that no charge would be recovered after months of residencyThe resident was charged 50% of the full cost to paintPlease see attached picture #master bedroom closet, #living room, #living room, #dining room, and #kitchen reflect examples of what was needed throughout the apartment, thus exceeding wear and tearThe painting charge is prorated accordingly
•Plank floor repair in the amount of $
This amount is for the damaged plank flooring located in the living and dining roomOn July 20, 2016, a mowalk through was conducted and the resident did not indicate on the form of any damages to the plank flooringLewis moapartment standards for this luxury community are such that this damage would have been replaced prior to a new mofrom an incoming resident paying $per month for rentPlease see picture #living room and #dining room due to water damaged caused from your plant(s) resulting in damage beyond repairFurthermore, the Community Director spoke to the resident on Thursday, August 24th regarding the plank floor repair and Resident admitted that she had plants in both locations and did not realize the damage it causedThis was not exposed during the pre-inspection as the plants were not moved to see the damageShe requested pictures and an invoice to be emailed which was sent that same dayOn Tuesday, August 29th, Resident stated that she did not receive the emailThe email was resent again that same day including the original chain emailLastly, you will see that only labor was charged to the resident as we had some material on-hand at the communityAs a gesture of customer service, we did not charge the resident for the materialPlease see attached pictures and flooring invoice
• Disputing amount of $(Move-out balance)
This amount originated from the resident taking possession of the new apartment on August 11, The resident turned keys to her original apartment on August 12th, 2017, however, the end of her lease was August 17th, Her ledger was charged the five days of prorated rent ($430.15) to satisfy the lease contract end dateThe resident had a credit of $prior to the prorated rent charge of $bringing her disputed move-out balance to $
After reviewing these ledger entries, it has been determined that the $prorated rent charge for the remaining lease term days were charged erroneouslyIt is Lewis policy on transfers with days or less remaining on their lease, the prorated rent charged are waived out of customer service
In summary, we are willing to adjust the Final Account Statement and reverse the $rent prorate chargeIt is our stance that the painting and flooring charges are correctThis adjustment brings the new the new balance due to $

We agree with the resident that the document submitted by the resident indicates that the resident chose to exercise the Early Buy-Out Option which is defined in section II.Pof the attached Lease (Page 3)The Lease states the amount the resident agrees to pay if the resident choses to terminate the Lease early and elects the Early Buy-Out OptionThe resident elected the Early Buy-out Option on every Notice of Termination submitted as indicated by the "Yes" check box following the question: "My lease contains an Early Buy-out Option and I elect to exercise my Early Buy-out Option." (previously submitted)There was some confusion as to whether the residents intended to exercise the Early Buy-Out Option; however, this was subsequently resolved via phone call with the male residentAs such and upon confirmation that the Early Buy-Out Option was being elected, the amount in the Lease is the exact the Resident was charged on the Final Account Statement (see the previously submitted Final Account Statement)Resident is correct that if they make an election it should not be changed and that is exactly what occurred

I am rejecting this response because: We had already signed an agreement of the amount that would be owed. A request was made for us to resign a different agreement changing the terms. My husband agreed to this second request to recalculate amount however I still do not believe it is right to change what had already been agreed to and signed. We received a small refund due to the difference being taken out of our deposit. This complaint is closed but I still do not believe it was fair.

Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 6, 2015/10/16) */
This matter has been resolved.

When residents terminated their lease, they elected to exercise the early termination option in lieu of paying lost rent damages (subject to our duty to mitigate) (See attached notice to vacate). Everything was paid prior to moving out and no additional money is owed. Residents actually received a...

refund. See attached Final account statement. Please contact the property if you did not receive your refund check.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/02) */
AC concerns:
4/12/2014- first work order received regarding AC unit not working properly. On 4/12/14- our AC vendor came to check AC system. Vendor found the thermostat was defective. Vendor replaced the thermostat and showed the resident...

how to operate it properly.
5/16/2014-Second Work order received regarding AC unit not working properly. 5/16/2014- maintenance found AC condenser coils clogged with dryer lint. Maintenance cleaned coils and tested ac unit. AC unit was found to be working properly, maintenance took a temperature reading of the cold air blowing in the home from the ac vents. Supply air from AC was measured at 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Test was conducted in front of resident and was shown temperature readings of 59 degrees Fahrenheit.
9/1/2014- Third work order received regarding AC unit not working properly. 9/1/2014 Maintenance checked AC unit and found the AC lines were frozen. 9/2/2014- Vendor serviced AC unit and added refrigerant. System was restored and was working properly.
4/23/2015- Fourth work order received regarding AC unit not cooling properly. 4/24/15- Vendor came back to service AC unit. Found unit to be low in refrigerant. Isolation test was requested to eliminate the possibility of any leaks. Resident was explained by maintenance that their AC will be down for a few days in order to conduct the test. Due to the cooler temperatures at that time, the resident agreed to the test. Vendor conducted the isolation test. On 4/28/2015 Vendor returned to check ac unit for any leaks. There were no leaks found in the system and the AC system was working properly.
6/1/2015- Fifth work order received regarding AC unit not working properly. 6/1/2015 Landlord contacted Vendor to service the AC. 6/5/2015 Vendor arrived to service AC; however, Resident was not home and did not give permission to enter. Manager contacted resident to make them aware of Vendor's arrival. Resident cancelled appointment and stated they would call back to reschedule. Resident never called back to reschedule. Resident has refused management's attempt to have the AC serviced.
Discrepancies with billing: Resident had 1 discrepancy with a utility bill from our third party utility billing company. In May of 2015, resident received a bill in the amount of $105.28. The office found that was an error in their billing cycle for billing dates 4/1/15 to 4/30/15. The error was corrected and resident's ledger was billed for the correct amount of $107.31 for water usage between 4/1/15 to 4/30/15. Resident was credited $2.03 to honor the mistake that was made and was left owing $105.28 for water usage dates of 4/1/15 to 4/30/15, which is the same amount shown on the bill by the utility billing company.
To date, the Resident has an outstanding balance of close to $700 that remains outstanding. After refusing management's offer to work out a payment plan, Resident received a notice for unpaid utilities.
Contradictions with rental agreements: Resident currently has two leases on file with us. The first lease is dated from 10/14/2013 to 11/13/2014. The second lease is dated from 11/14/2014 to 7/13/2015. Rent has remained the same since the original lease from 10/14/2013.
Resident has made many demands to management including receiving a final amount due upon move-out. As there is no way to ascertain what will be owed, it is impossible to provide such a number until Landlord is in possession of the unit. An estimate of damages can be provided, but not final move-out charges as Resident demanded.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/18) */
Customer misstates some of the facts. Although Customer indicates that Customer leased from February 2015 through March 2016, that was the term of the lease that Customer breached when Customer vacated the apartment in August, after being there...

only 5 months. When Customer decided to breach his lease, Customer asked about the early buy out with negotiated settlement clause contained in the lease which he refers to as the "Skip Clause." The negotiated buy-out would have required a 30-day notice and the payment of one month's rent. Customer did not pay the negotiated settlement amount of one month's rent. As such, the early buy-out option does not apply in Customer's case.
Customer is subject to the damages provided in CA Civil Code 1951.2 which means that Customer would be liable for any lost rent through the term of the lease subject to our duty to try to mitigate our losses. We were able to lease the apartment again; however, it was at a reduced rental rate and not immediately after Customer vacated. There is always some confusion what loss rent damages will be as we are unable to tell the Customer what those damages are until a new lease has been executed. We are sorry for the confusion. Loss rent damages can only be estimated prior to the new lease being executed. We explained this to Customer several times and as damages were able to be calculated, revised statements were sent out. As we explained to Customer, we would be willing to work out a payment arrangement for the money owed; however, we do not agree that Customer states he only owes $950. Customer is under the mistaken impression that Customer is able to exercise the early buy-out. As stated previously, the buy-out does not apply in this instance, which is actually to Customer's benefit, as lost rent damages were less than the one month's rent. We have audited the file, removed some of the charges and have adjusted the amount owed to $1548.05. This amount was calculated as follows: $1705.62 (in damages from the extensive physical damage to the apartment carpeting as a result of an unauthorized pet, the vinyl was damaged and had to be replaced, the apartment not being left in a clean condition, and the final utility bill) + $854.93 (lost rent damages for breaching the lease) - $800 (deposit) - $212.50 (misc. credit to account) = $1548.05. We will send out a new breakdown of all of the charges.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/03/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I just want the 200 dollar credit to the account. I had sent in a check for 200 dollars in january. So the total would be 1297.86. If you could adjust it to reflect that that would be acceptable.
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/03/25) */
The $200 will be applied and that will further reduce the amount to $1297.86.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2016/03/28) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
The settlement is fair. This is what I should owe. I am elated that we were able to reach an agreement. Thank you to all involved in helping us achieve this settlement.
[redacted]