Long & Foster Real Estate Companies, Inc.

*** *** is correct in stating that Long & Foster previously managed the property located at Corcoran Street NW, Washington DC ***. At the time when Long &
Foster managed the property, an initial survey was completed with the tenant and vendor present. An estimate was submitted to the *** Company, which was approved and the work was started. Under the management agreement, Long & Foster is not required to supervise the work, unless the property owner agrees to an additional non-management service fee for project management. As per the management agreement signed by the *** Company, they did not agree to that term
The next challenge was access into the property for the lower level unit (Unit *). The tenant had dogs. In order for Long & Foster to access the property, the tenant would have to be present or the dogs kenneled. This is to ensure that no harm comes to the animals, vendors or employees. The tenant did not comply with the request for access or was only available after hours (after 5pm, weekends), which would have been considered “Premium” time and billed to the owner.
On May 18, The *** Company gave notice to terminate management due to accounting challenges. The account closeout was completed by June 30, when the new management company took over the account. During the transition, the new management company had the opportunity to bring up any discrepancies, including uncompleted work or repairs to the attention of Long & Foster Property Management. At that time, Long & Foster would have determined whether the discrepancies were valid and needed to be resolved. We would then bring back the vendor to complete any outstanding repairs.
Long & Foster received notice about the repairs one year after the closeout of the account. From the documentation sent by the *** Company, the work estimate submitted by the new management company in July was not completed at the time the tenant scheduled a DCRA (Deptof Consumer & Regulatory Affairs) Inspection September 24, 2014. This was months after the closeout of the account with Long & Foster. This shows that any maintenance issues brought to our attention could have been resolved at the time of closeout when the owner, new management company, Long & Foster and the vendor may have had access to the property
Our business is based on superior customer service. We strive to provide a service where clients & customers refer our organization as the leading real estate company in the area. Part of that customer service is based on resolving issues such as the situation with the *** Company account. I am sure if Long & Foster was aware of the discrepancies during the transition of management, it would have been resolved at that time.
Thank you in advance and please let me know if you have any other questions.
Jean P***
Regional Manager
Long & Foster Property Management

I have rented a home from Long and Foster for nearly two years now. They are usually quick and responsive to any maintenance that needs to be done to the house however, as far as any concerns with the lease, situations regarding roommates that make the house uninhabitable, they are either unresponsive or uncooperative with any concerns that their tenants may have. Long and Foster is in the business of providing homes for people, but their customer service for their tenants are extremely poor. I have received several emails from them stating that they refuse to speak on the phone. I have left several voicemails with no call backs and several emails with no response unless it is a general response saying they will not handle the matter because they are too busy.
How can you be in a customer service business and not provide adequate support to your tenants?

The complaint is made against “Long & Foster Companies, Inc.” but the nature of the complaint is directed at two different entities, [redacted] Title, LLC (“[redacted]”) and Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc. (“L&F” and together with [redacted] as the “Respondents”). Both entities share common ownership...

interests so this response is hereby made on behalf of both Respondents.The Revdex.com complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that L&F & [redacted] were responsible for [redacted]’s inability to retain a portion of the rent paid for a post-settlement occupancy (i.e. rent back) after the sale of a property located at [redacted], Alexandria, VA (the “Property”). It is worth noting that [redacted] was not an owner of the Property and as such, was not a customer of either [redacted] or L&F. His wife, Stephanie Sher (the “Seller”) was the owner of the Property and was the customer/client of the Respondents. Even though this complaint was not brought by an individual with any relationship to either of the Respondents, in the interest of conserving time and effort, the Respondents hereby respond as follows:
To provide some background on the issue, a post-settlement occupancy is created when a seller sells a property but, for a number of reasons, needs to stay in the property for a period after closing. This is also called a “rent back.” In this case, there was approximately a two month rent back that was negotiated as part of the original sales contract. However, the Seller’s Post- Settlement Occupancy Agreement (i.e. an addendum to the contract that establishes the specific terms of the tenancy)(hereinafter the “Addendum”), was not executed at the time of ratification of the sale of the Property. This is not uncommon because the “rent” to be paid often consists of the buyer’s carrying cost for the property (e.g. principal, interest, tax, insurance and HOA); which are not usually known at the time of ratification of the underlying contract.
This dispute pertains to the disposition of the unused portion of the “rent” for the rent back. In this transaction, after a prior stalled negotiation with the same purchaser, the Seller agreed to sell her property with a closing date of September 29, 2014 and with a post-settlement occupancy term through November 28, 2014. Up to the settlement date, the parties were still negotiating the terms to the Addendum. As mentioned previously, the parties could not reach an agreement concerning the disposition of any unused portion of the rent if the Seller was able to vacate the Property earlier than November 28, 2014. Even though this dispute was solely between the principals to the contract, [redacted] insisted that this failure to obtain a partial refund (for a hypothetical situation) was the fault of the Respondents. Of course, neither Long & Foster nor [redacted] could compel a party to agree to that which they were not inclined. The Seller knew of this outstanding term at all times and proceeding to settlement and closing on the Property. The Seller was well aware that this term was not agreed to by the principals to the contract and that she would not likely be eligible for the refund of any “unused” rent.
It should be noted that the buyer’s refusal to refund the “unused” rent is not unusual. A buyer of a real estate often does not want to refund the unused portion of the rent because they also have unavoidable expenses in delaying their occupancy of the newly purchased property. However, this nuance appears to be lost on [redacted].
RESPONSE OF L&F:
With respect to L&F, Seller’s representation was undertaken by two L&F licensees, Lorraine Au[redacted] and Joseph Crane. The first offer for the purchase of the Property was written in late
July, 2014 for $360,000.00. It was an all-cash offer with no closing cost subsidy and settlement to occur within 15 days. This offer also allowed the owner post-occupancy tenancy. [redacted] was able to negotiate the price up to $372,000.00 but the contract was ultimately rejected by Seller. It should be noted that this rejected offer would have netted the owner about $7,000.00 more that the final contract.
The next offer, after substantial negotiation by [redacted], eventually resulted in a price of $370,000.00 without any closing costs subsidy. This contract was ratified and would have resulted in only $2,000.00 less than the all-cash offer would have netted. This contract ultimately failed due to a home inspection issue and was voided. At this point, the Seller decided to take the property off the market per a listing withdrawal signed on September 11, 2014.
The agent for the same prospective buyer contacted [redacted] about a week later and indicated his buyer was interested in renewing the negotiations. [redacted] passed along the message to the Shers. [redacted] did not get a response from the Seller but learned that [redacted] had contacted the selling agent, John E[redacted], directly. Mr. E[redacted], as required by various real estate regulations, then contacted Lorraine A[redacted] who in turn communicated with [redacted]. Ultimately, the buyer and seller agreed to reinstate the previously terminated contract.
On September 17, 2014, an addendum was executed by the Seller and buyer at a price of $373,000 with a closing cost subsidy of $8,000.00. This contract (the “Contract”) listed a settlement date of September 29, 2014 and provided that a “Post Occupancy Agreement Deadline shall be Friday, Nov 28, 2014.” It should be noted that Paragraph 15 (Other Terms) of the Virginia Jurisdictional Addendum to the Contract further provided that the: “Seller shall have the option to rent back for up to 60 days from settlement. Seller to inform Purchaser of election to rent back and duration no later than 1 week prior to settlement. Purchaser and Seller agree to execute [redacted] Post Settlement Occupancy Agreement specifying Occupancy charge of Purchaser’s [redacted] and security deposit of $1,000.00 to be held by [redacted].”
On 9/24/14, the buyer signed a Seller’s Post-Settlement Occupancy Agreement. This agreement stated that if the Seller moved out prior to sixty days there would be no refund of the rent. The Seller made a counter offer to this by checking the box that provides that if they moved prior to the deadline, the unused rent would be refunded at the time the Seller vacates. The Seller and buyer never reached an agreement on this term. At settlement, a full sixty days of rent was charged to the Seller and Seller executed the closing documents agreeing to this disposition. While the issue was raised at settlement, L&F’s licensees worked to reach a mutual agreement but unfortunately, no one was able to convince the buyer to relent on this position. Even though L&F worked tirelessly to resolve this issue, L&F simply cannot be responsible for a failure of the parties to reach an accord. Further, L&F’s licensees were repeatedly instructed to obtain a sixty day rent back by the Seller with no indication that the potential refund of any unused rent was required. As seen from the contract documents, had the need for this term been adequately communicated to L&F and its licensees, they would have made it a part of the agreement as they did the other material terms. In short, [redacted], or more aptly, the Seller was unable to get the purchaser to agree to a last minute modification to the Contract and has blamed parties that had no control to effectuate this modification.
RESPONSE OF [redacted]:The allegations against [redacted] are even more attenuated. It was not the settlement company’s obligation to negotiate the specifics of the post-settlement occupancy with parties. The settlement company is tasked with enforcing the terms of the contract. The contention by the [redacted] is based on a flawed understanding of a settlement company’s role. As previously stated, the principals of the contract could not reach an agreement concerning the unused portion of any rent.
To recount the events from [redacted]’ perspective, please note as follows:The [redacted] settlement agent reviewed the settlement documents with Seller, including the HUD-1 on the September 29, 2014, date of settlement. The Seller reviewed and signed all of the settlement documents. When the closing took place, [redacted] had a copy of the post-settlement occupancy agreement which was signed by both parties. The settlement agent was later notified by [redacted] that the Seller requested the change concerning the refund of unused rent term. It was then that [redacted] was informed that the buyer had not agreed to this modification. Upon learning this, [redacted] contacted the buyer’s agent, to find out if there was any additional communication regarding this change. After some investigation, it was determined that, Seller (or more likely, [redacted]) made the change and sent the agreement back to the buyer without notifying the buyer of the change.
The [redacted] employees then explained to [redacted] and the Seller that it is the responsibility of the parties to ensure the contract and addenda they agreed to are fully ratified, including any counterproposals or modification. Since the basic terms of the post-settlement occupancy were established in the original contract, there was simply no mechanism to require the buyer to agree to this change of terms. The title company is responsible for ensuring the settlement documents are reviewed by the parties, completed, and accepted. [redacted] prepared the HUD-1 based on the information provided to it by the parties. All parties reviewed the HUD-1, executed the settlement documents confirming their acceptance and [redacted] disbursed the funds as authorized.
After closing, [redacted] contacted the [redacted] settlement agent several times to express his frustration; often in an abusive manner. He stated that he feels the buyer “played a better hand” and therefore won. He continued to send multiple threatening and abusive messages to employees of the Respondents. In a remarkable display of customer service acuity, [redacted] offered a refund of $500.00 to resolve this but requested a release of liability per company policy. Instead, as noted in the Complaint, [redacted] stated: “[t]hat we would rather take our concerns to the State governing boards and social media than settle for $500.00 to keep our mouths shut. On that, our minds have not changed. In my most recent email to [redacted], we asked her to reconsider their offer, and: ‘If not, please provide your Errors & Omissions information by COB of Monday, so that we can proceed with formal complaints to DPoR [sic], RESPA and the Virginia State Bar. We will let them help us settle the monetary dispute.’” Obviously, this statement reveals a level of bad faith and ulterior motives behind the Complaint.
In short, the Seller made a proposed amendment to the post-settlement occupancy agreement that was not agreed to by the buyer. Neither of the Respondents were at fault for this and, despite their best efforts, had no ability to effectuate the resolution demanded by [redacted]. Moreover, several statements made by [redacted] expose this as merely an attempt to punish thoseindividuals that worked very hard on his wife’s transaction. Upon information and belief, it is with this malicious intent that the lead to filing of this unfounded Complaint.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
We were not told this information. We were told that the owner handed the paperwork to the wrong person and we're given the run around after that.  Not satisfied with their response. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Response of Long & Foster and Susan H[redacted] and Mindy B[redacted] regarding Revdex.com complaint by...

Steven Dowell and Liang Li (jointly as the “Prospective Tenants”). 
 
The property located at [redacted], Alexandria VA [redacted] (“Property”) was first shown to the Prospective Tenants by [redacted] of [redacted] Realty, on Saturday, February 6 at 3:03pm. [redacted] called Susan H[redacted] (Susan H[redacted] and Mindy B[redacted] comprise The Susan and Mindy Team of Long & Foster and had co-listed the Property) at 6:12 pm that same evening to float the idea of a lease/purchase arrangement for his tenant clients.  He and Ms. H[redacted] talked for a few minutes, she told him to send her a proposal, which was received on 2/9 at 10:22 am, in the form of an email.
 
The e-mail from [redacted] contained a rental application on behalf of his clients, indicating they were interested in working out an option for purchase sometime in the future. There were no supporting documents such as Leave and Earning Statement (“LES”), copies of identification or copy of military orders accompanying the application, nor were any checks submitted.
 
Ms. B[redacted] left a phone message shortly thereafter for the condo owners to let them know we had an inquiry about a potential lease purchase offer. On Tuesday, 2/9, at 5:35 pm, we received another email from [redacted], asking if we had heard anything.  At that point, we had not heard back from the owners, but did hear from them within the next half hour.
 
On Tuesday, 2/9 at 6:12 pm, Ms. H[redacted] responded to [redacted] that we had talked to the wife, but her husband was out and she would need to talk to him so they would get back in touch the following day.  At that point we were discussing not only the purchase option, but the lease terms. On Wednesday, 2/10, at 9:54 am, Susan emailed the agent with the response from the owners. Within minutes, [redacted] responded the sales price was unacceptable to his clients, the Prospective Tenants, but they would like to move forward on the lease. 
 
On Wednesday 2/10 at 4:46 pm Ms. B[redacted] received a voice message from the prospective tenant indicating (Ms. B[redacted] did not request the Prospective Tenants to contact her directly).  In the message he stated the application had been done per his agent and that he was told by his agent he “needed to come by with his payment and sign the lease.”  Ms. B[redacted], concerned that the Prospective Tenants were not aware that there were several additional steps required, told [redacted] that his application could not be processed without the application fee, first month’s rent and supporting documentation.  [redacted] told her he wanted to move in by the weekend;
 
Mindy explained that his application first had to be sent to the Leasing Services Department of Long & Foster to be processed, and after it was processed, the owners then had to approve the application.  Once that was done, then we would proceed to preparing and signing the lease. She also explained that the condominium association restricted move in times and if the lease was signed, he would have to contact their representatives to schedule a move-in date and time. She further explained what checks he needed to provide; he wanted to pay by cash, but was told he would need to provide a personal, bank check, or money order.
 
On Thursday, Feb 11 at 1:28, [redacted] texted Mindy that he had just dropped off checks at our office and still hoped to move-in over the weekend.  Mindy replied that she would try to get the application processed as soon as possible BUT he still needed to provide a copy of his LES, his orders and copies of their driver’s licenses.  She stressed again that his application must be processed before anything else could be done and we could not send it for processing without supporting documentation. (Screensaver of text correspondence is attached).
 
At no time were the Prospective Tenants told that they have been successful in their attempt to lease the Property.  To the contrary, they were explicitly told, both verbally and in writing, that they still had to clear the application process.  In fact, the application specifically provides, among other things, that the applicant understands and agrees that: 
 
1. This Application, each occupant and each pet are subject to acceptance and approval by Landlord.
2. Listing Broker is obligated to present all Applications to Landlord until a lease is signed.
3. Landlord and Listing Broker may rescind acceptance and resume marketing the Premises at any time until a lease is signed.
4. Proof of current income is required. For example:
a. Latest Pay Statements/Stubs
b. Last 2 years’ Form W-2 for hourly or weekly pay persons
c. Last 2 years’ Form 1040 and Schedule C (if applicable) of self-employed or persons with tip income
d. Copy of LES and orders for military.
 
On February 11, at 2:53 pm, all supporting documents had finally been delivered to the office and were given to Randa Morrison in our office, who forwarded them on to Long & Foster Leasing Services Department.
 
On February 11, at 3:57 pm, Susan received a call from an agent representing potential buyers who were interested in making an offer to purchase the Property.  It is worth noting that the Property was listed for sale or rent at this time and no lease or prior purchase agreements had been signed by the owners of the Property.  Mindy called the owners and notified them of the interest in the purchase of the Property.
 
On February 11, at 4:24 pm, when it looked as if the potential purchase of the Property was a possibility (but not definite, as the owners wished to have the evening to discuss their decision), Long & Foster was told to hold-off on processing the application given the potential interest in a purchase.  This was specifically done to avoid any unnecessary expense for the rental application if the Property was to be sold. In fact, the Prospective Tenant’s processing checks and application had already been sent to Leasing Services, but were never deposited given the developments after the application was made.
 
At 9:43 am on February 12, Friday morning, the owners indicated that they would accept the offer that had been discussed. By that afternoon, the written offer was received and the owners indicated they were agreeable.  Shortly after that at 5:23 pm, Ms. H[redacted] called [redacted] to let him know the owners had decided to accept an offer for sale and were withdrawing the unit for rental.
 
Conclusion:
In their complaint, the Prospective Tenants take the position that since they provided checks relating to the rental, that they had been awarded the rental.  This position is contrary to what was explicitly and repeatedly told to them verbally and in writing.  At no time were they led to believe that the transaction was completed. This is most clear in that a lease was never presented or executed. 
 
By way of background, the checks were supplied at the time of application so that there was no delay in the event that the rental application is accepted.  This was especially true given [redacted]’s request for urgency.  Further, in keeping with Long & Foster’s duties to its own landlord client(s), providing the checks at that stage assists in confirming the ability of prospective tenants to pay the first month’s rent before processing a rental application.  The check for the first month’s rent and (if applicable) the security deposit is NOT deposited until and unless a lease is executed.  This was clearly communicated to the Prospective Tenants as well.
 
The timeline supplied above makes it clear that at no time were Long & Foster and its licensees allowing two deals to occur at the same time.  However, to the extent it had, it would be well within Long & Foster’s ethical obligations to do so.  Long & Foster has a statutory duty to serve the interests of its clients.  It is not uncommon for multiple offers to be made on a property and Long & Foster, as a real estate broker, would be remiss (and ethically culpable) if it did not allow its clients to consider all offers. In this case, the Property was not subject to a lease or agreement of sale at the time the offer to purchase was presented.  The Property was listed for both sale or lease and the Prospective Tenants should have realized that until they had signed a lease for the Property, they were subject to being outbid by other potential offers. 
Long & Foster sent back the checks for the processing fee and the first month’s rent to [redacted].  Accordingly, the cost to cancel the checks was unnecessary.  However, in an effort to resolve this matter, Long & Foster is willing to pay the sum of $64.00 in consideration for a full release of any additional liability.

It is alway Long & Foster's goal to provide the best possible service.  At the time the application was submitted, the prospective tenants were told the owner was going to take time to make a decision. We apologize for the delay and will be refunding the application fee to the...

address listed in your complaint.
Thank you for your feedback and hope to be of service to you in the future.

August 20, 2015

class="MsoNormal"> 
[redacted]
Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern PA
1411 K St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington DC, 20005-3404
 
RE: Complaint ID [redacted]
 
[redacted]:
 
Attached are pictures of the property in question.  As you will notice in the pictures the tenant attempted to touch-up the paint throughout the entire home which clearly did not match. This required the entire house to be repainted of which the tenant was not charged the entire amount. There were also several stains on the floors and carpeting as well has having the fire place and chimney cleaned.  That is the reason the entire security deposit was not returned and only a portion was refunded.
 
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####.
 
Sincerely,
                                        ...⇄
J. Nicholas D[redacted], CRB, CRS, GRI
Broker of Record
Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  
Please follow up with details on how best to acquire the $64.00 offered.
Thank you for the response.
Regards,
[redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to [redacted]’s concerns.  Not all terms of the break lease agreement were complied with;...

therefore, services agreed upon by contract and not performed by the tenant were done by vendors on Long & Foster’s approved vendor list and the charges deducted from the tenant’s security deposit. 
As part of the break lease agreement, tenant remains responsible for all terms and conditions of the lease until the property is reoccupied, including upkeep of the property, lawn care and payment of utilities.  The agreement further stipulates that tenant shall provide PAID receipts for house & carpet cleaning and gutter cleaning.  The [redacted] did provide paid receipts for carpet and gutter cleaning. Ms. S[redacted] found the property was not cleaned and pointed out several glaring issues and [redacted] stated that if a cleaning crew was going to clean the home, then why should she clean.  That statement aside, the home was not professionally cleaned at final walk-thru nor were all the keys available at that time.  The service was provided at the availability of the cleaning company and service subsequently billed to L&F and paid for from the tenant’s security deposit.  No carpet cleaning service was requested.  When this service was requested and paid for has no relevance to the fact that this was a term of the early termination agreement.
Rent is due and payable on the first of each month and considered late as of the fifth day of the month.  The [redacted] are responsible for rent up to the day a new tenant takes occupancy—not the day the lease is written.  Leases can be written at any time; the current tenant is still obligated under the terms of his/her lease up to the date of new tenancy; it does not dismiss the current tenant from paying rent through the final date of his obligation.  Since a new tenant was not fully approved by the first day of December, we could not notify the tenant that rent was NOT due and, therefore, rent was accepted and once the new tenant was approved, the Scheip’s lease was terminated in our system making it impossible for any future payments to be posted to this account.  They subsequently received a rent rebate based on the number of days they were not responsible for rent in December.
Ms. S[redacted] responded to [redacted]’s e-mail on January 3rd, advising that a new tenant had been approved and moved in mid-December and that they had been instructed to transfer all utilities to their names.  Ms. S[redacted] later learned from her Admin that there’d been some difficulty with transferring the water/sewer bill but that had finally been straightened out.  Ms. S[redacted] also advised [redacted] that she would need to contact the gas company to find out why her bill had gone up and further advised [redacted] in subsequent e-mails that Long & Foster had nothing to do with the utilities and that L&F would not reimburse them for any utility charge discrepancies—these would need to be addressed with each utility company.
The tenant has received $1550 of their security/pet deposit ($2,000 minus $350 for professional cleaning & $100 for leaf removal), and a rent rebate in the amount of $1,085.04.
Please advise if you have any further questions.

A check was mailed to [redacted] on Dec. 16th which should cover his concerns of the hardwood floors.  We apologize for the miscommunication and hope we can be of service again in the future.

Good morning! I apologize for the delay. 
 

class="MsoNormal">From the agent, [redacted]:  the client retained L&F and myself as BuyersAgent on this transaction. The client after viewing the property , requested we write an Offer and submit same to the Listing Broker [redacted] ([redacted]) thru their agent *. [redacted]. The Offer was remitted and accepted by the Seller. [redacted] acted as closing agent and at settlement provided a Bill of Sale informing the Buyer that the Finance company had a Lien on the property and that they were holding the Title and upon receipt of the payoff would prepare and send a Lien Release and the Title to the seller , who would forward same to the Buyer.
 
The Lien Release was received and forwarded to my Client in Sept 2013. The title was not delivered. Contacted [redacted] and they stated they would pursue finding the title. Upon making several phone calls to *. [redacted] no Title has yet been delivered. Agent [redacted] stated that with my Client possessing a Bill of Sale and
a Lien Release that my Client can get a New Title issued in his name. I had suggested to the Client go to MD MVA and request a New Title.
 
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the...

response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  Long & Foster only provided enough money to cover 52% of the cost of refinishing the wood floors.  They provided the $650 that was withheld from the tenant's security deposit, plus an additional $580 for a total of $1230.  The cost of refinishing the floor is $2344.  The scratches on the wood floor are extensive covering much of the floor in both the kitchen and dining room.  We would be happy to obtain a statement from the company that conducted the survey and provided the estimate.  Only refinishing a portion of the floor would look very odd as it would not match the rest of the flooring.  An additional $1114 will cover the entire cost of repair.   Regards,
[redacted]

Review: It went extremely poorly.

We felt under-represented from the beginning to the end. Our agent, Joseph C[redacted], sold our friend's house in our neighborhood in a week. He got good reviews from them, so we had him come out and list our house as well. He presented himself well, and we signed with him that day. The initial listing of the house should have told us how bad this process would be. Poor spelling, no grammar, and a fixation with the bus schedule instead of any kind of description of our house. Even after complaining, and writing a description for him, we still had what we felt was a poor listing for our house:

"SUPERB Location Bay window which give a great room feel (not to say anything about the sunlight) hard wood throughout. Many update in 2009 Kitchen Windows and many many more. JUST MINUTES TO [redacted].Metro Bus Express the [redacted]."

Informing him that his grammar was still bad did no lead to a change in the listing. If you go to [redacted], this is still the description of our house. He had a low ball offer within the first 10 days, but failed to negotiate it to a point that was acceptable. We then received another low offer that we were able to negotiate to the bottom of our range. However the home inspection came back with questions about the roof, and the buyer wanted too much money off of the price. We were already feeling poorly represented at the negotiating table, so we decided to take the home off of the market with the intention of doing some repairs and relisting with a new agent in the spring. About a week later, the buyer's agent called back to ask Joseph about our intentions. He told us that his response was "~*% off, they're not selling 'til after football season." I immediately informed him that, in my opinion, the buyer had "blinked". That they wanted to buy, and we needed to find out what their number was before we sank $10k needlessly into the roof. I told him that we had tentatively scheduled the work and needed to know right away if we could avoid spending that money. I received no further communication from Mr. C[redacted]. After calling and leaving him text messages, I called the buyer's agent myself. He told me that they would be willing to buy the house at the same net cost that we had previously agreed to, they just needed more money back at closing. So they upped their purchase price by the amount that they needed back, about $3,000. I told him to write it up, and he told me to contact my agent's broker. When I called the broker, Lorraine A[redacted], she informed me that Mr. C[redacted] was going through some personal stuff and had asked her to step in for him. She said she would call the buyer's agent and get back to me. When she called me back, she told me that she had informed the buyer's agent that my wife was unhappy with the sales price on the house and wanted $5000 more. I told her not to lose the sale. The buyer balked at paying more and we agreed to a quick close at the amounts the agent and I had discussed.

I had to negotiate and sell our house, myself.

We needed to rent-back the house while we found a new house and got the buyer to agree to up to 60 days of rent-back. However, 2 days before our portion of closing, we received a post settlement occupancy agreement from the buyer indicating we could not be refunded in the event we were able to purchase a home and vacate in less than 2 months. Unwilling to pay rent for the house once we had vacated, we called Lorraine and informed her that this was unacceptable. She told us to make the change on the form, and Joseph would come get the form to insure it was received by the buyer prior to closing. We made the change and the form was picked up by Joseph. At the closing table, my wife reiterated that we were expecting a refund of any rent once we had vacated prior to the 60 day deadline. We were assured that closing would not proceed with an open document, and because that post settlement agreement had not been signed by both parties, it was an open document (We scheduled a split closing). Both our agent and the Title company, [redacted], attorney, [redacted] were in attendance at our portion of closing. Following the buyer's portion of closing, Sept. 29th, I repeatedly contacted Lorraine regarding the closing documents which we had not received. For 10 days we waited for the closing documents and received nothing, she simply assured us that if the buyer had balked at the rent-back refund, the title company would not have allowed closing to proceed. On October 9th, I contacted the title company myself and was emailed a copy of the closing documents.

I had to track down the closing documents myself.

The rent-back agreement was not in the closing documents and after continuing to pressure the title company I am informed that we would not be receiving any refund. That the buyer had already received the full 60 days of rent and any further attempt to get a refund would have to be between my real estate agent and the buyer. I contacted Lorraine and was assured that Joseph was "working on it".

5 days later, after repeated emails for updates, I was forwarded the following email to Lorraine from the buyer's agent:

"Joseph, Lorraine,

I have not heard from either of you since my email communication last Friday and again on Saturday. I assume then that you both agree that we do NOT have an agreement between Purchaser and Seller that any unused portion of the Occupancy Charge will be refunded to Seller given the purchaser never initialed those changes to the Post Occupancy Agreement."

We were now out an additional $2400 in rent-back alone.

Contacting the title company resulted in suggestions that it was the responsibility of the Real Estate agents, while contacting the Real Estate agents resulted in suggestions that it was the responsibility of the title company. Are you familiar with the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz pointing in both directions...?

In an attempt to raise the discussion above the level of the parties involved, I submitted a webform to [redacted] corporate asking for someone to contact me with their Errors & Omissions information. I received a call from Mike M[redacted] within 24 hours promising he'd look into it and call me back. He did not call me back, and my calls to him were intercepted by his gatekeeper who consistently told me he was "working on it" or "Aware of our concerns". A quick google search showed the Mr. M[redacted] is President of Settlement for Long & Foster. My request for information from the title company went to the Real Estate broker.

Further internet research showed that [redacted] and Long & Foster are intertwined in a business relationship that I described in an email to the [redacted] attorney as indistinguishable.

On November 6th, [redacted] sent us an offer of a $500 refund in return for indemnity agreement holding the buyer and title company free from any further responsibility in the matter. We declined, deciding that we'd rather scream to the mountaintops that we had been wronged than accept a $500 payoff for our silence. It is our hope that by detailing this, others will avoid the mistake of using either Long & Foster Realty or [redacted] title. Our concerns were looked at by a Long & Foster President of Settlements and an [redacted] Managing Attorney, they were not confined to local offices or agents.

We paid over $24,000 to Real Estate Agents and the Title Company to protect us from this kind of mistake.Desired Settlement: The money that we paid to the "professionals" at Long & Foster and [redacted] title should be refunded, and an apology made.

They failed to negotiate the sale, failed to represent us at closing, and failed to respond in a timely manner to our repeated attempts to get necessary information.

At the very least, the money we lost due to the rent-back should be refunded, $2400.

An apology for the insulting remarks regarding our negotiation and sale of our own home and the phone call from Joseph insisting we would't be getting one more cent, would be appreciated as well.

Business

Response:

The complaint is made against “Long & Foster Companies, Inc.” but the nature of the complaint is directed at two different entities, [redacted] Title, LLC (“[redacted]”) and Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc. (“L&F” and together with [redacted] as the “Respondents”). Both entities share common ownership interests so this response is hereby made on behalf of both Respondents.The Revdex.com complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that L&F & [redacted] were responsible for [redacted]’s inability to retain a portion of the rent paid for a post-settlement occupancy (i.e. rent back) after the sale of a property located at [redacted], Alexandria, VA (the “Property”). It is worth noting that [redacted] was not an owner of the Property and as such, was not a customer of either [redacted] or L&F. His wife, Stephanie Sher (the “Seller”) was the owner of the Property and was the customer/client of the Respondents. Even though this complaint was not brought by an individual with any relationship to either of the Respondents, in the interest of conserving time and effort, the Respondents hereby respond as follows:To provide some background on the issue, a post-settlement occupancy is created when a seller sells a property but, for a number of reasons, needs to stay in the property for a period after closing. This is also called a “rent back.” In this case, there was approximately a two month rent back that was negotiated as part of the original sales contract. However, the Seller’s Post- Settlement Occupancy Agreement (i.e. an addendum to the contract that establishes the specific terms of the tenancy)(hereinafter the “Addendum”), was not executed at the time of ratification of the sale of the Property. This is not uncommon because the “rent” to be paid often consists of the buyer’s carrying cost for the property (e.g. principal, interest, tax, insurance and HOA); which are not usually known at the time of ratification of the underlying contract.This dispute pertains to the disposition of the unused portion of the “rent” for the rent back. In this transaction, after a prior stalled negotiation with the same purchaser, the Seller agreed to sell her property with a closing date of September 29, 2014 and with a post-settlement occupancy term through November 28, 2014. Up to the settlement date, the parties were still negotiating the terms to the Addendum. As mentioned previously, the parties could not reach an agreement concerning the disposition of any unused portion of the rent if the Seller was able to vacate the Property earlier than November 28, 2014. Even though this dispute was solely between the principals to the contract, [redacted] insisted that this failure to obtain a partial refund (for a hypothetical situation) was the fault of the Respondents. Of course, neither Long & Foster nor [redacted] could compel a party to agree to that which they were not inclined. The Seller knew of this outstanding term at all times and proceeding to settlement and closing on the Property. The Seller was well aware that this term was not agreed to by the principals to the contract and that she would not likely be eligible for the refund of any “unused” rent.It should be noted that the buyer’s refusal to refund the “unused” rent is not unusual. A buyer of a real estate often does not want to refund the unused portion of the rent because they also have unavoidable expenses in delaying their occupancy of the newly purchased property. However, this nuance appears to be lost on [redacted].RESPONSE OF L&F:With respect to L&F, Seller’s representation was undertaken by two L&F licensees, Lorraine Au[redacted] and Joseph Crane. The first offer for the purchase of the Property was written in late July, 2014 for $360,000.00. It was an all-cash offer with no closing cost subsidy and settlement to occur within 15 days. This offer also allowed the owner post-occupancy tenancy. [redacted] was able to negotiate the price up to $372,000.00 but the contract was ultimately rejected by Seller. It should be noted that this rejected offer would have netted the owner about $7,000.00 more that the final contract.The next offer, after substantial negotiation by [redacted], eventually resulted in a price of $370,000.00 without any closing costs subsidy. This contract was ratified and would have resulted in only $2,000.00 less than the all-cash offer would have netted. This contract ultimately failed due to a home inspection issue and was voided. At this point, the Seller decided to take the property off the market per a listing withdrawal signed on September 11, 2014.The agent for the same prospective buyer contacted [redacted] about a week later and indicated his buyer was interested in renewing the negotiations. [redacted] passed along the message to the Shers. [redacted] did not get a response from the Seller but learned that [redacted] had contacted the selling agent, John E[redacted], directly. Mr. E[redacted], as required by various real estate regulations, then contacted Lorraine A[redacted] who in turn communicated with [redacted]. Ultimately, the buyer and seller agreed to reinstate the previously terminated contract.On September 17, 2014, an addendum was executed by the Seller and buyer at a price of $373,000 with a closing cost subsidy of $8,000.00. This contract (the “Contract”) listed a settlement date of September 29, 2014 and provided that a “Post Occupancy Agreement Deadline shall be Friday, Nov 28, 2014.” It should be noted that Paragraph 15 (Other Terms) of the Virginia Jurisdictional Addendum to the Contract further provided that the: “Seller shall have the option to rent back for up to 60 days from settlement. Seller to inform Purchaser of election to rent back and duration no later than 1 week prior to settlement. Purchaser and Seller agree to execute [redacted] Post Settlement Occupancy Agreement specifying Occupancy charge of Purchaser’s [redacted] and security deposit of $1,000.00 to be held by [redacted].”On 9/24/14, the buyer signed a Seller’s Post-Settlement Occupancy Agreement. This agreement stated that if the Seller moved out prior to sixty days there would be no refund of the rent. The Seller made a counter offer to this by checking the box that provides that if they moved prior to the deadline, the unused rent would be refunded at the time the Seller vacates. The Seller and buyer never reached an agreement on this term. At settlement, a full sixty days of rent was charged to the Seller and Seller executed the closing documents agreeing to this disposition. While the issue was raised at settlement, L&F’s licensees worked to reach a mutual agreement but unfortunately, no one was able to convince the buyer to relent on this position. Even though L&F worked tirelessly to resolve this issue, L&F simply cannot be responsible for a failure of the parties to reach an accord. Further, L&F’s licensees were repeatedly instructed to obtain a sixty day rent back by the Seller with no indication that the potential refund of any unused rent was required. As seen from the contract documents, had the need for this term been adequately communicated to L&F and its licensees, they would have made it a part of the agreement as they did the other material terms. In short, [redacted], or more aptly, the Seller was unable to get the purchaser to agree to a last minute modification to the Contract and has blamed parties that had no control to effectuate this modification.RESPONSE OF [redacted]: The allegations against [redacted] are even more attenuated. It was not the settlement company’s obligation to negotiate the specifics of the post-settlement occupancy with parties. The settlement company is tasked with enforcing the terms of the contract. The contention by the [redacted] is based on a flawed understanding of a settlement company’s role. As previously stated, the principals of the contract could not reach an agreement concerning the unused portion of any rent.To recount the events from [redacted]’ perspective, please note as follows:The [redacted] settlement agent reviewed the settlement documents with Seller, including the HUD-1 on the September 29, 2014, date of settlement. The Seller reviewed and signed all of the settlement documents. When the closing took place, [redacted] had a copy of the post-settlement occupancy agreement which was signed by both parties. The settlement agent was later notified by [redacted] that the Seller requested the change concerning the refund of unused rent term. It was then that [redacted] was informed that the buyer had not agreed to this modification. Upon learning this, [redacted] contacted the buyer’s agent, to find out if there was any additional communication regarding this change. After some investigation, it was determined that, Seller (or more likely, [redacted]) made the change and sent the agreement back to the buyer without notifying the buyer of the change.The [redacted] employees then explained to [redacted] and the Seller that it is the responsibility of the parties to ensure the contract and addenda they agreed to are fully ratified, including any counterproposals or modification. Since the basic terms of the post-settlement occupancy were established in the original contract, there was simply no mechanism to require the buyer to agree to this change of terms. The title company is responsible for ensuring the settlement documents are reviewed by the parties, completed, and accepted. [redacted] prepared the HUD-1 based on the information provided to it by the parties. All parties reviewed the HUD-1, executed the settlement documents confirming their acceptance and [redacted] disbursed the funds as authorized.After closing, [redacted] contacted the [redacted] settlement agent several times to express his frustration; often in an abusive manner. He stated that he feels the buyer “played a better hand” and therefore won. He continued to send multiple threatening and abusive messages to employees of the Respondents. In a remarkable display of customer service acuity, [redacted] offered a refund of $500.00 to resolve this but requested a release of liability per company policy. Instead, as noted in the Complaint, [redacted] stated: “[t]hat we would rather take our concerns to the State governing boards and social media than settle for $500.00 to keep our mouths shut. On that, our minds have not changed. In my most recent email to [redacted], we asked her to reconsider their offer, and: ‘If not, please provide your Errors & Omissions information by COB of Monday, so that we can proceed with formal complaints to DPoR [sic], RESPA and the Virginia State Bar. We will let them help us settle the monetary dispute.’” Obviously, this statement reveals a level of bad faith and ulterior motives behind the Complaint.In short, the Seller made a proposed amendment to the post-settlement occupancy agreement that was not agreed to by the buyer. Neither of the Respondents were at fault for this and, despite their best efforts, had no ability to effectuate the resolution demanded by [redacted]. Moreover, several statements made by [redacted] expose this as merely an attempt to punish those individuals that worked very hard on his wife’s transaction. Upon information and belief, it is with this malicious intent that the lead to filing of this unfounded Complaint.

Review: I purchased a Trailer home at [redacted] Md Trailer [redacted] through Long & Foster. My Realtor was [redacted] from the [redacted] / [redacted], Md office. [redacted]’s Service was above average in handling the transaction. The Trailer was purchased on April 13th, 2013. The point of the complaint is that I have yet to receive my Title. I have been told that [redacted] of [redacted] is working on the problem in a letter by [redacted] on September 6th, 2013. It’s been over 6 months, and I have not heard from anyone in this regard. I am preparing to sell the house this spring, and I must have the Title.Desired Settlement: Provide Title

Business

Response:

Good morning! I apologize for the delay.

From the agent, [redacted]: the client retained L&F and myself as BuyersAgent on this transaction. The client after viewing the property , requested we write an Offer and submit same to the Listing Broker [redacted]) thru their agent *. [redacted]. The Offer was remitted and accepted by the Seller. [redacted] acted as closing agent and at settlement provided a Bill of Sale informing the Buyer that the Finance company had a Lien on the property and that they were holding the Title and upon receipt of the payoff would prepare and send a Lien Release and the Title to the seller , who would forward same to the Buyer.

Review: In 2012, an agent of Long & Foster represented my husband and I in the sales of our [redacted] in [redacted], MD and the purchase of our [redacted] in [redacted], VA. We were aware that the market in [redacted] was poor and that we would likely get less on the sale of our [redacted] than we owed, and we took measures to be able to deal with that. The offer we accepted was in fact below the price we had originally set but was in line with the adjusted asking price at the time. However, the buyer asked for nearly 6% in closing assistance. Our agent advised us to take the offer and we did. Our agent did not inform us that at that time, or any other, that the average assistance was closer to 3% and that concessions above that could be viewed as inflationary and impact the appraised value of the [redacted], which it did.

We had no idea at the time that appraisal problems were the cause of roughly 30% of contract cancellations and were responsible for countless price reductions and complaints. Our agent did not express any concern when it came time for the appraisal and did nothing to prepare us for it. He did not provide a list of improvements to the appraiser (which were extensive). He did not let us know that a recent appraisal could be provided to the appraiser for comparison (we had one from just 2 years prior with a value $70k higher than the current one). He did not verify the credentials of the appraiser, establish his experience in that area, or provide a list of comparables that were more closely related to our well-preserved Victorian [redacted]. None of this was done until after the appraisal had been sent to the buyer's bank, at which time neither the bank nor the appraiser would allow for any adjustment.

The appraisal ended up $13k less than the sale price on the [redacted] that was otherwise superior to the comp set. What our agent had told us was that the appraisal stays on record for up to six months, meaning we couldn't just walk away and find a new buyer. This was money that had to come out of our pockets if we wanted to sell the [redacted]. At that point, we had already put in a contract to purchase a [redacted], so we had to proceed. We had to take out a loan to pay for the difference.

I wrote a letter to the MD Long & Foster office telling them of our experience and asking that they compensate us for our loss, or at the very least, assure us that they would take measures to make sure our experience wouldn’t happen to anyone else. And I wrote one each month after that. It wasn’t until June and I had sent a copy of the letter to the Long & Foster corporate office that I received a response from the manager. The response made it sound like she hadn’t even read my letter, and did nothing to address my concerns. I contacted the corporate office again asking to meet with someone to discuss my issue. In August I finally got the opportunity to speak with [redacted], VP, by phone. **. [redacted] listened to my concerns, apologized, but would not agree that compensation was warranted, nor would he agree to take any measures to help future customers avoid this issue. After much back-and-forth, and a follow-up email succinctly stating the issues, **. [redacted] agreed to reconsider. After one month, I inquired of his decision. He said he would get back to me. He never did. Now, eleven months after my initial contact and twelve months after a sale I felt railroaded into, I feel like L&F’s philosophy is to make the sale at whatever cost and hope any problems just go away.

At this point, my time and effort to bring to light a huge problem that is costing sellers their bottom line, buyers their equity, and agents their commission, in addition to the out-of-pocket loss of $13,000 should not be expected to just go away. I think it is only fair to reimburse my family for what Long & Foster’s agent cost us.Desired Settlement: I would like to see the full value of our loss refunded due to the agent's failure to prepare us for the appraisal. Additionally, I would like Long & Foster's commitment to address this issue with all agents so that others can be better equipped to handle this problem that is prevalent in today's market. If they do this, they will make up for the $13k in no time through increased commissions and grateful recommendations from clients.

Business

Response:

December 12, 2013

**. [redacted]:

It is Long & Foster’s goal that all clients are satisfied with their agent and that their transaction is a pleasant experience. I am sorry to hear [redacted]’s dissatisfaction with [redacted] and Long & Foster, however, market conditions and appraisals are outside of real estate agents and Long & Foster’s control. In fact, this is the same for all real estate companies.

Appraisal guidelines have been changed and tighten in the last few years. Appraisers are prohibited from being influenced. **. [redacted], working to make sure his client’s interests were well represented, asked the appraiser if he could provide comparable data ahead of the appraisal. The appraiser gave him his email address, but that did not guarantee the appraiser would take the data into consideration. After the low appraisal came in, **. [redacted] provided additional information, but to no avail. The bank and the appraiser would not budge on the price.

At the time of [redacted]’s sale of her home in [redacted], she states market conditions in the neighborhood were poor and that she and her husband were prepared to receive less then what they owed on the home. Once an offer came in, **. [redacted] went over the financial impact with the [redacted]s. **. & [redacted] chose to accept a lower sales price with the seller concession. Most likely contributing to their decision were 2 important circumstances; the [redacted] had been on the market for 5 months and they had recently purchased a new [redacted] in [redacted], Virginia. During conversations with **. [redacted], the [redacted] expressed they did not want to carry 2 mortgages.

Long & Foster cannol refund the $13,000 [redacted] is requesting since it was not Long & Foster or **. [redacted] who set the appraised price. It was the appraiser who set the price. While I do understand her frustration, the frustration should be geared toward the poor market conditions, not toward her real estate agent or Long & Foster.

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: the response failed to address the two major issues I have expressed. One being the agent's failure to inform us of the potential (and eventual) financial impact of the seller concession in our contract, and the other being Long & Foster's failure to commit to using this experience to help others avoid this issue in the future.

Regards,

Business

Response:

[redacted]

Review: Long & Foster failure to provide itemized receipt for service that they said was provided for my rental properity

Failure to provide itemized receiptsDesired Settlement: I Rent my home on 8/9/13 to November 30,2013 @ the monthly rate of $2600 per month Total fund received $13701.

Business

Response:

December 30, 2013During the time Long & Foster managed her property, [redacted] received itemized receipts at that time of service by [redacted]. She also received them through her attorney, [redacted] on October 23, 2013 and November 7, 2013.If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####.Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Regards,

Please note you have copy of the receipt that was sent to me