Louise Beck Properties, Inc.

Louise Beck inappropriately withheld funds from a security deposit and completely ignored repeated emails/calls inquiring about the issue.We rented a property [redacted] Durham, NC XXXXX, managed by Louise Beck Properties (LBP), from August 2014 to July 2015. During that course of time, LBP held a $2450 security deposit (one month's rent). Approximately 60 days after our departure, LBP mailed us a check for $2174.01. LBP had deducted $37.50 for an outstanding water bill and $175 for an extermination service. We contacted LBP and informed them that the water bill had previously been paid (and we have proof of payment). Also, per their rental agreement, LBP stated that they do not perform exterminations - yet, 3 week after we turned in the keys for the property, they contracted to have an extermination service treat the property and proceeded to deduct this $175 bill from the security deposit. I noted to LBP that there was no pest issue while we lived at the property and commented that I would have included this on the maintenance request that we submitted prior to departure if there had been any issue.I contacted LBP on Sep 16, Nov 17 and Nov 30 via email and at least once during that time via voicemail. I have yet to receive a single response.Desired SettlementAs I asked for in my first email to Louise Beck Properties, I would like a refund of the $212.50. I am ok with the other deductions from the security deposit ($48.97 for lightbulbs and $14.50 for water usage in July).During the course of our tenancy, we paid LBP more than $25,000 without a single complaint. I would think that at least deserves the courtesy of a response.Business Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted], PresidentContact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX x104Contact Email: [redacted]@louisebeckproperties.comLouise Beck Properties has every property professionally cleaned prior to move-in. When necessary, this preparation for a new Tenant includes extermination. Mr. [redacted] is correct that during the lease term, the Tenant is solely responsible for cleaning and extermination should an issue arise as a result of the use of the property. In this case, the Tenants left food debris in the kitchen wastebasket upon their departure, which resulted in an ant infestation requiring extermination. The [redacted] were excellent Tenants and I am sure this was a simple oversight. However, LBP could not assign the cost of the extermination to the Owner given the service was a result of Tenant action.Per the lease agreement, it is the responsibility of the Tenant to "keep the premises free from visible infestations of roaches, ants, hornets, bees, mice, and other pests." In the unlikely event that there is an issue at the beginning of the lease, Louise Beck Properties would exterminate in the interest of good business practice. The Tenant did not notify Louise Beck Properties of a pest problem on their Move-In inspection and as the Tenant stated they did not experience a problem during their tenancy. The previous tenant did not complain of an infestation. The infestation occurred solely as a result of the food refuse that remained in the property upon the Tenant's departure.The tenants also received a copy of the water bill documenting the period of usage, 06/01/2015 through 06/30/2015, and the tenants lease terminated on 7/12/2015. Utilities are tenant responsibility during tenancy, and service prior to this was paid by the tenant. Louise Beck Properties received the bill from [redacted] the community's water provider on 8/3 and paid the invoice on 8/7. LBP also paid the water bill for the period of 7/1-7/12 and deducted this cost from the Security Deposit. These charges were applied to the Tenant's security deposit and the corresponding Water invoices were included with the Security Deposit refund provided to the Tenant. Had LBP not paid the water bill in a timely manner, the water would have been turned off for the new Tenant that had already taken occupancy. If the Tenant also paid the water bill to [redacted] they may seek a refund from [redacted]I have reviewed my staff's actions regarding the complainant's stated issues and have concluded that we have acted in accordance with the lease terms, industry expectations, Real Estate law, and have conformed to our reputation for integrity, professionalism, and honesty. However, my review also made clear Mr. [redacted] had good reason to be frustrated about our customer service. Here, my firm fell short and I want to acknowledge that Mr. [redacted]'s inquiry after the Security Deposit was disbursed was not promptly responded to. This matter could have been, and should have been resolved with a simple exchange of emails. The lack of prompt response does not adhere to my expectations for excellent customer service and I would like to extend an apology to the [redacted]'s as a result.And in consideration of the additional time Mr. [redacted] had to spend to receive a response to his reasonable inquiry, LBP will refund 1/2 of the cost of the extermination.We appreciate the Mr. [redacted]'s tenancy and wish he and his family all the best.Consumer Response We appreciate the response from Louise Beck Properties and accept their offer to split the cost of the extermination fees. Thank you for the detailed explanation.

Roof has been damaged since Oct 2013. Water quality issues with well. Rent raised w/out notification.First issue: The roof of the house we rent has been damaged since October 2013 during heavy rain. LB was promptly notified 10/8/13, repair man covered with tarp 2 days later and said roof needed repair/replacement. We have since notified LB on 1/31/14 and 3/9/14 that repairs have not been completed or our concerns not addressed in any way. We emailed again today (4/30/14) regarding the lack of response to repair requests. There is now evidence of animals living in our ceiling because the roof is essentially open to the environment and we fear our personal property will be damaged in heavy rain when the temporary tarp fails as a direct result of improper repair.Second issue: We also had problems with our well which took the county well inspector getting involved and left us without potable water for 3 weeks (3/8/14 - 3/28/14). We filled out requests on 3/9/14 and 3/10/14, work was done incompletely on 3/25/14, which (according to a Chatham county well inspector) leaves our water still vulnerable to invasion by surface water contaminants and harmful bacteria. Incomplete repair in this case means inspector's recommendations were disregarded about critical well updates and inspection of casing for damage. Third issue: we received notification on 3/10/14 that our lease would automatically extend for 12 months if we took no action. We are ready to extend the lease under current terms for 12 months, so no action was taken. This notice did not include information about rent increasing. Today (4/30/14) we were notified that the lease was extended at a rent rate that is $15/month higher than our original lease. We had no opportunity to review terms of a rent increase before the lease was "signed," and we do not agree with the rent increase.We have documentation of all dates, repair requests, and interactions above. We can provide the name and contact information of the Chatham county well inspector upon request as well as water quality test results.Desired SettlementFirst issue: We need the roof repairs completed promptly, in the next three weeks. We need the ceiling cleaned and any evidence of animals removed. Second issue: We want the county inspector's recommendations implemented as soon as possible to ensure that our drinking water will not make us sick. This includes an inspection of the well casing for damage, installation a UV filter to prevent harmful bacteria from surviving in our drinking water, and a suitable well-cover that consists of something other than a plastic trash bag. If the first and second issues cannot be resolved in the manner stated above, we would like a decrease in rent of $50/month for the next 12 months due to decreased value and livability of the property.Third issue: We want our lease renewed for 12 months at the rent rate we originally signed or lower. We also demand that the policy by which LB renews its leases is made more transparent by including the proposed increase in rent in the email warning of automatic renewal. The rent increase, as the shady practices of extracting an increase in fees without our consent, are unacceptable.Business Response /[redacted]/I appreciate the tenant utilizing a forum such as the Revdex.com to present their concerns. We continue to believe the Revdex.com offers an invaluable service to both small businesses and customers alike. The tenant presents 3 separate items. The first is a suggestion that LBP unilaterally imposed a rent increase of $15. I would refer the tenant to the lease that they signed on 5/16/13, specifically the Termination and Renewal Addendum. The first sentence on this page reads "The monthly rent shall be adjusted by 2% at the end of the initial term of the Residential Rental Contract, and by 2% at the end of every renewal period thereafter..."Contrary to the tenant's assertion of surprise, the Tenant agreed to a 2% increase to their rent if they chose to renew, with the original lease. Louise Beck Properties purposefully presents this rent increase at the beginning of the lease so that there isn't a 'surprise' increase in rent that our past customers found frustrating. Note the rate of inflation in the United States is 2% (reference: USInflation.org) and the national average rent increase in 2013 was 3.9% (reference: Trulia). The email the tenant refers to was a friendly reminder that is sent to all tenants reminding them of their responsibility to inform us if they wish to vacate. The email sent by [redacted] Properties is not obligatory, rather a proactive communication to prevent a 'surprise' renewal. The tenant's acknowledgement of receipt confirms our objective to remind them of the renewal was achieved. Our policies are specifically designed to be transparent, honest, up-front and helpful.The second question regarded the water quality at the property. Below is the chronology of events:3/9: Tenants reported problem with water - contamination believed to be from recent heavy rains.3/9: Louise Beck Properties issues a work order to Water Specialists to investigate problem3/11: Chatham County tests water for contaminants.3/12: Louise Beck Properties issues a work order to Eddie's Pump and Well Service for second vendor analysis3/18: Test results from Chatham County delivered. Test indicates no E. coli, but presence of Coliform. Chatham County Public Health Dept advises that the well be disinfected through chlorination.3/18: Estimate for work provided by Eddie's Pumps provided to owner3/18: Owner approved all work and Louise Beck Properties issues work to Eddie's Pump and Well Service.3/23-3/25: Well chlorinated by Eddie's Pump and Well Service. To prevent recurrence, the well head was also raised above ground, had the well seal, cover and electrical box replaced. Further, we had the well head modified to meet 2014 electrical code.4/8: Chatham County conducts follow up test of water.4/17: Test results from Chatham County delivered. Test indicates no presence of Coliform or any other contaminant meeting County requirements. Repair completed. Future: Annual tests scheduled for water quality, per County recommendation. March 2015 is next scheduled.A more permanent well cover has been ordered by the vendor and will be installed upon arrival. Final question regards the roof. Below is chronology of events:10/10/13: Tenant reports leak in ceiling.10/10/13: Work order issued to Homesmith Maintenance. Homesmith identifies source of leak from old vent pipe boot. Vent pipe boot is replaced, water stains on ceiling painted.12/3/13: Tenant reports another leak in the ceiling. 12/3/13: Homesmith Maintenance dispatched. Homesmith opens up ceiling and determines a new leak has developed near an outer wall, running down a rafter and wetting the ceiling in a bedroom. States a roofer needs to investigate.12/17/13: Carolina Professional Roofing cleans debris off roof and locates a small hole in the roof caused by an impact from a tree branch. Hole repaired and tarp installed for additional protection.1/15/14: After several rain showers to ensure no additional leak occurred, painter dispatched to paint the water stains on ceiling.No further leaks reported. There are no holes on the roof allowing access for animals. The owner has contracted out to have the roof replaced summer 2014.The Revdex.com complaint submitted on 4/30/14 was the first report from the tenant that there was 'evidence of animals' in the ceiling. LBP has dispatched a vendor to investigate.Note the tenant chose to renew their lease a decision made on 4/28/14 well after each of the issues they have presented were known and addressed. The rent will remain at the rate prescribed in the lease signed by all parties. Louise Beck Properties will continue to address maintenance requests in a timely manner and remains committed to using qualified vendors to perform quality work. I believe it is important to note that the tenants have been excellent stewards of the property during their occupancy. They have paid on time and have been proactive with their maintenance requests.

Louise Beck Properties wrongfully withheld funds from a security deposit. I moved out of [redacted] C [redacted] Dr. [redacted] NC XXXXX on July 14, 2014. Knowing Louise Beck's awful reputation for withholding security deposits I made every attempt to replace items and clean the property to it's original rental state. After 60 days I receive $465 of a $725 security deposit. On the list of reasons money was withheld included - $75 in wall repair, a bill attached listed this as a $15 repair- $95 to replace an HVAC thermostat battery - this was replaced before I moved out - replacement of a light bulb for $5, - replacing sliding door blinds- These were replaced before the lease was up using extra blind pieces that were left at the house- Replaced Blind- The blinds were not new when I moved in. I was never harsh with them, nor did I break any. I have pictures to prove this. - Repair cabinet door- These doors were slanted and water damaged prior to my move in date. I have pictures on my first day and last day to prove this. I realize that there were a few items on the list that money should of been withheld for, for example the repair of a sliding door.However, Louise Beck has wrongfully withheld $210 of my security deposit. Online reviews of the company show that this is happened to many people. I don't think that a company should be allow to get away with such injustice. I tried for weeks to get this matter resolved with little success. On October 4, 2014 I was contacted with the solution that I would be refunded $115, I have not received a check and I feel that this amount still isn't fair. I've tried contacting their representative [redacted] but I've haven't been able to get a hold of him.Desired SettlementI request a refund of $210 from the $260 that was withheld from my security deposit refund. Business Response /[redacted]/Louise Beck Properties documents the condition of all properties extensively via photographs and written reports in an ongoing effort to ensure that our tenants receive all security deposit funds to which they are entitled. This documentation occurs immediately prior to, and after, tenant occupancy. In an effort to minimize unnecessary security deductions we provide our tenants, prior to move out, a list of common problems that contribute to common security deposit charges (such as excessively dirty ovens, fridges left full of food, etc.). To ensure accuracy in our security deposit reconciliations, we review all pictures, statements, vendor invoices, and supporting documentation. In determining what deductions to apply against a tenant's security deposit, Louise Beck Properties has always, and will always, strictly follow the guidelines outlined in the NC General Statutes for Security Deposit Returns. LBP has no incentive to withhold funds from a security deposit without justification. On the contrary, LBP has would much prefer to have each of our properties returned damage free to allow us to return each security deposit in full. Funds withheld are paid to owners to subsidize the cost of repairing damage. LBP receives no income from charges applied to damage. To address each request made by the tenant: The $75 wall repair charge has been confirmed to be a clerical error on my staff's part. The Revdex.com complaint was the first time LBP was made aware of this problem. We incorrectly transcribed $75 in the place of the $15 documented by the painter. We apologize for our error and the $60 difference has been refunded to the tenant's account. The $95 charge for the HVAC was to dispatch a certified HVAC repair technician to the property. The tenant submitted a maintenance request stating the HVAC was not working. LBP notified the tenant of the possibility that the HVAC failure may be a result of a dead battery in the thermostat. The tenant acknowledged that she was unwilling to check for the battery, and we dispatched the repairman to inspect on 7/11/2014. The problem was a dead battery in the thermostat, and the corresponding $95 charge for the HVAC vendor was credited to the tenant. In an effort maintain a positive relationship and as a courtesy to the tenant the owner agreed to refund this amount to the tenant upon her first request. This $95 charge is included in the $115 initially refunded to the tenant. In an attempt to address the tenants concerns, the owner also authorized LBP to refund the $5 for the light bulb, and $10 for the cabinet door repair. This was done despite the supporting evidence from both Move-In and Move-Out inspections. These two items are the remaining $20; $5 and $15 respectively, that account for the $115 initially refunded to the tenant. The sliding door blind slats were damaged by the tenant's dog, as acknowledged by the tenant. Also damaged was the screen door behind the sliding glass door, something not disputed by the tenant. LBP takes the tenant at her word that she found more slats at the property though we have no record of them. However, the slats installed, as shown in our move-out photos are both bent and a different color. To save costs a repair was attempted to reshape the slats, however, the effort was unsuccessful. This repair was an initial attempt to repair the damage done by the tenant. Ultimately, LBP had to dispatch a second vendor to replace the blind slats to correct the problem. LBP chose not to charge the tenant's security deposit for the second visit in an effort to be fair. The $50 charge, which was the combined cost to reshape the slats AND repair the screen door damaged by the tenant, will remain and LBP will honor its decision to not charge for the replacement. The one window blind that was damaged required replacement due to broken individual slats. This is documented pictorially in the move-out inspection; This damage that was not present during the pre-move in inspection. LBP agrees that the blinds were not new at the time the tenant took position, nor do we believe that the tenant was harsh with the blinds. However, the damage occurred, and had to be charged accordingly. The $20 charge will remain. It may also be helpful for the tenant and reader to be aware that other charges for repairs were not applied against the tenant's security deposit that would have been justified. One example is the elongated toilet seat installed by the tenant prior to their departure. While the owner appreciated the effort, the toilet seat required a round toilet seat and therefore had to be replaced. Despite the justification to charge the tenant's security deposit, LBP chose to omit it in an effort to give the tenant the benefit of the doubt. LBP will honor its decision not to charge the $36.43 cost to replace the incorrect toilet seat. Another example references the screen door repair described above. This, too, required two vendors to correct the problem completely. The first vendor repaired the damage to the screen. The second vendor was required to reshape the bent door and realign the lock so that it operated correctly. The door had been bent out of shape by the dog. Despite justification to do so, the second repair, at $73, was not charged to the tenant's security deposit. LBP will honor its decision not to charge the $73. Correspondence between the tenant and Louise Beck Properties continued until 10/4/2011, the date of the last e-mail sent from my office to the tenant. This e-mail went unanswered. Had the tenant responded, we may have been able to resolve her concerns at that time. The next correspondence we received was the Revdex.com complaint. I am pleased with my staff's response to this situation and satisfied with the procedure my firm follows to ensure accurate, fair, and consistent reviews of security deposit disputes. With over 3000 security deposits reconciled in the past 7 years, I'm quite pleased with the fact that fewer than 11 tenants felt the need to report their concerns in a review online or via a Revdex.com complaint. I have personally reviewed each of those situations and am equally as confident they were managed fairly and accurately. As with many of our tenants, Ms. [redacted] has been an excellent steward of the property during her occupancy and always paid on time. We regret the frustration Ms. [redacted] has expressed, but ask for her understanding that charges were only applied to items appropriately documented. I wish her the best in her future endeavors.

Falsely stating they were selling the home I was renting to the current issue of lying to me in order to not pay me the full refund of my rent.First, on March 6, 2015, I was notified via mail that my rental contract was unavailable for renewal beyond 7/22 because owner was placing the "property on the sales market". We immediately began the process of qualifying for purchasing a home. My husband approached Louis Beck for information on purchasing our rental home and left their office with paperwork on how to properly vacate the premises. Once we established a relationship with a Realtor he began pursuing Louise Beck for purchase information because he could not locate the property on the MLS. So, without any response it became clear that they were not interested in selling the home, at least not to us. We began our diligent search to find a new home. Shortly after we located our alternate home to purchase we received notification from the company on June 2 that "the owner...would like to continue to offer the property for rent." We were stunned. After all we had gone through to not have to uproot our three children from their neighborhood friends, home and schools they were now telling us that we could stay. Prior to this we had notified them that we would be vacating the property by June 13. I strongly felt that they behaved in a dishonest manner and that all of this talk of selling was to pressure us from our home and get other renters in to rent at a marked up profit rental rate. We immediately responded the same day requesting a conversation regarding the situation. I spoke with [redacted]. [redacted] apologized, assuring me that he would reach out to the owner to "see if there is a compromise that can be reached." Upon not hearing back from [redacted] by the time he told me he'd get back to me I sent an email correspondence to Louise Beck, informing them of our complaint and the resolutions: "1. Early release from our lease without any fines/fees or continued rental costs. and 2. Refund of deposit in a timely and appropriate manner."They responded by phone calls stating that they were trying to reach the owner and get a solid response on my requests. Meanwhile, during personal conversations people we knew were aware of our home being available for rent and inquired to us about if they could rent our home. We directed them to Louise Beck and they informed us that they were told the home was already rented. I began to pursue Louise Beck many times to confirm my getting back a portion of my June rent. During a verbal conversation with [redacted] on June 8, she confirmed that they indeed have renters for the property and assured me that I would receive a portion of my June rent if I would just sign the eDocument that she was emailing me. Once I looked over the document I called her and explained that it has a wrong date and actually should say 6/17 which was the date they requested I turn in their keys for the new tenants. She explained to me that she needed this document right away for the tenants to be able to sign their lease. Promising once they did that she would edit the form to comply with their word of refunding all monies paid from 6/17 to 6/30. My biggest complaint is the lying manipulation that was used by Louise Beck properties and the utter disregard they had for my family's shelter displacement. And, if this was not enough of a violation, they are making us pay them for treating us this way by not refunding the rest of June rent. I was sorely disappointed when I received my deposit without my June rent. I tried reaching them via email, once again, to let them know how upset I was over this treatment. [redacted] responded, "The early termination addendum that was signed modified the lease end date from 7/22/15 to 6/30/15. Therefore, you paid the correct amount."Desired SettlementTo receive the refund from June 17 to June 30Business Response /[redacted]/Louise Beck Properties has conducted a thorough review of the Tenants statement. 1. The Owner of the property instructed LBP to prepare to list the home for Sale early 2015. The owner instructed us to give Notice to Vacate to the Tenants so that the home would be vacant for an Owner-Occupant to take possession. The Tenant was notified as her statement indicates.2. In early June 2015, the Owner changed his mind and chose not to list the property for Sale, as is his right. LBP acknowledges how disruptive this was to the Tenant, but reiterates that the circumstances were outside the control of both the Tenant and LBP. The Owner of a property is allowed to make a decision and then change his mind. 3. The Tenant's lease term was through July 22nd, 2015. As the Tenant's statement indicates, the Tenant notified LBP in early June that they intended to vacate the property on June 13th, 2015. This, of course, did not relieve the Tenant of their obligation to pay rent through July 22nd.4. In an effort to mitigate the disruption to the Tenant, LBP proactively worked with prospective Tenants to see if they wished to begin a lease BEFORE the current Tenant's lease end date of July 22nd. The sole purpose of LBP's efforts was to assist Ms. [redacted] and her family by rolling back their Lease End Date, thus removing their obligation to pay rent through July 22nd. I think it is important to understand that LBP was under no obligation to do so, nor did LBP benefit financially from this effort. LBP did so simply because it was the kind thing to do.5. LBP succeeded in identifying a qualified prospective Tenant to begin a lease prior to July 22, 2015. LBP shared this great news with Ms. [redacted] and an Early Lease Termination. The Early Lease Termination ended the lease on June 30th, 2015 and was signed by all parties. As written, the Early Lease Termination saved the Tenant 22 days of rent in the month of July, 2015.6. LBP disbursed the Tenant's Security Deposit accurately and in a time frame prescribed by NC law.7. However, upon review of the correspondence between my staff and the Tenant, as well as a review their Lease and the Lease that followed, I agree that the intent of my Leasing team was to terminate the Lease on 17 June, 2015. My Leasing team's goal, as described above, was to work in a way that minimized the impact of the Owner's change-of-mind on our Tenant. The Owner has refunded the rent paid from June 18-30 to Ms. [redacted].I will conclude by reiterating that LBP worked above and beyond to assist a Tenant whose circumstances fell outside the influence or control of my firm. As I have stated to Ms. [redacted], LBP agrees that the situation she and her family endured was unfortunate and unpleasant. I appreciate the extra effort my Leasing staff made to lessen the financial burden on Ms. [redacted] and her family.I wish Ms. [redacted] and her family all the best![redacted], President Louise Beck Properties, Inc.

No receipt of security deposit or receipt of an explanation that deposit would be delayed more than 30 days. I moved out of [redacted] on July 10, and returned my keys and forwarding address form to the office. Per NC law the company had 30 days to return my security deposit, or, if it were going to be delayed because of a delay in determining charges, I needed to be sent a letter informing me of that. As of today, August 28, I have received neither the deposit nor any interim accounting. I have corresponded with [redacted], who responded to my initial email but has not responded to my subsequent communication. Specifically, I asked for him to re-send the interim accounting which he claimed his records showed was sent on August 3, but which I have not received several weeks later. He said the delay in returning the deposit was because "we are currently in the peak of our busy season and there is a slight backlog in processing deposit returns". That is absolutely not an acceptable or appropriate reason for my deposit, which by law belongs to me, has now been held for 49 days since I moved out.Desired SettlementI am asking that my security deposit be returned to my immediately. Business Response /[redacted],Thank you for note. I understand that it is frustrating to wait longer than 30 days for your security deposit to be returned. The NC legislature recognized a few years ago that it is not always possible to reconcile a security deposit within 30 days and extended the deadline to 60 days. You are correct that NC requires an "interim accounting" be provided should the reconciliation require more than 30 days.We mailed that interim accounting to you on August 3rd explaining that your deposit would take additional time. It was mailed to the forwarding address you provided on August 1st, 2015 and is attached to this response. Delays in processing isn't for lack of [redacted] Properties personnel or resources. Delays most often occur as a result of vendor scheduling and waiting for vendor invoices. My staff is unable to reconcile a security deposit until we have the costs for work that may be associated with damage.I also see that your deposit was finalized on Aug 25th, and mailed on that date to your forwarding address. I'm pleased to report that there were no deductions made to your deposit. Thank you for returning your property back to us in excellent condition. You were a wonderful tenant and cared well for the home during your 5 year stay!I'm guessing you'll receive your deposit in the mail today or tomorrow. Please let us know if you don't receive it soon![redacted]PresidentConsumer Response /[redacted]/Please resolve this case- I received the security deposit this Saturday.Thank you,[redacted]