Luedke Excavating

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The photos provided only show three small surface stains visible only with a black light This is not grounds for replacement of a carpet in good condition I am demanding a refund of the $owed to me and I expect a response on how this refund will be handled on or before January 25, If this refund request is refused I will submit a small claim for twice the amount I am owed plus court fees as is allowed under ORS 90.300.I have a video walkthrough of the apartment I performed on November 9, just before surrendering possession of the apartment This video is being uploaded to this complaint by the Revdex.com resolution specialist handling this case This video will be used as evidence in court if I am not provided a refund in the amount of $ Sincerely, [redacted] ***

The former resident’s primary concern appears to be the living room carpet replacement charges assessed on his final accounting statementHe claims that the damage evidenced by the black light photos is not sufficient to be the result of excessive pet urineAttached to this message is a copy of the assessment and photographs provided by our third-party carpet cleaning vendorThe vendor’s photographs show large stains beneath the black light areas, and in the assessment, the carpet vendor recommends replacement of the carpet due to heavy urine and excessive pet damage and odorAdditional photographs taken by on-site staff are also attached to this messageThese photographs of the damaged carpet and sub floor also show large stains resulting from pet urine soaking through the carpet to the sub floorAn additional concern for the former resident is the Tenant’s Move In/Move Out Inspection formOur records have been thoroughly reviewed and the version of the form the former resident refers to is not in our filesThe multiple photographs and the carpet cleaning vendor assessment provide evidence that the carpet replacement charges assessed to the former resident are appropriate, fair and reasonable

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:
The photos shown have three tiny stains no bigger than the size of a business card or two that are only visible with a blacklight. These are not caused by pet urine which would be a much larger stain. In addition to this the form they are referring to is either a forgery or the temporary form used when we moved in. We filled out nearly the entire page and returned it within a week of moving in and in fact filled out so much of the form that the apartment manager at the time called me to ask if everything was OK with our apartment. Please return my $that I am due no later than December 31, 2017.Sincerely,*** ***

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
The photos provided only show three small surface stains visible only with a black light.  This is not grounds for replacement of a carpet in good condition.  I am demanding a refund of the $123.31 owed to me and I expect a response on how this refund will be handled on or before January 25, 2018.  If this refund request is refused I will submit a small claim for twice the amount I am owed plus court fees as is allowed under ORS 90.300.I have a video walkthrough of the apartment I performed on November 9, 2017 just before surrendering possession of the apartment.  This video is being uploaded to this complaint by the Revdex.com resolution specialist handling this case.  This video will be used as evidence in court if I am not provided a refund in the amount of $123.31.
 Sincerely,[redacted]

Tell
The resident moved into his apartment at [redacted] on May 28, 2016. On that date, he and his co-lessee signed a Tenant’s Move-In/Move-Out Inspection form indicating that there were no problems with the condition of the apartment.  After the resident moved out on November 9, 2017, the...

unit was inspected for damages.  As a result of the inspection, the resident was charged for apartment cleaning, living room carpet replacement, bedroom carpet cleaning and touch-up painting. The carpet replacement charge in the amount of $487.53 was the result of excessive pet urine damage to the carpet, pad and subflooring in the living room. The carpet was new when the residents moved in having been replaced on May 12, 2016. The residents were charged a prorated amount of the remaining 42 months of carpet life.  Paint damage was found on walls, baseboards, window sills and interior doors.  The painting charges of $26.25 represent the prorated cost to repair those damages. The unit required additional cleaning to restore it to the original condition at move in.  Areas that required additional cleaning included the washer and dryer, stainless steel kitchen appliances, windows, blinds, sliding door tracks and kitchen sink.  The $80.00 the resident was charged was based on invoices from our cleaning vendor. We have photographs which document the condition of the unit when the resident moved out and support our decision to charge the resident for the damages described above.  We also have a copy of the move in checklist the resident signed on move in which indicates that there are no problems with the condition of the unit. Photographs and the move in checklist have been attached. The charges assessed to the former resident on the final statement have been reviewed and are considered to be appropriate, fair and reasonable based on the condition of the apartment after the resident moved out.us why here...