Mainlander Property Management Inc

This matter has been resolved
Thank you

Dear Revdex.com, 
I am responding to the Revdex.com Complaint # [redacted] received on 11/13/2016.  For the property l[redacted]ted at [redacted] I will address Mr. [redacted] complaint in the order presented in his statement.The gas oven portion of the gas stove was not working...

properly.  The cooktop continued to work and a microwave was included with the home. The original stove was quite old and a special size.  There was a delay in replacing the stove because of the special size. The stove was replaced after receiving approval from the owner for customizing the cabinets to make the new stove fit. The tenant was given a $100 rent credit for this delay. In regards to the deposit refund statement, Mr. [redacted] has received a complete packet with copies of invoices, before and after pictures and documentation supporting the charges against his deposit funds.  Mr. [redacted] was asked by Mainlander to put his questions concerning his deposit refund statement in writing so we could address the charges.  He has since come into the office demanding his money back. We are happy to sit with Mr. [redacted] and calmly discuss any questions he may have concerning the charges.  It is my hope we are able to resolve this issue amicably.Regards,Bette D[redacted]Principal Broker and Operations Manager

When the tenant's at this property moved out on May 31, 2015 Mainlander completed a move-out inspection and charged the tenant's the following charges:
 
Cleaning (in excess of $350 cleaning fee)
Carpet Cleaning
Turnover Maintenance Charges
Landscaping Charges
 
$350.00
165.76
402.34
150.00
Mainlander was holding $900 in security deposit in addition to a $350 cleaning fee.  After using all of the deposit money and cleaning fee to pay off these charges a return the home to the condition it was received in the tenants were left with a balance of $168.10.  The tenants were informed that they needed to pay this balance as soon as possible.  As of today the tenants have not paid their remaining balance.  We will be sending them to collections in order to receive the remaining funds. 
 
Mainlander does not assume responsibility for unpaid charges from former tenants. However in this case with the balance of only $168.10 we will agree to refund the money at Mainlander's expense in order to resolve this issue and we will go after the tenants ourselves to recover the unpaid balance. We will mail out the balance of $168.10 to our former client [redacted] directly at her home address.  Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information in resolving this manner.
 
Sincerely,
 
Tom F[redacted]
Mainlander Property Management

RE: Revdex.com Customer Complaint from [redacted]
Mainlander Property Management was hired to manage the home located at [redacted] OR by [redacted] and [redacted] on August 5, 2013. The property was marketed as a “no pets” property.  Inspections were performed on the...

property in February 2014 and May 2015. The inspector never had knowledge or had any reason to suspect an unauthorized pet was in the home.  As noted in Mr. [redacted]’s complaint letter he received the inspections with pictures and no unauthorized pet was ever noted.  Mainlander did not allow a pet in the home.  
A move-out inspection was completed on the property on July 1, 2016. At the time of that inspection- no pet odors were noted in the carpet.  Cleaning, carpet cleaning and repairs above normal wear and tear were scheduled.  Damage to some walls, broken stove knob, missing fireplace switch and very serious lack of care of the backyard were noted.  The carpets were cleaned on July 7, 2016. The carpet vendor noted stain removal but nothing about pet odor.
 Angie R[redacted], Property Manager for the property met with the owners at the home on July 8, 2016. Neither the owners nor Angie noticed any pet odors at the meeting.  Vendors were scheduled to address the repairs/paint to the walls, miscellaneous repairs, and to bring the backyard to standard.
On July 15, 2015 the Property Manager received a phone call from the owner- [redacted], noting he was starting to remove the carpet because of urine. Angie instructed the owner to take pictures of the back of the carpet so we would have evidence of pet damage to the carpet if needed.  [redacted] instructed the Property Manager to call his wife- [redacted]. The Property Manager called [redacted] to ask for pictures of the carpet. [redacted] said the carpet was in the garage and noted she wanted Mainlander to just haul away the old carpet.  The Property Manager contacted a vendor for the carpet removal. The carpet was hauled away on July 18, 2016.
 Mainlander can charge a tenant for damage above normal wear and tear to a home. Pet urine is certainly damage. We are required to have evidence/proof of damage to the carpet either from a vendor, owner or Property Manager.  This was the reason for the request of pictures since no one noted pet urine odor at a prior time. Lawful charges to the tenant’s deposit must be based on the age of the carpet and specific damages.  However, it is not lawful to charge for the additional cost of an upgrade to the home’s flooring, such as [redacted] carpet, entire carpet replacement or hardwood floors. 
Emails and phone calls were exchanged with the owners on July 15th, July 29th, Aug 2nd, Aug 16th, Aug 17th, Aug 20th, Aug 23rd, Aug 30th.  The owners were informed of the need to send a deposit refund statement within 31 days of possession of the property as per Oregon Landlord Tenant Law. Any charges against the security deposit needed to be received by Mainlander so we can process the statement correctly.  The owner, [redacted], decided she would do the wall repairs and painting herself. She did send invoices on August 2, 2016. We had sent the deposit refund statement on July 29, 201 as required by law. Mainlander is still waiting for the details about the cost of the paint which was used to paint the damaged walls. We are unable to charge for the cost of painting the entire interior of the home. The tenant’s deposit was charged for the items Mainlander was able to legally charge. The communication from the owners appeared as if they planned to do some of the work themselves and not charge the tenant. There was never a clear communication from the owners to Mainlander concerning an expectation about carpet replacement even with our request for documentation of the carpet damage.
It is unfortunate that the owners are unhappy with our management of the home.  At no time were we negligent in performing our duties. We did not allow a pet in the property. The inspections were completed and the owner received the reports. The tenant was charged over $3500 from their deposit for the damages to the home and yard.  Mainlander asked the owners for documentation to support any additional charges to the tenant’s deposit but we received no additional information.

Dear Revdex.com,
This letter is in response to the Revdex.com complaint filed by [redacted].  We are very sorry for the error concerning the air conditioning in the home. The owner of the property had understood his home was equipped with a central air conditioning system when he purchased the home....

Mainlander Property Management advertised the property based upon this information. It appears that is not the case. We understand this issue to the tenant. The owner of the home has purchased two portable A/C units, which are to be shipped to the home.  A $100 monthly rent credit for the entire term of the lease has also been offered to Ms. [redacted].
Sincerely,
Bette D[redacted]
Broker/Operations Manager

Hello,
I am responding to the most recent complaint filed by [redacted]. Mainlander Property Management will be refunding Ms. [redacted] the amout of $168.10. Mainlander will continue to try to collect the outstanding balance owned by the tenant. The check will be sent within the next week or so to...

address on file for Ms. [redacted].
I am sorry this was not was not taken care of earlier.
Best regards, 
Bette D[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
The claims Mainlander makes above can be easily refuted by multiple witnesses to the contrary: neighbors in our area, the cleaning company who almost refused the business of cleaning the house once the tenants vacated, as well as multiple Mainlander staff who, if subpoenaed, would be forced to testify to the contrary.
Mainlander was clearly negligent of its duties and is resorting to false and misleading statements to create the appearance that the company was engaged and in constant contact withmy wife and I following the return of the property.  If this were truly the case, a lockbox that belongs to Mainlander, would not still be on my front door on September 11th, almost a full month and a half after Mainlander supposedly fullfilled its stewardship of the property at the end of July.   This is but one small demonstration that Mainlander has not been engaged and in fact avoiding contact with my wife and I. 
As Mainlander will clearly attempt to avoid any admittance of guilt in this forum, I have no other recourse than to resort to legal means to recover damage and discomforts that my family and I have incurred to Mainlander's negligence.    I am sure a full revue the facts, including the billing history of Mainlander will demonstrate in a legal forum the unprofessional and negligent (as Mainlander still has not given me the opportunity of review and correct the billing) conduct of Mainlander.
My wife and I are reasonable people and sought to resolve this conflict with the company thru direct means with Mainlander.  It was only as a result of Mainlander's refusal to engage us in discussion (after July 15th) that has resulted in this result.
Sincerely,[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern,I am responding to the Revdex.com complaint filed by [redacted]. I believe I was not very clear in my explanations of the process in determining the charges which can be claimed against a tenant’s security deposits.  I am hopeful Mr. [redacted] has now received the copies of the reports and the pictures of the property throughout the tenancies. This property has a total of 3 different tenants occupying the property from 2012 to 2015. The first tenants moved into the property on 11/2012. The second tenants moved into the property on 3/2013 and the third tenants moved into the property on 5/2014. I noted the carpet did have some staining and pet odor prior to the first tenant moving into the property. Based upon the original condition of the carpet/home “existing wear” was noted by the owner as well.  The owner would like the last tenant to be charged for the stains in the carpet. The last tenant did provide Mainlander with proof of professional carpet cleaning as per their move-out instructions.  At the time of the move-out inspection there were signs of preexisting stains. Since there were stains and odor noted prior to the first tenancy and pictures noting some stains throughout the additional tenancies it is not equitable to charge the final tenant for the normal wear and tear to the property.  Angie R[redacted] was not relying on the Realtor at the time to inspect the property. She was noting another person had viewed the property and thought everything looked as she had noted in her move-out inspection.  I wanted to also clarify the issue with the dog poop on the carpet as noted in Mr. [redacted] email in October.  It was not there when Angie did her inspection in July. She would certainly have taken a picture of the poop and had the carpets cleaned and charged the past tenants had that been the case.Concerning the yard, I have reviewed all the pictures of yard with special attention to the pictures prior to the last tenancy compared to the move-out inspection pictures. The yard looks very similar with the exception of the lawn area which was not green.  Tenants are responsible for returning the yard to the standard in which they received it with the exception of trimming trees and shrubs.  This is an owner responsibility since typically tenants don’t have the knowledge of how to trim and can damage the bushes or trees.  It is not a tenant responsibility to make the yard or home “sale market ready”. Mainlander has no problem holding tenants responsible for damage to properties. Damage is considered anything above normal wear and tear. Mainlander has a high level of expectation for the condition of the property at move-out.  A very thorough move-out check list is provided to the tenant prior to their move-out.  An inspection is done prior to the tenancy and after the tenancy.  In this particular case I do not see the tenants damaged the property. The property did show normal wear and tear after three tenancies. I am very sorry Mr. [redacted] is unhappy with condition of the property at the end of the third tenancy. I am also sorry the supporting documents were not sent in a timely manner.  All the documents which have been sent are dated and have not been altered. Regards, Bette D[redacted]
 
 
Principal Broker/ Operations Manager

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Mainlander’s response to the complaint contains inaccuracies and does not address the substance of the complaint.
Mainlander claims that we asked in April to terminate management. That is not accurate. When Mainlander asked if we wanted to terminate management after the tenants moved out I told them no because we weren’t sure if we would sell our house or rent it out again to new tenants.
Mainlander’s description of the communication from 8/20 to 8/28 is misleading. They told me at the time that they would not waive the $75 fee and they specifically referred to it as a “management fee”. I consider it a positive gesture that they are offering not to charge that now and I am willing to count that as a credit toward the damages to our home. However, that does not absolve Mainlander of liability for their neglect during the property condition assessment.
Mrs. D[redacted] explains that Angie R[redacted] noted evidence of damage during her walkthrough even in her reply here. Her defense seems to be that our previous agent decided that it “looked good”. Whether or not some person has an opinion that a carpet looks good is not a reasonable evaluation of whether or not it was damaged and/or left in the condition it was in when the tenants moved in. That agent had never stepped into the house until after the tenants had lived there for many months. He had no way of knowing how the condition of the house compared to what it was before the tenants lived there. We should have been notified at the time that Angie noticed the stains so that we could work with Mainlander to investigate the condition further. Angie R[redacted] herself ensured me a short time before this walkthrough that she would be working closely with me to go over the condition of the house. Instead, it happened with no notification, calls, reports or follow up of any kind.
Mainlander claims that the yard was “in good shape” on 7/9 and 7/21. That they claimed that the yard was in good shape on those dates when it actually was not is precisely why Mainlander is liable for the damages that we had to pay to correct. Everyone who looked at the yard, other than Mainlander, agreed that it was not in good shape. It cost several thousand dollars to get the yard ready for market. The damages we are seeking from Mainlander are only the portion of those charges covering weeding and yard pick-up that the tenants were responsible for and Mainlander neglected to manage.
Mainlander again mischaracterizes my communication on 10/13. I was trying to give Mainlander the benefit of the doubt and propose theories as to why they would have thought the house was not damaged when it really was. One theory is that the tenants cleaned the carpets, temporarily covering the damage. A theory that Mrs. D[redacted] admits in her reply is a possibility.
Mrs. D[redacted] points out that the house was not in perfect condition in 2012. Nobody claimed that it was. That there was existing wear in the house does not mean that tenants are free to damage it further at no cost. This is why it was Mainlander’s responsibility to work with us to examine photos and descriptions in order to distinguish what was new damage and what is from previous wear. Mainlander neglected to do that.
Mainlander did not need to take my word for it that our agent cleaned poop off of the carpet right after Angie’s walkthrough. I connected them all via email and our agent confirmed it directly. Since this occurred right after the walk-through, there was no time for any handy men, agents or prospective buyers to cause that.
Mainlander says that they aren’t responsible for managing the home when a realtor is involved. Yet, they knew that a realtor was involved during the time that they said they would be charging me a $75 “management fee”. The contract we signed with Mainlander was still in effect over this time and has not been cancelled or “closed out”.
Mrs. D[redacted] writes in this reply that she is going to send us reports. It is now days since we received this letter via the Revdex.com and we have not received any reports. At this point, such reports are of little use since we have no way of knowing when they were actually created and whether or not they have been altered. But, that she says she is going to do something and then does not is consistent with the pattern of communication we have had with Mainlander. I’m not sure if it’s because they are spread too thin or if it is a deliberate strategy. But, they need to take responsibility for the consequences.
Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Mainlander continues to misrepresent the facts and still refuses to even discuss the matter with me.  I find this not only unprofessional but also rude. 
If Mainlander were truly engaged and had provided all the opportunities for dialog that is claimed below, I think it is obvious to a reasonable person that the lockbox would have not remained on my door.
As stated before, it is obvious that this forum will not resolve the dispute but I caution any readers of this forum against engaging in business with Mainlander Property Management.  
Sincerely,[redacted]

MAINLANDER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.[redacted]LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035October 23, 2015To Whom it may concern, In April 2015 Mainlander received notice from the owners to terminate management upon the tenant vacating.    There was a question if we could...

continue to pay the utilities because the home was going on the market and the owners lived out of state.    At that point a note was put in the file not to close out 
until we heard from the owner.    The owner was sent and e-mail on 8/20/15 to ask him if he would still 
like us to manage or close them out.  He responded on 8/28/15 and we agreed to keep the utility bills coming to mainlander and the owner would send funds.  Effective 9/1/15 we no longer charged the minimum management fee because all we were doing was pay bills for him, his realtor was overseeing the home.  When the tenants vacated on 7/9/15, the Property Manager, Angie R[redacted] inspected the home on 7/10/15 (evening)  She did note a few light stains throughout the home but the realtor at that time agreed that the home “looked good” .  On 7/15/15 the owner asked how things were and the Assistant Property Manager( Kristine C[redacted]) told him that the move out report was compared to the move in report and everything looked good and nothing stood out our needed to be repaired.  On 7/21/15 the owner sent in an e-mail saying the new realtor said the yard looked bad.    When the tenants vacated on 7/9/15 the yard was in good shape.   The Property Manager and Assistant Property Manager went to the home on 7/21/15 to see what the yard looked like and it still looked good.   The only thing that looked different was the front lawn had quite a bit of moss growing in it.  The past tenant is not responsible for the yard care beyond their
tenancy.  
On 10/13/15 The owner was notified that Mainlander received a very large PGE bill and was a little concerned because it was so high.  We had asked him to reach out to his realtor that was overseeing the home to make sure things were okay.  He responded back saying it was caused by someone leaving the AC on full blast during the time before he switched agents.  The bill was from the month of Sept. which is with the new agent. On 10/13/15 the owner sent an e-mail and in that e-mail  stated that the carpet cleaning that was done by the tenants which was by a professional company was a temporary clean just to hide the stains & smells which did not stand out when I did my initial walk through.   He said that his current agent cleaned dog poop off of the carpet.  In the 3 months this property has been vacant it has had multiple realtors, potential buyers and even the owner’s handy man going in and out.  It is hard to know what has happened.  When the move out inspection was done on 7/10/15 there was no poop, horrible stains or smell in the home.   It is true stains can wick back up.  However, when Bette D[redacted] (Principal Broker at Mainlander) first visited the home in 2012 she noted
to the owner there was a pet urine smell on her first visit. The owner thought it was because the home had been vacant and closed up for awhile. He sent a
carpet cleaning invoice to show the carpet had been cleaned. The invoice did note  “Pet odors, stains, paint in various rooms, dyes, traffic, bleach”  This was
prior to any marketing for a tenant by Mainlander. The move-inspection for the first tenant did note existing stains on the carpet. 
This is a very unfortunate situation. I will send the owner all copies of the move-in/move-out inspections and all pictures of the property taken during the
management of the home. It is not the Property Management Company's responsibility to manage and over-see the home when a Realtor has been hired to
over-see, market and sell the home. It appears some very unusual things have happened at the home during this Realtor marketing period. 
Regards, 
Bette D[redacted]
Principal Broker and Operations Manager

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. Sincerely, [redacted]

July 22, 2016
 
Attention: Revdex.com
 
Dear Revdex.com,
I am in receipt of the complaint filed by [redacted] to the Revdex.com. Mainlander Property Management has tried unsuccessfully to respond personally to Ms. [redacted]’s questions and complaints in the past. Unfortunately it appears Ms. [redacted]...

was not satisfied with the information which included copies invoices, emails and financials provided previously.  I will address each complaint in the order it was presented in Ms. [redacted]’s letter.
The property was presented to Mainlander Property Management in not clean condition after being owner occupied.  A check in the amount of $800($300 owner reserve, $500 for cleaning) was received and deposited into the owner’s Client Trust Fund.  The cleaning and carpet cleaning were work ordered and the work was completed based upon the schedules of the vendors. I am happy to provide copies of the invoices if needed. The owner has been provided the copies in the past, as was the Oregon Real Estate Agency.
Concerning the pond located on the property; it is considered a liability to small children to have ponds with water which could be a downing hazard. It was recommended to Ms. [redacted] to fill in the ponds to avoid the liability.
Mainlander started the management of this home on September 3, 2014. The property could not be shown until the carpet cleaning was done due to the pet odor. The carpet cleaning was delayed due to the amount of urine, decontamination, stains and stretching needed. Documentation of the condition of the carpet is available.  The original schedule for the carpet cleaning was September 9, 2014 and it was rescheduled for September 17th after receiving permission from the owner to proceed on September 16, 2014. The property was then marketed at $2395 and shown to potential tenants. A prospective tenant saw the home and inquired if the owner would consider a lower rent of $2200 on September 23, 2014. The owner approved the lower rent. The tenant moved into the property on October 14, 2014. It is reasonable to expect a property to take 30 days to rent with the amount of work which needed to be done prior to marketing the home.
 
As per the Mainlander Real Property Management Agreement a charge of 50% on one month’s rent was charged and collected for the rental agreement.   Mainlander collected a leasing fee of $1100.
It is unfortunate the property needed as many repairs as it did to make it rent ready.  In addition there were repairs which were needed to provide the tenant with working essential systems in the home. Prior repairs on the home while the owner lived in the property had been done by the owner’s husband. The owner initially gave an additional $500 for cleaning. No other funds were received for the various repairs which resulted in the owner’s funds being used for repairs. The owner approved repairs over $500 as per the management agreement and noted in emails. The owner was provided with a monthly owner statement detailing all income and expenses. I am happy to provide these statements and invoices again.
The owner of the home was not responsive to the emails concerning the list of repairs noted by the tenant.  The most urgent concerns were the time it took to receive authority to fix the shower and the repair of non-working heat vents on the upper level of the home.  The owner noted it had always been that way and that is just how it is.  The tenant noted there was no heat on the upper level in several rooms on November 19, 2014. The tenant again asked if there was anything which could be done on December 2, 2014.  At this time Mainlander concluded after several emails to the owner, we had a non-compliance with Oregon Landlord/Tenant Law concerning an essential service, which the owner was unwilling to repair.  As the Principal Broker and I decided it was best to terminate the management agreement with a written 30 day notice on December 4, 2014.
The Property Manager for this property is still employed by Mainlander Property Management and has provided all information concerning financial reports, invoices and emails to the Oregon Real Estate Agency and Ms. [redacted]s. The Oregon Real Estate Agency found “no reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 696 may have occurred that constitutes grounds for discipline under ORS 696.301. Please find attached document.
In conclusion Mainlander Property Management was neither unethical nor dishonest in the management of the property owned by [redacted]. All supporting documentation has been presented to the Real Estate Agency and Ms. [redacted]s. Unfortunately Property Management may not be an easy transition for all home owners who are personally attached to their homes.
 
Sincerely,
 
Bette D[redacted]
Principal Broker
Mainlander Property Management

The response given on 9/9/16 is true, and factual and fully documented. In addition accounting statements were sent monthly and are always available upon request. The lockbox was removed from the property on September 12th. 
Regards, 
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Mainlander continues to deny the problem. So, I believe it’s appropriate to look at the evidence:
Mainlander did send the reports. However, they raise more questions than they answer. As one example (image of report attached - dirtyhouse_example.PNG), the third tenant reported that the walls in one of the bathrooms was “filthy.” Why was the second tenant allowed to leave the bathroom walls filthy when they moved out? This contradicts Mainlanders claim that they hold a high standard in their walk-throughs.
Mainlander claims that the yard was in the standard we left it. That is not true. Attached is a statement (grass_roots.pdf) from the vendor who did the work confirming that the yard was not kept up according to contract and that the weeds and debris were not from after the tenant moved out. It is also not true that we are holding Mainlander responsible for the yard not being “sale ready”. We are only holding them responsible for the tasks that the tenants by contract were responsible for. You can see from the attachment that the full bill for all yard work was higher than the item we are asking Mainlander to cover.
Mainlander claims that there was no dog poop on the carpet. Attached is an email (mimi_email.PNG) from our agent Mimi H[redacted] confirming that the poop was found and cleaned up by her on the same day as Mainlander’s walk through.
Sincerely,[redacted]