Mangus Properties

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 7, 2015/09/25) */ Mangus Properties entered into a Property Maintenance Agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) on August 27, Mangus Properties discussed a Management Agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) and we sent her a copy of our Management Agreement to review, but the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) declined to enter into a Management Agreement with Mangus PropertiesWe (Mangus Properties) were first notified about damage to a gutter on 6/17/This notification came from the consumer that filed the complaint (owner)Damage was not reported while any work was being done on the property, however because there were contractors working near the gutter, Mangus Properties agreed to send a contractor to install a new gutter to replace the gutter that was damaged and Mangus Properties agreed to take responsibility for the costs involved with replacing the gutterThis was reported to Mangus Properties as completed on August 30, This was communicated to the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) by email on September 2, The gutter was dented but was functioning properly and there was no evidence of any water damage related to the dent on the gutterThe consumer that filed the complaint (owner) had received an estimate independent of Mangus Properties to replace all of the wood windows with new wood windows and the estimate for the cost of windows alone was $15,The consumer that filed the complaint (owner) spoke with owner of Mangus Properties about this quote and the owner of Mangus Properties notified the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) that if she replaced the windows with vinyl windows, there would be a significant cost reductionThe owner of Mangus Properties also notified her that vinyl windows may not be in compliance with the historic districtMangus Properties provided an estimate for installing vinyl windowsMangus Properties notified the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) that they were not getting any permits and if permits were required by the historic district in the future, that would be her responsibilityMangus Properties provided an estimate for replacement of new door slabsThe new door slabs were installed in the existing door frames and this work was subcontracted out to PGS constructionMangus Properties was notified by one of the tenants about a gap under the doorThis was due to the existing threshold not matching up with the new slab doorMangus Properties contacted PGS construction about this issue and they returned the following business day to replace the thresholdIn June, it was reported that the doors were showing signs of swellingMangus Properties met with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) to view the doors and get pictures of the swellingMangus Properties filed a claim with ***-***, the manufacturer and new doors are being sent under warranty from the manufacturerMangus Properties was notified by the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) about the court notices, but Mangus Properties was not involved directlyMangus Properties referred the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) to a lawyer to get proper legal adviceMangus Properties did not offer monetary assistance towards the court case or replacement windows because Mangus Properties completed the items per the contract with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner)Mangus Properties did respond to tenants maintenance requests for the years that there was a maintenance agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner)To address the items specifically mentioned in the complaint, when the tenant reported that the smoke detectors were not working, we advised the tenant to change the batteriesThe tenant reported that the batteries were not the problem so we scheduled an electrician to resolve the problemThe electrician reported that the smoke detectors needed new batteries but all were functioning properlyAll water leaks that were reported were investigated and the owner was notified if the problem was resolved or notThere were never any instances that Mangus Properties was aware of any damage to the property and failed to notify the consumer that filed the complaint (owner)Mangus Properties notified the owner if there were maintenance items that were reported that had not been addressedMangus Properties charges what was agreed upon in the contract and all costs related to maintenance are approved by the ownerMangus Properties had a leasing agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) but has never done any leasing activity nor charged for any leasing activityThe only time that a unit was vacant while we had a leasing agreement, Mangus Properties and the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) agreed to let the tenant, who was vacating the property prior to her lease ending, find a new tenant so a leasing fee would not be chargedMaintenance requests were responded to in a timely manner and maintenance items were investigatedIf work was not done, it was reported to the ownerI am not aware of any repairs that were done wrong Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (1500, 9, 2015/09/25) */

The tenants moved out of [redacted] **., Wentzville, MO 63385. They were sent the itemized deductions that follow:Replaced damaged blinds in kitchen sliding door (labor only) and dispose of unused/damaged materials $50Replaced damaged smoke detector and replace missing smoke... detector batteries $50Replace damaged weather stripping on front door $25Repair damaged areas of walls and touch up paint damaged areas $200Cleaning (Stove dirty, vent covers dirty, ceiling fans dirty, window ledges and blinds) $200Odor removal from house $200*It was noted that there was a strong urine smell and additionally the carpets were not returned in the same condition as when the tenants moved in. Addition explanation: The tenants were not charged for the heavily stained carpet but the flooring contractor had to bleach and treat the pet urine soiled areas. He informed us the pad was still very wet with urine when he removed it.Clean up overgrowth around the exterior of the house. Remove grass and weeds from driveway $100 There was additional money spent to get the house back into rent ready condition but the above charges are the only charges the tenants were held responsible for. The tenants complained about returning keys to the office. They requested that the owner let them out of their lease early and he agreed to do that if they met certain conditions. One of the conditions was they would be responsible for a prorated amount for each day they remained in possession of the house. In order for the tenants to return possession they must return the keys. We informed them they could keep the keys until the walk thru but they would be charged for each day. They chose to return the keys prior to a walk thru to avoid being charged additional rent. Our office did not require the keys to be returned on any particular day but we did inform the tenants of their obligations. When the agent arrived to do the walk thru with the tenant he did not have the keys with him and a lockbox was not present at the house so the walk thru had to be done on a different day. Our policy is to notify the tenants of a walk thru but I cannot confirm if this tenant was notified when the walk thru was done. As stated above the tenant was not held responsible for the condition of the carpet. It was noted that the carpet was not returned in the same condition as when the tenants moved in but this was just a note to help back the general condition of the home. There was a badly damaged sliding glass door blind and the tenant supplied a new blind and it was left in the basement in a storage area. The new blind was opened and not left in good condition as it was folded over but it was able to be used. The tenant was charged labor. The tenant was charged a contractor’s time to repair the damaged items which also included having to take the time to go to a supply store to pick up materials. The charges are not excessive. The cleaning of the house was not done and returned in the same condition as move in. Our cleaning staff spent 13 hours to properly clean the house. I have several pictures to illustrate the general condition of the house and cleaning needed. The tenant was charged $200 which is one 8 hour day at $25 per hour. (Cleaning materials included in price) I don't believe this is excessive. The walls were marred and damaged in several areas, nail holes, screw holes, scratches, marks, etc. The tenant was charged $200 which includes all labor and materials to repair walls, sand, prep and paint the damaged areas. The paint does not match on touched up areas so if there is a repair to a wall, the entire wall needs to be painted. I will send pictures in following emails but I want to get this information submitted. Best Regards, [redacted] |Mangus Properties

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Revdex.com,I decline the response made by Mangus Properties in regards to the returned deposit check and physical findings of the leasing property located at, *** *** *** **Wentzville, MOI contest the statements regarding the condition this property was left inI was not included or made aware of the walk thru inspection conducted at this propertyI was also never contacted in regards to the findings prior to receiving my returned deposit checkI was never provided communication or photos of these findings until I received this response from the Revdex.comI attempted to contact Mangus Properties multiple times with no returned phone callsI feel that Mangus Properties has poor communication and lack of organizationPoor communication was demonstrated by the inspectors lack of access to the home on the day of our scheduled walk thru inspectionThe inspector seemed frustrated that I had no access to the homeI also found it odd that the inspector, hired by Mangus Properties, had no access to this homeThis demonstrated just one of the examples of poor organization and communication on Mangus Properties accountYes, I did return the keys to Mangus Properties as requestedHowever, I was not made aware that by returning the keys, the inspector would have no access to the home on our scheduled day for inspectionI acquired unnecessary time off work and childcare expense do to the lack of communication and organizationYes, I was never notified of the walk thru inspection conducted at a later time-carpet photo: The photo included in this response by Mangus Properties, demonstrated the poor condition this carpet was in upon leaving this rental propertyThe carpet looked just as poorly when we moved into this propertyThe carpet appears very old, stained, and in need of replacementThis was made aware to Mangus Properties prior to our move in dateHowever, as Mangus Properties discussed, they state we were not charged for the condition of the carpetWe were charged for the flooring underneath the carpet & odor? *** described that the flooring contractor stated he had to bleach surfaces due to the condition under the carpet? Evidence does not support that the condition of the baseboard or padding was damaged while occupied by our family over the months of leasingThis carpet is old and previous tenants prior also had petsCarpet padding can be saturated for long periods of time and can damage baseboards over a period of timeWe resided in this property for monthsI do not see how we can be charged $for bleaching of baseboards/urine damages under carpet structuresIn regards to the pet odor of the carpetWhen we moved in, the carpets had to be professionally cleaned twiceThey also used an air deodorizing machine for three days upon our arrival to remove pet odor and danderThe professional cleaning wets the carpet and left animal hair residue on the surfaceUpon move in, I still had to vacuum multiple times to remove white animal hair off of the carpets once they were dryI’m still very unhappy with the response that we were charged for pet odor and soiled paddingI do believe the carpet was returned in the poor condition it was presented in upon move inThis carpet was most likely ripped out and replaced after our departure due to the poor quality it has been in for quite some time-In regard to the cleaning of the home: I was made aware prior to our move in that a professional cleaning crew is hired by Mangus Properties to clean the home prior to the next tenants move inTherefore, upon my departure of the property I cleaned the home to the best of my abilityI did not do the “heavy cleaning”, as I knew a cleaning crew would be performing the heavier cleaning prior to the next tenants move inI was not aware that in order to get the rental home back in the condition it was in prior to our leaving, I would expected to hire a cleaning crew to make the residence in pristine conditionI cleaned countertops, toilets, sinks, bathtubs, showers, appliances, carpets, etcI spent multiple hours cleaning this home as wellThe photo of the ceiling fan was included as an example of something that I did not clean due to the height of the fanThe living room ceiling fan is located on a vaulted ceiling and would require the use of a ladder to reachThe appliances also may have needed additional heavy duty cleaningHowever, I cleaned this home to leave it in a nice conditionIf I needed to clean it to the standards of a cleaning crew, I was not made awareI find it unfair that they expect their leaving tenants to clean their properties to the equivalence of a cleaning crews standardAs Mangus Properties then hires a cleaning crew to clean the residence after departure and prior to the next tenants move inI left this home in very clean condition, with the exception of two ceiling fans, window coverings, and possibly the oven/microwaveI do not see how these few cleaning needs required hours of cleaning at $25/hrThese findings are considered wear & tear on a home-In regards to paint/wall repairs: The photos presented included two scratches and photo of nailsMy question regarding this issue, Should I have repaired these items in order to receive my returned deposit? Most leasing companies do not allow you to fix or repair items yourself, as you may inquire additional damages to the property while attempting to repair themI was allowed to have wall hangings per lease agreementI was not made aware that I would need to repair any nail holes, sand, prep, and paint the walls upon leavingI find this to be wear and tear on a propertyIf you allow wall hangings in a property, then you should expect to have repairs and minor wall touch ups upon the tenants departureThe two scratches included one wall and a banister in the foreyeaI find these charges for two scratches and nail repair to be unfair, at an expense of $I don’t understand how I could have fixed these issues prior to leaving the residence in order to receive my returned deposit? -Photo of blind in kitchen: As stated by ***, I did supply a new window fixture for the broken blind in the kitchen*** stated I was charged for labor conducted while installing the new blindMy question again, Should I have been expected to install this blind myself in order to not be charged for the labor fee? Again, most leasing agencies would not want a tenant installing a vertical blind unitAdditional damages could occur while the tenant attempts to install such itemsI’m unsure of ways I could have fixed the blind without receiving additional charges for the laborI understand you had to install the new blindHowever, how could I have resolved this issue without being charged? I don’t foresee the leasing company wanting me to attempt to drill and screw this unit into the wall myself-Broken smoke detector & replacement of batteries: Yes, there was a smoke detector not functioningCity ordinance requires leasing properties to supply smoke detectors within their leasing propertiesIf the smoke detector was broken and in need of batteries, I do not feel I should have been charged $for this item.-Weather Strip on Front Door: The adhesive was wearing down on the weather strip on the front door for a few weeks prior to our move out dateI mentioned this to the inspector prior to move out, on the day we had no access to the home for walk thru inspectionWe did not damage the weather stripIt simply needed replaced due to loss of adhesivenessThis item needed replaced and wouldn’t have been billed to us, if we had not moved out of the residenceIn the occurrence that we were continuing to live at this residence, this weather strip would have been replaced by Mangus PropertiesWhy should we be charged for this item due to our move out? -Exterior of Home: Yes, I agree that the yard needed weed removalI was ok with this acquired chargeHowever, I would like to note that upon move in to this residence we had to mow and weedeat the property upon move inIn conclusion, I do not agree with the expenses listed aboveI assumed we would not receive the full return for our deposit due to minor fixes and possibly yard careHowever, I was in shock when I received the itemized list of alleged damagesThe total expenses held from the deposit equalled $This amount appears excessive, unfair, and dishonestThe home was left clean, in good condition, with no major damagesI would like to resolve this issue with Mangus Properties by requesting a re-evaluation of these charges and findingsI feel that I should be owed a more fair returned depositI wasted time, money, and effort in my attempt to leave this home in nice condition upon move outThe few photos demonstrate minor wear & tear on a older homeI don’t believe you should be able to charge $for minor wall/paint repairs and $for cleaning of two ceiling fans, window ledges, vent coverings, oven, & a microwaveThese listed cleaning items seem to include more vigourous cleaningAs previously mentioned, the home was cleaned by a professional cleaning crew prior to our move inI didn’t expect to have to pay for a cleaning crew to come in after our departure to get the home in the same condition it was in prior to our move inI cleaned the home and it was in good conditionI knew that Mangus Properties would then hire a cleaning crew to clean it prior to the next tenants move inI believe these demonstrate a leasing companies responsible duties prior to the next tenants move inMost leasing companies consider wear & tear a part of leasing a homeThis home was clean with no major damagesIt does not equal $of expenses to be held out of our depositSincerely,*** ***
Sincerely,
*** ***

The tenants moved out of [redacted]., Wentzville, MO 63385.  They were sent the itemized deductions that follow:Replaced damaged blinds in kitchen sliding door (labor only) and dispose of unused/damaged materials  $50Replaced damaged smoke detector and replace missing smoke...

detector batteries $50Replace damaged weather stripping on front door $25Repair damaged areas of walls and touch up paint damaged areas $200Cleaning (Stove dirty, vent covers dirty, ceiling fans dirty, window ledges and blinds)  $200Odor removal from house  $200*It was noted that there was a strong urine smell and additionally the carpets were not returned in the same condition as when the tenants moved in. Addition explanation: The tenants were not charged for the heavily stained carpet but the flooring contractor had to bleach and treat the pet urine soiled areas.  He informed us the pad was still very wet with urine when he removed it.Clean up overgrowth around the exterior of the house.  Remove grass and weeds from driveway  $100 There was additional money spent to get the house back into rent ready condition but the above charges are the only charges the tenants were held responsible for. The tenants complained about returning keys to the office.   They requested that the owner let them out of their lease early and he agreed to do that if they met certain conditions.   One of the conditions was they would be responsible for a prorated amount for each day they remained in possession of the house.  In order for the tenants to return possession they must return the keys.  We informed them they could keep the keys until the walk thru but they would be charged for each day.  They chose to return the keys prior to a walk thru to avoid being charged additional rent.   Our office did not require the keys to be returned on any particular day but we did inform the tenants of their obligations.  When the agent arrived to do the walk thru with the tenant he did not have the keys with him and a lockbox was not present at the house so the walk thru had to be done on a different day.  Our policy is to notify the tenants of a walk thru but I cannot confirm if this tenant was notified when the walk thru was done.  As stated above the tenant was not held responsible for the condition of the carpet.  It was noted that the carpet was not returned in the same condition as when the tenants moved in but this was just a note to help back the general condition of the home.   There was a badly damaged sliding glass door blind and the tenant supplied a new blind and it was left in the basement in a storage area.  The new blind was opened and not left in good condition as it was folded over but it was able to be used.  The tenant was charged labor.   The tenant was charged a contractor’s time to repair the damaged items which also included having to take the time to go to a supply store to pick up materials.  The charges are not excessive.  The cleaning of the house was not done and returned in the same condition as move in.  Our cleaning staff spent 13 hours to properly clean the house.  I have several pictures to illustrate the general condition of the house and cleaning needed.  The tenant was charged $200 which is one 8 hour day at $25 per hour. (Cleaning materials included in price)   I don't  believe this is excessive.  The walls were marred and damaged in several areas, nail holes, screw holes, scratches, marks, etc.   The tenant was charged $200 which includes all labor and materials to repair walls, sand, prep and paint the damaged areas.  The paint does not match on touched up areas so if there is a repair to a wall, the entire wall needs to be painted.    I will send pictures in following emails but I want to get this information submitted. Best Regards, [redacted]|Mangus Properties

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/09/25) */
Mangus Properties entered into a Property Maintenance Agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) on August 27, 2013. Mangus Properties discussed a Management Agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) and we...

sent her a copy of our Management Agreement to review, but the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) declined to enter into a Management Agreement with Mangus Properties. 1. We (Mangus Properties) were first notified about damage to a gutter on 6/17/2015. This notification came from the consumer that filed the complaint (owner). Damage was not reported while any work was being done on the property, however because there were contractors working near the gutter, Mangus Properties agreed to send a contractor to install a new gutter to replace the gutter that was damaged and Mangus Properties agreed to take responsibility for the costs involved with replacing the gutter. This was reported to Mangus Properties as completed on August 30, 2015. This was communicated to the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) by email on September 2, 2015. The gutter was dented but was functioning properly and there was no evidence of any water damage related to the dent on the gutter. 2. The consumer that filed the complaint (owner) had received an estimate independent of Mangus Properties to replace all of the wood windows with new wood windows and the estimate for the cost of windows alone was $15,926.65. The consumer that filed the complaint (owner) spoke with owner of Mangus Properties about this quote and the owner of Mangus Properties notified the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) that if she replaced the windows with vinyl windows, there would be a significant cost reduction. The owner of Mangus Properties also notified her that vinyl windows may not be in compliance with the historic district. Mangus Properties provided an estimate for installing vinyl windows. Mangus Properties notified the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) that they were not getting any permits and if permits were required by the historic district in the future, that would be her responsibility. Mangus Properties provided an estimate for replacement of new door slabs. The new door slabs were installed in the existing door frames and this work was subcontracted out to PGS construction. Mangus Properties was notified by one of the tenants about a gap under the door. This was due to the existing threshold not matching up with the new slab door. Mangus Properties contacted PGS construction about this issue and they returned the following business day to replace the threshold. In June, 2015 it was reported that the doors were showing signs of swelling. Mangus Properties met with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) to view the doors and get pictures of the swelling. Mangus Properties filed a claim with [redacted], the manufacturer and new doors are being sent under warranty from the manufacturer. Mangus Properties was notified by the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) about the court notices, but Mangus Properties was not involved directly. Mangus Properties referred the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) to a lawyer to get proper legal advice. Mangus Properties did not offer monetary assistance towards the court case or replacement windows because Mangus Properties completed the items per the contract with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner). 3. Mangus Properties did respond to tenants maintenance requests for the 2 years that there was a maintenance agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner). To address the items specifically mentioned in the complaint, when the tenant reported that the smoke detectors were not working, we advised the tenant to change the batteries. The tenant reported that the batteries were not the problem so we scheduled an electrician to resolve the problem. The electrician reported that the smoke detectors needed new batteries but all were functioning properly. All water leaks that were reported were investigated and the owner was notified if the problem was resolved or not. 4. There were never any instances that Mangus Properties was aware of any damage to the property and failed to notify the consumer that filed the complaint (owner). Mangus Properties notified the owner if there were maintenance items that were reported that had not been addressed. 5. Mangus Properties charges what was agreed upon in the contract and all costs related to maintenance are approved by the owner. Mangus Properties had a leasing agreement with the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) but has never done any leasing activity nor charged for any leasing activity. The only time that a unit was vacant while we had a leasing agreement, Mangus Properties and the consumer that filed the complaint (owner) agreed to let the tenant, who was vacating the property prior to her lease ending, find a new tenant so a leasing fee would not be charged. 6. Maintenance requests were responded to in a timely manner and maintenance items were investigated. If work was not done, it was reported to the owner. I am not aware of any repairs that were done wrong.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (1500, 9, 2015/09/25) */