Mark Brower Properties

Please accept this as my response to the complaint registered by [redacted] against my company, Mark Brower Properties.[redacted] rented a property through our management company and is disputing the security deposit refund he received after leaving. [redacted] states "as part of the lease contract,...

the management company was supposed to make scheduled house inspections"There is nothing in the lease that states we must perform home inspections while a tenant is residing in a property.  We do visit the home regularly as part of our commitment to the owner of the property.  [redacted]'s statement falsely makes it sound like we had an obligation to visit the home which is incorrect.  We do it to go above and beyond industry standard to ensure tenants are respecting and caring for the property.[redacted] states "After I decided not to renew my lease, the move out inspection was scheduled without my consultation"[redacted] was informed of the move-out inspection day and time via email.  [redacted] was informed in writing about how the move-out process works: that he would turn in his keys to signify he was turning over possession of the property to end his lease.  Arizona law also requires we give tenants an opportunity to be present for the move-out inspection.  [redacted] was given access to a document: "Preparing for your move-out".  That document explains the move-out process and contains this language (see attachment for full document): "After you turn in the keys to the property you will be notified of the inspection date (usually 1-2 business days after receiving the keys from you).  You have a right to be present at the move-out inspection.  Unfortunately we cannot always accommodate your schedule on the move-out inspection."[redacted] was also informed of the move-out inspection day and time and either chose not to be present or was unable to be present.  Here is a copy of the email message that was sent to [redacted] on June 29th:"Hello [redacted] & [redacted],We will be conducting the move-out inspection of the property you just vacated on Wednesday, July 1 at 9:00 a.m.You are not required to be present for the inspection; we are just providing you notice so that you can be there if you would like.Thank you,Sherry"Arizona law requires we reconcile security deposits within 14 business days of the move-out inspection.  [redacted] was looking for updates for us earlier than that 14 business day time frame and we simply did not have any for him.  Laurie (the office manager) and myself each visited the property after [redacted] vacated and the owner requested we meet him for a walk through of the property as well to inspect condition and make decisions about work the home needed and what charges the tenant should be responsible for.The owner of the property took an active role in the move-out inspection and assessment of charges against [redacted]'s security deposit.  Under an Arizona lease, the property owner and the tenants are the principals in the agreement and the property manager is the agent of the owner.  If the owner gives us instructions about the management of his property we must follow them.[redacted] states that he tried contacting me for explanations about the charges against his security deposit and that he was "still waiting for an answer". Not only was [redacted] provided with an itemized and detailed breakdown of the charges against his deposit (mostly for cleaning and painting that was above and beyond 'normal wear and tear') but he was also provided an 18+ page report with over 100 pictures taken at the move-out inspection.Further, I responded to [redacted]'s email within 1 business day "see attached correspondence"We feel we not only made a fair and accurate assessment against [redacted]'s security deposit, under the owner's direction/instruction, but we also went above and beyond industry standard to ensure [redacted] was informed at every step along the way with guidelines to get the property ready after he left, an invitation to be present at the inspection appointment and very prompt and thorough communication justifying the charges made against his deposit.  Please feel free to call or email me directly with any further questions.Thanks,-- Mark B[redacted]Mark Brower Properties[redacted]www.markrent.com

We respect Mr. [redacted] right to disagree with the amounts deducted from his security deposit.  We did appreciate having him as a tenant and the home did look like it was in good shape when we visited it a few months prior to his departure.  Mr. [redacted] was given the opportunity to be present during the move-out inspection.  Prior to the inspection taking place we sent him an email with the date and time it would be conducted.  Our policy is to give tenants a detailed break-down of any charges against their security deposit within 14 business days as required by law.  We did so in this case with Mr. [redacted]'s deposit as well.  Mr. [redacted]'s states he never heard back from Mark of Laurie.  Not only did he receive written communication from Laurie in the form of the detailed security deposit reconciliation report, Mark also promptly responded to multiple email messages from Mr. [redacted] one of which is attached here for reference.Following the move-out inspection at the property, the owner, who lives here in town, requested a follow-up meeting at the house with our office.  Laurie, the property manager and Mark the broker both met him at the property to review the post move-out condition and to discuss any charges that would be made against the security deposit.  For the most part, the home was left in good shape but there were some items that needed addressed that exceeded what would be considered 'normal wear and tear' and this is why Mr. [redacted]'s deposit had some charges made against it.  We regret that Mr. [redacted] disagrees with these charges.  We work hard to do the right thing for the owner and also to be fair and reasonable to all residents and we wish Mr. [redacted] and his household all the best in their future endeavors.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.At the time I submitted this claim, I was still waiting forMark’s explanation, can you please check the date my claim was submitted? Soonafter the submission of this claim through Revdex.com, I had a mail exchange with Markand I believe that the only thing that became evident was that “we have verydifferent definitions of fair or reasonable” as he said.Mark sent me a long document containing “move out pictures” thatthey took after I vacated the premises, and I replied that although thedocument was meticulously put together, it failed to fulfill the intendedpurpose if the pictures cannot be compared to similar ones taken at the time Imoved in. Mark replied that he was keeping them as evidence for potentiallitigation. If Mark is right, why not avoid the litigation by showing thesepictures to me now to prove his point? Does showing me the pictures makes themuseless as evidence in a potential litigation? He mentioned the chips on thewall, although I don’t know which chips he was referring to, I too did noticesome chips on the some walls as well as some mismatched paint on the ceilingwhen I moved in. I even took pictures and sent a copy to Sandra, his employeeat the time, if he archives his mails he can go back and check. When it comes to cleaning charges, I received a mail fromhis office shortly after informing him that I will not renew my lease. In themail it was mentioned that IF I USE A CLEANING COMPANY, IT MUST BE LICENSED ANDPROVIDES WARRANTY BECAUSE HE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THE COMPANY IN CASE HEIS NOT SATIFIED BY THE SERVICE. If some parts of the carpet indeed needed additionalcleaning, he SHOULD have asked me if I used a licensed cleaner, and if yes ifthe service was covered by a warranty. Not doing so is contrary to theinformation provided in the move out email. For that reason I dispute allcleaning charges.As for other charges, I believe that at the bare minimumtenants should be given a copy of the finding before any repair is made.

Regards,

Please accept this as my response to the complaint registered by [redacted] against my company, Mark Brower Properties.[redacted] rented a property through our management company and is disputing the security deposit refund he received after leaving. [redacted] states "as part of...

the lease contract, the management company was supposed to make scheduled house inspections"There is nothing in the lease that states we must perform home inspections while a tenant is residing in a property.  We do visit the home regularly as part of our commitment to the owner of the property.  [redacted]'s statement falsely makes it sound like we had an obligation to visit the home which is incorrect.  We do it to go above and beyond industry standard to ensure tenants are respecting and caring for the property.[redacted] states "After I decided not to renew my lease, the move out inspection was scheduled without my consultation"[redacted] was informed of the move-out inspection day and time via email.  [redacted] was informed in writing about how the move-out process works: that he would turn in his keys to signify he was turning over possession of the property to end his lease.  Arizona law also requires we give tenants an opportunity to be present for the move-out inspection.  [redacted] was given access to a document: "Preparing for your move-out".  That document explains the move-out process and contains this language (see attachment for full document): "After you turn in the keys to the property you will be notified of the inspection date (usually 1-2 business days after receiving the keys from you).  You have a right to be present at the move-out inspection.  Unfortunately we cannot always accommodate your schedule on the move-out inspection."[redacted] was also informed of the move-out inspection day and time and either chose not to be present or was unable to be present.  Here is a copy of the email message that was sent to [redacted] on June 29th:"Hello [redacted] & [redacted],We will be conducting the move-out inspection of the property you just vacated on Wednesday, July 1 at 9:00 a.m.You are not required to be present for the inspection; we are just providing you notice so that you can be there if you would like.Thank you,Sherry"Arizona law requires we reconcile security deposits within 14 business days of the move-out inspection.  [redacted] was looking for updates for us earlier than that 14 business day time frame and we simply did not have any for him.  Laurie (the office manager) and myself each visited the property after [redacted] vacated and the owner requested we meet him for a walk through of the property as well to inspect condition and make decisions about work the home needed and what charges the tenant should be responsible for.The owner of the property took an active role in the move-out inspection and assessment of charges against [redacted]'s security deposit.  Under an Arizona lease, the property owner and the tenants are the principals in the agreement and the property manager is the agent of the owner.  If the owner gives us instructions about the management of his property we must follow them.[redacted] states that he tried contacting me for explanations about the charges against his security deposit and that he was "still waiting for an answer". Not only was [redacted] provided with an itemized and detailed breakdown of the charges against his deposit (mostly for cleaning and painting that was above and beyond 'normal wear and tear') but he was also provided an 18+ page report with over 100 pictures taken at the move-out inspection.Further, I responded to [redacted]'s email within 1 business day "see attached correspondence"We feel we not only made a fair and accurate assessment against [redacted]'s security deposit, under the owner's direction/instruction, but we also went above and beyond industry standard to ensure [redacted] was informed at every step along the way with guidelines to get the property ready after he left, an invitation to be present at the inspection appointment and very prompt and thorough communication justifying the charges made against his deposit.  Please feel free to call or email me directly with any further questions.Thanks,-- Mark B[redacted]Mark Brower Properties[redacted]www.markrent.com

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.At the time I submitted this claim, I was still waiting forMark’s explanation, can you please check the date my claim was submitted? Soonafter the submission of this claim through Revdex.com, I had a mail exchange with Markand I believe that the only thing that became evident was that “we have verydifferent definitions of fair or reasonable” as he said.Mark sent me a long document containing “move out pictures” thatthey took after I vacated the premises, and I replied that although thedocument was meticulously put together, it failed to fulfill the intendedpurpose if the pictures cannot be compared to similar ones taken at the time Imoved in. Mark replied that he was keeping them as evidence for potentiallitigation. If Mark is right, why not avoid the litigation by showing thesepictures to me now to prove his point? Does showing me the pictures makes themuseless as evidence in a potential litigation? He mentioned the chips on thewall, although I don’t know which chips he was referring to, I too did noticesome chips on the some walls as well as some mismatched paint on the ceilingwhen I moved in. I even took pictures and sent a copy to Sandra, his employeeat the time, if he archives his mails he can go back and check. When it comes to cleaning charges, I received a mail fromhis office shortly after informing him that I will not renew my lease. In themail it was mentioned that IF I USE A CLEANING COMPANY, IT MUST BE LICENSED ANDPROVIDES WARRANTY BECAUSE HE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THE COMPANY IN CASE HEIS NOT SATIFIED BY THE SERVICE. If some parts of the carpet indeed needed additionalcleaning, he SHOULD have asked me if I used a licensed cleaner, and if yes ifthe service was covered by a warranty. Not doing so is contrary to theinformation provided in the move out email. For that reason I dispute allcleaning charges.As for other charges, I believe that at the bare minimumtenants should be given a copy of the finding before any repair is made.

Regards,

We respect Mr. [redacted] right to disagree with the amounts deducted from his security deposit.  We did appreciate having him as a tenant and the home did look like it was in good shape when we visited it a few months prior to his departure.  Mr. [redacted] was given the opportunity to be present during the move-out inspection.  Prior to the inspection taking place we sent him an email with the date and time it would be conducted.  Our policy is to give tenants a detailed break-down of any charges against their security deposit within 14 business days as required by law.  We did so in this case with Mr. [redacted]'s deposit as well.  Mr. [redacted]'s states he never heard back from Mark of Laurie.  Not only did he receive written communication from Laurie in the form of the detailed security deposit reconciliation report, Mark also promptly responded to multiple email messages from Mr. [redacted] one of which is attached here for reference.
Following the move-out inspection at the property, the owner, who lives here in town, requested a follow-up meeting at the house with our office.  Laurie, the property manager and Mark the broker both met him at the property to review the post move-out condition and to discuss any charges that would be made against the security deposit.  For the most part, the home was left in good shape but there were some items that needed addressed that exceeded what would be considered 'normal wear and tear' and this is why Mr. [redacted]'s deposit had some charges made against it.  We regret that Mr. [redacted] disagrees with these charges.  We work hard to do the right thing for the owner and also to be fair and reasonable to all residents and we wish Mr. [redacted] and his household all the best in their future endeavors.

Once again Mark Brower is not stating the facts truthfully. The property owner he represented failed to show up in court when I sued for return of my deposit money, however, the Judge gave her a second opportunity to appear and she did so via telephone. Mr. B[redacted] was present at that hearing. I was awarded a Judgment for the return of my deposit because the owner could not justify that any damages were incurred by me. The judge upheld the Judgment against her. No matter what way Mr. Brower wants to spin this, he still represents unethical property owners since she refuses to pay the money. Ultimately he is the one who made the decision to not return my deposit, therefore making him just as unethical.