MCM Property Management

Revdex.com: We have reviewed the response made by the business (MCM Property Management Group) in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and while we do not think it resolves our issue, we are accepting this response as we prefer to avoid further interaction with MCM regarding this issueHowever, so there is full record of MCM's poor business practices on file with Revdex.com & in order to protect future tenants, here is a full list of details surrounding this complaint: Rent Rate "Bait-and-Switch": The posted rent was $After our apartment viewing, we negotiated with the MCM representative for a reduced rate of $per month plus the final month of year one rent freeWhen we went to pay the security deposit & first month's rent, we were suddenly informed that the rate for the apartment would remain at $per month AND we would be required to pay an additional security deposit Though this raised a serious red flag for us regarding the company's professionalism, we negotiated a "compromised" rate of $per month with final month of first year free, plus MCM would pay 50% of utilities, and verbally agreed to an additional security deposit that would be immediately repaid when we could provide proof of employment (no requirement of permanency was stated at this point).Missing Lease AND Unit Keys on MoDate: We were told by Betty we could sign a lease & move in ONE WEEK BEFORE our official start date However, we received keys to the unit just TWO DAYS before our lease startOur "pressure" - as Betty stated in her response - came after we had not heard from them in 48+ hours and were quickly running out of time in which to move from a town ~hrs away At the key exchange, she stated our lease was not prepared yet and would be sent to us the next day The lease did not arrive until about a week AFTER our official lease start date This draft did not reflect any of the "compromised" rates, nor MCM's "extra security deposit" (the deposit that is the focus of this Revdex.com complaint).Additional 'Good Faith' Security Deposit: As stated, the initial lease did not include a clause about the return of the extra security depositWe were verbally told the additional deposit would be repaid after permanent employment was gained; however, we were adamant that the lease be changed to reflect this clauseIn the 'Good Faith' clause, no minimum time frame was required in which the permanent employment had to be continued before repayment of this deposit; the stated requirement is "proof of employment verification at or above a monthly income of 250% of the monthly rate..." Proof of Employment: After providing proof of employment for both tenants, we had no response from MCM for over a month After following up for a response (ie: 30+ days had elapsed since permanent employment - and proof of such employment - was submitted), they sent a letter outlining the new rules in which we would receive the extra security deposit (the attachment provided by Betty in this Complaint).At this point, February marks the end of the month employment "longevity" waiting period, and we look forward to receiving our money in a very timely manner so this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties Regards, [redacted]

A lease was entered into on May 19, between MCM Property Management Group and *** and *** *** The tenants were both requesting quick access to the condo inHarrisburg and we did allow them to move inAt that time both were re-locating to Harrisburg,therefore, no permanent,
full time employment or income was verifiableDuring the verificationprocess, we mentioned the need for this second security deposit for the reason stated aboveI haveattached a copy of the lease for your reviewPlease note that item starts on page and ends onpage and clearly states the expectations for the refund of the additional monetary request.A letter was also sent to the tenants on September 23, citing the same section of the lease statedour reason for not refunding the monies at this timeI have attached the letter, also, for your review.It is unfortunate the tenant feels we are being unprofessional, they were advised of the situation in atimely manner.If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.Sincerely,Betty T***MCM Property ManagementAttachments -

A lease was entered into on May 19, 2015 between MCM Property Management Group and [redacted] and [redacted] The tenants were both requesting quick access to the condo inHarrisburg and we did allow them to move in. At that time both were re-locating to Harrisburg,therefore, no...

permanent, full time employment or income was verifiable. During the verificationprocess, we mentioned the need for this second security deposit for the reason stated above. I haveattached a copy of the lease for your review. Please note that item 4 starts on page 1 and ends onpage 2 and clearly states the expectations for the refund of the additional monetary request.A letter was also sent to the tenants on September 23, 2015 citing the same section of the lease statedour reason for not refunding the monies at this time. I have attached the letter, also, for your review.It is unfortunate the tenant feels we are being unprofessional, they were advised of the situation in atimely manner.If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.Sincerely,Betty T[redacted]MCM Property ManagementAttachments -

Revdex.com:
We have reviewed the response made by the business (MCM Property Management Group) in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and while we do not think it resolves our issue, we are accepting this response as we prefer to avoid further interaction with MCM regarding this issue. However, so there is full record of MCM's poor business practices on file with Revdex.com & in order to protect future tenants, here is a full list of details surrounding this complaint:  Rent Rate "Bait-and-Switch": The posted rent was $1395. After our apartment viewing, we negotiated with the MCM representative for a reduced rate of $1295 per month plus the final month of year one rent free. When we went to pay the security deposit & first month's rent, we were suddenly informed that the rate for the apartment would remain at $1395 per month AND we would be required to pay an additional security deposit.  Though this raised a serious red flag for us regarding the company's professionalism, we negotiated a "compromised" rate of $1395 per month with final month of first year free, plus MCM would pay 50% of utilities, and verbally agreed to an additional security deposit that would be immediately repaid when we could provide proof of employment (no requirement of permanency was stated at this point).Missing Lease AND Unit Keys on Move-in Date: We were told by Betty we could sign a lease & move in ONE WEEK BEFORE our official start date.  However, we received keys to the unit just TWO DAYS before our lease start. Our "pressure" - as Betty stated in her response - came after we had not heard from them in 48+ hours and
were quickly running out of time in which to move from a town ~2 hrs
away.  At the key exchange, she stated our lease was not prepared yet and would be sent to us the next day.  The lease did not arrive until about a week AFTER our official lease start date.  This draft did not reflect any of the "compromised" rates, nor MCM's "extra security deposit" (the deposit that is the focus of this Revdex.com complaint).Additional 'Good Faith' Security Deposit:  As stated, the initial lease did not include a clause about the return of the
extra security deposit. We were verbally told the additional deposit would be repaid after permanent employment was
gained; however, we were adamant that the lease be changed to reflect this clause. In the 'Good Faith' clause, no minimum time frame was required in which the permanent
employment had to be continued before repayment of this deposit; the stated requirement is "proof of employment verification at or above a monthly income of 250% of the monthly rate..."  Proof of Employment: After providing proof of employment for both tenants, we had no response from MCM for over a month.  After following up for a response (ie: 30+ days had elapsed since permanent employment - and proof of such employment - was submitted), they sent a letter outlining the new rules in which we would receive the extra security deposit (the attachment provided by Betty in this Complaint).At this point, February 2016 marks the end of the 6 month employment "longevity" waiting period, and we look forward to receiving our money in a very timely manner so this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:We have reviewed the response made by the business (MCM Property Management Group) in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and while we do not think it resolves our issue, we are accepting this response as we prefer to avoid further interaction with MCM regarding this issue. However, so there is full record of MCM's poor business practices on file with Revdex.com & in order to protect future tenants, here is a full list of details surrounding this complaint: 
Rent Rate "Bait-and-Switch": The posted rent was $1395. After our apartment viewing, we negotiated with the MCM representative for a reduced rate of $1295 per month plus the final month of year one rent free. When we went to pay the security deposit & first month's rent, we were suddenly informed that the rate for the apartment would remain at $1395 per month AND we would be required to pay an additional security deposit.  Though this raised a serious red flag for us regarding the company's professionalism, we negotiated a "compromised" rate of $1395 per month with final month of first year free, plus MCM would pay 50% of utilities, and verbally agreed to an additional security deposit that would be immediately repaid when we could provide proof of employment (no requirement of permanency was stated at this point).
Missing Lease AND Unit Keys on Move-in Date: We were told by Betty we could sign a lease & move in ONE WEEK BEFORE our official start date.  However, we received keys to the unit just TWO DAYS before our lease start. Our "pressure" - as Betty stated in her response - came after we had not heard from them in 48+ hours and
were quickly running out of time in which to move from a town ~2 hrs
away.  At the key exchange, she stated our lease was not prepared yet and would be sent to us the next day.  The lease did not arrive until about a week AFTER our official lease start date.  This draft did not reflect any of the "compromised" rates, nor MCM's "extra security deposit" (the deposit that is the focus of this Revdex.com complaint).
Additional 'Good Faith' Security Deposit:  As stated, the initial lease did not include a clause about the return of the
extra security deposit. We were verbally told the additional deposit would be repaid after permanent employment was
gained; however, we were adamant that the lease be changed to reflect this clause. In the 'Good Faith' clause, no minimum time frame was required in which the permanent
employment had to be continued before repayment of this deposit; the stated requirement is "proof of employment verification at or above a monthly income of 250% of the monthly rate..." 
Proof of Employment: After providing proof of employment for both tenants, we had no response from MCM for over a month.  After following up for a response (ie: 30+ days had elapsed since permanent employment - and proof of such employment - was submitted), they sent a letter outlining the new rules in which we would receive the extra security deposit (the attachment provided by Betty in this Complaint).
At this point, February 2016 marks the end of the 6 month employment "longevity" waiting period, and we look forward to receiving our money in a very timely manner so this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: On Nov 1st 2013 my deposit for the pending lease of a property owned by [redacted], a check for $725, was cashed from my bank account. My rental application was not approved due to a bankruptcy and I have been trying to get my $725 back from [redacted] since Nov 12th. Repeated phone calls to his office with no answer, visits to his office and no one is there, a certified letter from an attorney demanding payment have all yielded no results. [redacted] owes me $725 and has no legal or ethical right to withhold these funds from me.Desired Settlement: [redacted] needs to mail a check for $725 to me immediately.

Business

Response:

Thank you for your letter of Jan. 13, 2014 sending us the remarks by the complainant in the submission with the ID number [redacted]. The timing on the application the complainant is as follows: She signed on Oct. 30, 2013. The application specified that the money would.be refunded “if this application is not accepted within 15 business banking days.” The complainant was approved on Nov. 13, 2013 and notified that same day which was well within the above specification. A company representative had shown the complainant the property. She did not mention the bankruptcy issue at that time—or would we have expected her to. She indicated that on her application. But the complainant cites that we did not approve her because of a bankruptcy. This is not true. We do, however, become more investigative in such cases because we want to get the bigger picture. In this case there was a note on the back of the application that the reason for filing for bankruptcy was that the complainant was laid off in 2009. However, the complainant supplied us with documentation to show the complainants more recent income. Additionally, the applicant was a referral to us. This convinced our company that the applicant would honorably and regularly be able to pay her lease payment. The complainant signed a legally binding document for the term of the lease agreement (9 months lease term), therefore, technically, she is liable to MCM Property management for the full 9 month term of the binding agreement. But the applicant was what we term in business parlance, a “no show” and we had to mitigate the loss by re-advertising the home for occupancy to someone else. We don’t know the reasons the complainant did not carry through with taking occupancy of the home. But in fact, by the terms of the agreement she literally owes MCM Property Management additional funds. Although we can also charge her for our costs in having to re-advertise, and for additional showings of the home, we are willing to waive those charges. We are disappointed that the complainant did not carry through with her apparent intentions of moving into the home after we made good faith concessions to help her. The complainant alludes to having had an attorney involved. We have no record of any attorney ever having contacted MCM Property Management. We simply represent the interests of the owner/landlord in getting the property leased. We will be awaiting her response on this matter, but need to conclude the lease paperwork for the replacement tenant. We do need to know if the complainant prefers a sublet or Assignment of her lease; see charge 3. The charges are summarized as follows: 1. Charge 1 is the cost of staff time to show the property again to get it leased by another party. (Waived). 2. Charge 2 is the rent charge from Nov. 15 to Dec. 14 resulting in a proration of one month, being $725.00 x 30/31 = $701.61. 3. Charge 3 is the fee either to Sublet/Assign her lease to a new party or to cancel her lease. (either $100.00 or $200.00). 4. Charge 4 is the difference in the rent (dollar amount) which is the lost amount each month due to lower rent for replacement tenant. This rent difference is $30.00 per month. Applying this over the remainder of her term (as noted above, her original term was 9 months) we derive $30.00 per month which equals $270.00. The total charge owed by the complainant, as described above is either $1,071.61 if she accepts the offer to sublet her lease term, or $1,171.61 if she decides to ask us to cancel the lease and allow us to assign it. When we subtract her security deposit of $725.00 from this figure, we obtain the final amount the complainant still owes: Either $346.61 if she sublets or $446.61 if she asks us to cancel it. One or the other would need to be paid to terminate her lease and close her account. The complainant may resolve this matter by indicating her choice either through the Revdex.com or directly by e-mail so that we may close out the issues between us. Our email address is: [redacted]. Sincerely, MCM Property Management

Consumer

Response:

The response from MCM Property Management indicates that I was approved on November, 13, 2013 and notified of this. This is not true.

On November 12, 2013 I was told by their representative [redacted], that because of the bankruptcy I needed to either submit an additional $725 deposit or have a cosignor on the lease. Neither of these was possible for me. [redacted] said because I was not approved I was entitled to my security deposit being refunded. [redacted] said she would talk to [redacted] about this and let me know. After several repeated attempts at contacting [redacted] or [redacted] directly I received no answer on when my security deposit would be returned.

At no time was it ever indicated to me that I had been approved or that my security deposit would not be returned.

I spoke to [redacted] again on December 2, 2013 and she said that [redacted] had now informed her that I would have to wait until the unit was rented to someone else before my security deposit would be returned. [redacted] also indicated that her last day working for this company was December 3rd and that she was not sure who would handle it from here, but possibly their accountant Arena.

Any attempts at contacting MCM Management or [redacted] regarding the return of my deposit funds was unsuccessful.

I was never contacted by them regarding their claim that I now owe them money. Their response to the Revdex.com is the first I have heard about it.

I do not owe them any money. They owe me $725.

Regards,

Review: Per our signed lease agreement, MCM Management Company (dba Greek Housing Services Inc) is to refund 1 deposit, totally $1395.00, upon receipt of verification of permanent, full-time employment status. They have been provided with a letter of employment (for 1 tenant) & 2+ months of pay stubs (for 2nd tenant) more than 30+ days ago. However, they continue to delay return of said deposit. It has been 30+ days since proof of employment/income has been sent and deposit has not been returned. This management company is not operated professionally and subsequently we have experienced undue delays in communication and necessary next steps. We are seeking our deposit of $1395.00 immediately with no further delays or excuses. We also hope to caution others to consider their finances and level of grievance before renting from such a "property management company".Desired Settlement: I'd like a check, made out to [redacted], by 9/30/15. We have provided proof of employment 30+ days ago; they are only now getting back to us with excuses of why they'll not pay/why it has taken over 1 month to respond to our requests. They continue to provide "reasons" (ex: the person who processes this is sick/no one else can handle this request; we require "longevity" in a job before refunding the deposit", etc) why the money has not been already refunded. This is unprofessional.

Business

Response:

A lease was entered into on May 19, 2015 between MCM Property Management Group and [redacted] and [redacted] The tenants were both requesting quick access to the condo inHarrisburg and we did allow them to move in. At that time both were re-locating to Harrisburg,therefore, no permanent, full time employment or income was verifiable. During the verificationprocess, we mentioned the need for this second security deposit for the reason stated above. I haveattached a copy of the lease for your review. Please note that item 4 starts on page 1 and ends onpage 2 and clearly states the expectations for the refund of the additional monetary request.A letter was also sent to the tenants on September 23, 2015 citing the same section of the lease statedour reason for not refunding the monies at this time. I have attached the letter, also, for your review.It is unfortunate the tenant feels we are being unprofessional, they were advised of the situation in atimely manner.If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.Sincerely,Betty T[redacted]MCM Property ManagementAttachments -

Consumer

Response:

We have reviewed the response made by the business (MCM Property Management Group) in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and while we do not think it resolves our issue, we are accepting this response as we prefer to avoid further interaction with MCM regarding this issue. However, so there is full record of MCM's poor business practices on file with Revdex.com & in order to protect future tenants, here is a full list of details surrounding this complaint: Rent Rate "Bait-and-Switch": The posted rent was $1395. After our apartment viewing, we negotiated with the MCM representative for a reduced rate of $1295 per month plus the final month of year one rent free. When we went to pay the security deposit & first month's rent, we were suddenly informed that the rate for the apartment would remain at $1395 per month AND we would be required to pay an additional security deposit. Though this raised a serious red flag for us regarding the company's professionalism, we negotiated a "compromised" rate of $1395 per month with final month of first year free, plus MCM would pay 50% of utilities, and verbally agreed to an additional security deposit that would be immediately repaid when we could provide proof of employment (no requirement of permanency was stated at this point).Missing Lease AND Unit Keys on Move-in Date: We were told by Betty we could sign a lease & move in ONE WEEK BEFORE our official start date. However, we received keys to the unit just TWO DAYS before our lease start. Our "pressure" - as Betty stated in her response - came after we had not heard from them in 48+ hours and

were quickly running out of time in which to move from a town ~2 hrs

away. At the key exchange, she stated our lease was not prepared yet and would be sent to us the next day. The lease did not arrive until about a week AFTER our official lease start date. This draft did not reflect any of the "compromised" rates, nor MCM's "extra security deposit" (the deposit that is the focus of this Revdex.com complaint).Additional 'Good Faith' Security Deposit: As stated, the initial lease did not include a clause about the return of the

extra security deposit. We were verbally told the additional deposit would be repaid after permanent employment was

gained; however, we were adamant that the lease be changed to reflect this clause. In the 'Good Faith' clause, no minimum time frame was required in which the permanent

employment had to be continued before repayment of this deposit; the stated requirement is "proof of employment verification at or above a monthly income of 250% of the monthly rate..." Proof of Employment: After providing proof of employment for both tenants, we had no response from MCM for over a month. After following up for a response (ie: 30+ days had elapsed since permanent employment - and proof of such employment - was submitted), they sent a letter outlining the new rules in which we would receive the extra security deposit (the attachment provided by Betty in this Complaint).At this point, February 2016 marks the end of the 6 month employment "longevity" waiting period, and we look forward to receiving our money in a very timely manner so this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.