Money for You

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [The business’ use of well-documented dates seems cogent, but lacks rhetorical force in the absence of external correspondences Its account fails to mention the times I was shown an apartment which failed to fit the pre-specified criteria (size, location, amenities, etc.) When evaluated in light of scheduling and time constraints, no amount of documentation can obviate a good faith effortUnfortunately, this business is committed to treating a sequence of short-term (collegiate) renters as a source of infinite goodwillI would urge against itTwo-valued legalistic logics are, at best, parasitic on multidimensional human societal endsAt worst, it’s bad business Regards, [redacted]

RE: Case ID 1***, *** ***, Complainant DATE 12/28/2017Complaint was offered a renewal an 01/07/2015, and was sent several follow up correspondences: none were acknowledgedEach correspondence emphasized that we would be actively marketing the apartment.On 07/01/the apartment was
rerented to a new customer.On 07/09/complainant inquired about an apartment in the Wendover and we urged him to view the apartment he was interested in sooner rather than later.On 07/20/complainant advised he was ready to move forward with the Wendover apartment, but we advised it was now rented to another customer, but there were several apartments available in the MorrowfieldHe said he might be interested in one of the Morrow field unitsAgain we advised timeliness.On 07/21/the apartment he was interested in was now rented to another..On 07/26/complainant viewed an apartment in the Morrowfield and came to the office and made application for it.During the application process, the complainant repeatedly used rude, foul, abusive, and profane language directed at the application taker as well as other Mozart Management's associates in general..On 07/27/complainant was advised that company policy prohibits rentals to persons using this kind of language directed at its associates, thus his application was not approved..Mozart does not require nor accept security deposits and has not done so for more than yearsComplainant was not an exception, and accordingly he had never paid Mozart a security deposit, so none was returned

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[The business’ use of well-documented dates seems cogent, but lacks rhetorical force in the absence of external correspondences Its account fails to mention the times I was shown an apartment which failed to fit the pre-specified criteria (size, location, amenities, etc.) When evaluated in light of scheduling and time constraints, no amount of documentation can obviate a good faith effortUnfortunately, this business is committed to treating a sequence of short-term (collegiate) renters as a source of infinite goodwillI would urge against itTwo-valued legalistic logics are, at best, parasitic on multidimensional human societal endsAt worst, it’s bad business
Regards,
*** ***