Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
We have received the complaint -- in reference to case # [redacted]—in which tenants have filed a dispute with the Rental Lease Agreement for the property at [redacted] Holt, Michigan. We understand...
that the tenants are upset with the situation as it stands, and have attempted numerous times, via varying mediums to rectify and correct any complaints they have given. The reason the tenants are receiving a 30-Day Notice to Vacate the premises, are for reasons outside of the control of our management company. Delhi Township promulgated a city ordinance in which no more than two unrelated individuals may reside in the same rental property. Though we did sign the tenants into the property with the aforementioned ordinance unbeknownst to us and we have apologized to the tenants, with the option for them to be relieved from their lease upon finding new suitable living conditions. Furthermore, to facilitate this move, we have agreed to grant an extension to the tenants, so long as they submit an adequate request for extension. This has been explained to the tenants. The tenants are aware that each month the reserve the right to request an extension with us and the township until the end of their Rental Lease Agreement. We understand that the tenants are seeking a form of remuneration for leaving the property, whether that be in the form of a full release of their Security Deposit being held, or monetary relocation assistance. We are denying the latter. The former is not left up to us, as the tenant’s Security Deposit is protected under the Michigan Security Deposit Act (Ref. Act 348 of 1972). As we have explained to the tenants, the security deposit will be released to them at the end of their tenancy, less any damages made to the home that are beyond reasonable wear and tear. Therefore, a guarantee cannot be made. At NC Development Group Inc. we pride ourselves on the fair and equal treatment of all current, future, and prospective tenants that fill the nearly 700 units that we manage. We have tried to communicate with the tenant via phone, text, email, and even postal mail, to no avail. The tenant is correct that we were aware of the number of tenants signing to the lease, as well as their perfect payment record. We applaud the tenants for being such good tenants, and have tried our best to help bring a mutually beneficial solution to fruition. We have even offered to move the tenants to different property that is available that we manage, insofar it meets their living requirements; whether that be locally, or one in a different municipality. The tenants have repeatedly mentioned that this solution would work out to their benefit, as they are receiving promotions to work elsewhere in their profession. When the tenants at [redacted] Holt, Michigan moved into the property, they signed into a lease agreeing to take the property in as is condition. A Move-in checklist was filled out as a requirement, and mentions of repairs needed to the property were dutifully noted and the requested repairs were taken care of in a timely fashion. The tenants also mention that they presume a rental inspection was never done on the property. Though that is a fair assumption, all municipalities require rolling rental inspections on all registered rental properties within their boundaries. These inspections typically happen every one to two years. The scheduling of the most recent rental inspection, and the time the tenants moved in is simply coincidence. We cannot agree with these fomenting accusations against us and wish to solve any grievances the tenants may have.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
We have received the complaint -- in reference to case # [redacted]—in which tenants have filed a dispute with the Rental Lease Agreement for the property at [redacted] Holt, Michigan. We understand...
that the tenants are upset with the situation as it stands, and have attempted numerous times, via varying mediums to rectify and correct any complaints they have given. The reason the tenants are receiving a 30-Day Notice to Vacate the premises, are for reasons outside of the control of our management company. Delhi Township promulgated a city ordinance in which no more than two unrelated individuals may reside in the same rental property. Though we did sign the tenants into the property with the aforementioned ordinance unbeknownst to us and we have apologized to the tenants, with the option for them to be relieved from their lease upon finding new suitable living conditions. Furthermore, to facilitate this move, we have agreed to grant an extension to the tenants, so long as they submit an adequate request for extension. This has been explained to the tenants. The tenants are aware that each month the reserve the right to request an extension with us and the township until the end of their Rental Lease Agreement. We understand that the tenants are seeking a form of remuneration for leaving the property, whether that be in the form of a full release of their Security Deposit being held, or monetary relocation assistance. We are denying the latter. The former is not left up to us, as the tenant’s Security Deposit is protected under the Michigan Security Deposit Act (Ref. Act 348 of 1972). As we have explained to the tenants, the security deposit will be released to them at the end of their tenancy, less any damages made to the home that are beyond reasonable wear and tear. Therefore, a guarantee cannot be made. At NC Development Group Inc. we pride ourselves on the fair and equal treatment of all current, future, and prospective tenants that fill the nearly 700 units that we manage. We have tried to communicate with the tenant via phone, text, email, and even postal mail, to no avail. The tenant is correct that we were aware of the number of tenants signing to the lease, as well as their perfect payment record. We applaud the tenants for being such good tenants, and have tried our best to help bring a mutually beneficial solution to fruition. We have even offered to move the tenants to different property that is available that we manage, insofar it meets their living requirements; whether that be locally, or one in a different municipality. The tenants have repeatedly mentioned that this solution would work out to their benefit, as they are receiving promotions to work elsewhere in their profession. When the tenants at [redacted] Holt, Michigan moved into the property, they signed into a lease agreeing to take the property in as is condition. A Move-in checklist was filled out as a requirement, and mentions of repairs needed to the property were dutifully noted and the requested repairs were taken care of in a timely fashion. The tenants also mention that they presume a rental inspection was never done on the property. Though that is a fair assumption, all municipalities require rolling rental inspections on all registered rental properties within their boundaries. These inspections typically happen every one to two years. The scheduling of the most recent rental inspection, and the time the tenants moved in is simply coincidence. We cannot agree with these fomenting accusations against us and wish to solve any grievances the tenants may have.