This company practices deceit by omissionA renter came in months before their lease expired to let Stott know they would be moving at the end of their leaseThis renter physically came into the office to give this noticeThis renter asked if there was anything else they needed to do and was told NOStott representative then lied that the renter never came inWhen proof was presented that the renter had come in, Stott representative then changed their story and ADMITTED the renter had come inStott still charged this renter an additional month of rent for lack of adequate noticeThis renter was deployed and had no way of knowing there was anything else they needed to doDo not do business with any company that will deceive our military in this manner
Complaint: ***
I am
rejecting this response because:
It took them two months for this refund to take placeI sent the company several email with in the two months Yea they have refund the fee to me but two months later If I was late on my rent I would of gotten charge a fee for doing so They should of refunded either the whole about of the charge or refund more due to the time lapsed on waiting for the check They should have noticed the over charge but again I had to complain about the charge so they would of let the charge pass if I didn't bring it to their attention
Sincerely,
*** ***
The business ethics of this company don't exist Not really sure how they stay in business
Service calls for repairs go unanswered for several weeks as do calls for just about anything elsePhone calls and emails go unanswered, and no one ever seems to be available to take your call once you have signed the contractThe cleaning bill removed from your deposit will go far beyond cleaning and acceptable wear and tearDO NOT RENT FROM STOTTZERO CUSTOMER SERVICETHEY WILL TAKE YOUR DEPOSIT MONEY (regardless of what you do) AND NOT RESPOND TO EMAILS OR TAKE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN NEEDED
We sent an application in to rent a place that had been empty for months and the day after we sent in the application Stott Property Management reposted an ad for the place at a lower rent, but higher than what we had offered. A week later they called us in the morning to say the owner accepted our application, and we gave them our deposit two hours later. They still showed the place that day, and continued to accept applications. Five days after they told us we were accepted and had gave them our deposit they contact us to say the owner accepted someone else at a higher rent and they gave back our deposit. No apology, just rude, unprofessional behavior. For the owner of this property if you are reading this they haven't kept it up, with water damage, house number missing, chipped paint, dirty paving, and obvious insect infestation. Their reply to these concerns was "it's rented as-is"... Don't do business with Stott Property Management and support this kind of unethical, unprofessional behavior.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/02/25) */
Stott Property Management will pay for the flea and tick treatment if the customer mails a copy of the paid invoice to Stott Property Management. The tenant should have been charged for the pet treatment and the funds should have been...
withheld from the tenants' security deposit.
Contrary to the remainder of the complaint, there was no breach of contract as the customer alleges. The State of Hawaii Landlord Tenant Code states that the tenant is required to maintain the property in the same condition minus normal wear and tear. If the tenant fails to do so, then the landlord may withhold funds from the security deposit to pay for the damage.
The water damage by the master bathroom shower was documented in the Property, Inventory, and Condition Form during the tenant's March 2010 check-in. The damage was not tenant caused as the customer alleges.
The master bedroom door was a new door that the handyman initially installed upside down. The customer saw the handyman puttying the holes and assumed that the door was used instead of asking the handyman what he was doing. Stott Property Management does not guarantee the work of third party contractors and the issue should have been brought up with the handyman at that moment.
Stott Property Management repeatedly asked the customer for his remodeling plans so that money and time would not be wasted by ordering redundant work. The customer refused to provide that information and then cancelled the contract. There is no clause in the contract requiring Stott Property Management to coordinate work on a property that they no longer manage. Stott Property Management mailed the customer a check for $1,230.93 (funds withheld from the tenants' security deposit) in lieu of coordinating the repairs. The last month's fee was earned when the rent was collected per the contract.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/03/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept Stott Property Management's response for the following reasons:
(1) Stott did breach their contract with me, and they continue to claim that I was responsible to coordinate repairs with them. I challenge Stott to furnish any written agreement that required me to coordinate property renovations with them. They will not be able to furnish it because it does not exist. I also challenge Stott to provide any correpondence where I agreed to coordinate repairs with them. Quite the contrary, I repeatedly advised Stott that I wanted them to proceed with the tenant responsible required repairs to bring the property up to the condition listed in the inventory report soonest, and they continued to tell me that I needed to coordinate my repairs with them. Stott "invented" this weak excuse to cover for the fact that they were lacking in their response to provide timely repiars to the property. In point of fact, almost ONE MONTH after the tenant vacated the repairs were not completed, and they could have been completed by a competent handyman in 2-3 days maximum.
(2) If the diputed water damage in the master bedroom bathroom shower area was previously reported on the property condition report, why wasn't the damge repaired by Stott at tenant expense when the previous tenant prior to the last tenant vacated the property ? Another example of Stott Property Management negligence in managing the unit. I also find it odd that in multiple e-mails between [redacted] and myself, he never once mentioned that this damage was "inherited" by the last tenant. He not only never mentioned that as the cause, but instead repeatedly argued with me by saying that the damage was not caused by the puppy, but by water escaping from the shower. In point of fact, Stott's handyman (the same guy who allegedly installed a "new" door upside down and then supposedly reversed its installation which then gave it the distinct, albeit mistaken,appearance of a used door) told me point blank that in his opinion the damage near the master bedroom bathroom shower was NOT caused by water, but by the same dog that chewed the master bedroom closet and shelving, as well as chewed the bolt covers on the toilet, all of which were located within 3 feet of each other. I think its too late in the game for Stott to change their version of events. The shower wall damage in question was caused by the last tenant and it is Stott's responsibility to reimburse me for my expenses incurred to repair it. And if by some miracle it wasn;t casued by the tenant, Stott still owes me for failing to properly collect the funds from whatever tenant Stott feels actually did the damage. Either way I expect payment from Stott for their negligence.
(3) Stott completely ignored my claim that the tenant was required to have the back lanai cleaned, when in point of fact they even sent a seperate letter to the tenant several weeks before vacating advising her that it was her responsibility to clean the back lanai, and it was not done.
(4) The supposedly new bedroom door installed upside down with patched door hinges (Refer to #2 above)is just not credible. That door was clearly used previously, and was of no use to me as an entirely new door had to be purchased and installed AT MY EXPENSE, which I expect to be reimbursed for.
(5) Despite their claim to the contrary, Stott did breach their contract with me. Their contract stated they were responsible for ensuring the unit was returned to me in the condition it was rented, less normal wear and tear, or to collect the required funds from the tenant. They failed to do that, leaving me holding the bag for many of the expenses, as well as for the responsibility to take time from my own job to find people to do the work as well as to coordinate the repairs. What was I paying them 10% of the rent every month for?
Final Business Response /* (4000, 20, 2014/03/28) */
In regards to the owner's response:
The owner had let us know that they were going to be remodeling the unit. We tried to work with them in regards to the repairs that were needed and what they anticipated doing to prevent any unnecessary rework. Unfortunately the owner was not cooperative. We suggested providing the funds collected from the security deposit directly to the owner so they could address the issues as part of the remodel and the owner asked us to repair the unit as if it was not going to be remodeled. The tenant's security deposit letter was mailed on 9/11/13 with the proper estimates for tenant caused damage. The work orders for the work were given to the vendors and one of the vendors was unable to immediately start work because he had prior commitments. During this time, Stott Property Management also had to coordinate with the Honolulu Police Department to remove a firearm left by the tenant before work could commence. We will concede that the repairs took longer than anticipated. The owner cancelled our services on 9/24/13.
The water damage, in our opinion is normal wear and tear. The vendor has provided a letter stating that he never made comments regarding the dog causing the damage.
The vendor has provided a receipt for the door ($28.08) and a written statement that he bought a new door, hung the door incorrectly at first, and then fixed the issue.
Stott Property Management followed proper protocol in checking out the tenant. The tenant's full security deposit was not returned. They were charged for repairs backed by estimates that needed to be completed. The owner cancelled our services during the repair process. We stopped all vendors in process work upon receiving the cancellation notice. The vendors needed to be paid for the work that they had completed prior to releasing the funds to the owner. The owner received the remaining funds after the bills had been paid.
It is unfortunate to be in this position with one of our past clients. As stated previously, Stott Property Management will reimburse the owner for the Flea and Tick Treatment when a copy of the paid invoice is provided. We have not yet received an invoice. As stated before, Stott Property Management does not consider the issues in the master bathroom to be tenant caused damage. We will not reimburse any money for a new door since we have provided documentation that a new door was installed. Stott Property Management will not provide a reimbursement of the management fees for the last month the tenant was in the unit.
This company practices deceit by omissionA renter came in months before their lease expired to let Stott know they would be moving at the end of their leaseThis renter physically came into the office to give this noticeThis renter asked if there was anything else they needed to do and was told NOStott representative then lied that the renter never came inWhen proof was presented that the renter had come in, Stott representative then changed their story and ADMITTED the renter had come inStott still charged this renter an additional month of rent for lack of adequate noticeThis renter was deployed and had no way of knowing there was anything else they needed to doDo not do business with any company that will deceive our military in this manner
Complaint: ***
I am
rejecting this response because:
It took them two months for this refund to take placeI sent the company several email with in the two months Yea they have refund the fee to me but two months later If I was late on my rent I would of gotten charge a fee for doing so They should of refunded either the whole about of the charge or refund more due to the time lapsed on waiting for the check They should have noticed the over charge but again I had to complain about the charge so they would of let the charge pass if I didn't bring it to their attention
Sincerely,
*** ***
The business ethics of this company don't exist Not really sure how they stay in business
Service calls for repairs go unanswered for several weeks as do calls for just about anything elsePhone calls and emails go unanswered, and no one ever seems to be available to take your call once you have signed the contractThe cleaning bill removed from your deposit will go far beyond cleaning and acceptable wear and tearDO NOT RENT FROM STOTTZERO CUSTOMER SERVICETHEY WILL TAKE YOUR DEPOSIT MONEY (regardless of what you do) AND NOT RESPOND TO EMAILS OR TAKE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN NEEDED
We sent an application in to rent a place that had been empty for months and the day after we sent in the application Stott Property Management reposted an ad for the place at a lower rent, but higher than what we had offered. A week later they called us in the morning to say the owner accepted our application, and we gave them our deposit two hours later. They still showed the place that day, and continued to accept applications. Five days after they told us we were accepted and had gave them our deposit they contact us to say the owner accepted someone else at a higher rent and they gave back our deposit. No apology, just rude, unprofessional behavior. For the owner of this property if you are reading this they haven't kept it up, with water damage, house number missing, chipped paint, dirty paving, and obvious insect infestation. Their reply to these concerns was "it's rented as-is"... Don't do business with Stott Property Management and support this kind of unethical, unprofessional behavior.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/02/25) */
Stott Property Management will pay for the flea and tick treatment if the customer mails a copy of the paid invoice to Stott Property Management. The tenant should have been charged for the pet treatment and the funds should have been...
withheld from the tenants' security deposit.
Contrary to the remainder of the complaint, there was no breach of contract as the customer alleges. The State of Hawaii Landlord Tenant Code states that the tenant is required to maintain the property in the same condition minus normal wear and tear. If the tenant fails to do so, then the landlord may withhold funds from the security deposit to pay for the damage.
The water damage by the master bathroom shower was documented in the Property, Inventory, and Condition Form during the tenant's March 2010 check-in. The damage was not tenant caused as the customer alleges.
The master bedroom door was a new door that the handyman initially installed upside down. The customer saw the handyman puttying the holes and assumed that the door was used instead of asking the handyman what he was doing. Stott Property Management does not guarantee the work of third party contractors and the issue should have been brought up with the handyman at that moment.
Stott Property Management repeatedly asked the customer for his remodeling plans so that money and time would not be wasted by ordering redundant work. The customer refused to provide that information and then cancelled the contract. There is no clause in the contract requiring Stott Property Management to coordinate work on a property that they no longer manage. Stott Property Management mailed the customer a check for $1,230.93 (funds withheld from the tenants' security deposit) in lieu of coordinating the repairs. The last month's fee was earned when the rent was collected per the contract.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/03/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept Stott Property Management's response for the following reasons:
(1) Stott did breach their contract with me, and they continue to claim that I was responsible to coordinate repairs with them. I challenge Stott to furnish any written agreement that required me to coordinate property renovations with them. They will not be able to furnish it because it does not exist. I also challenge Stott to provide any correpondence where I agreed to coordinate repairs with them. Quite the contrary, I repeatedly advised Stott that I wanted them to proceed with the tenant responsible required repairs to bring the property up to the condition listed in the inventory report soonest, and they continued to tell me that I needed to coordinate my repairs with them. Stott "invented" this weak excuse to cover for the fact that they were lacking in their response to provide timely repiars to the property. In point of fact, almost ONE MONTH after the tenant vacated the repairs were not completed, and they could have been completed by a competent handyman in 2-3 days maximum.
(2) If the diputed water damage in the master bedroom bathroom shower area was previously reported on the property condition report, why wasn't the damge repaired by Stott at tenant expense when the previous tenant prior to the last tenant vacated the property ? Another example of Stott Property Management negligence in managing the unit. I also find it odd that in multiple e-mails between [redacted] and myself, he never once mentioned that this damage was "inherited" by the last tenant. He not only never mentioned that as the cause, but instead repeatedly argued with me by saying that the damage was not caused by the puppy, but by water escaping from the shower. In point of fact, Stott's handyman (the same guy who allegedly installed a "new" door upside down and then supposedly reversed its installation which then gave it the distinct, albeit mistaken,appearance of a used door) told me point blank that in his opinion the damage near the master bedroom bathroom shower was NOT caused by water, but by the same dog that chewed the master bedroom closet and shelving, as well as chewed the bolt covers on the toilet, all of which were located within 3 feet of each other. I think its too late in the game for Stott to change their version of events. The shower wall damage in question was caused by the last tenant and it is Stott's responsibility to reimburse me for my expenses incurred to repair it. And if by some miracle it wasn;t casued by the tenant, Stott still owes me for failing to properly collect the funds from whatever tenant Stott feels actually did the damage. Either way I expect payment from Stott for their negligence.
(3) Stott completely ignored my claim that the tenant was required to have the back lanai cleaned, when in point of fact they even sent a seperate letter to the tenant several weeks before vacating advising her that it was her responsibility to clean the back lanai, and it was not done.
(4) The supposedly new bedroom door installed upside down with patched door hinges (Refer to #2 above)is just not credible. That door was clearly used previously, and was of no use to me as an entirely new door had to be purchased and installed AT MY EXPENSE, which I expect to be reimbursed for.
(5) Despite their claim to the contrary, Stott did breach their contract with me. Their contract stated they were responsible for ensuring the unit was returned to me in the condition it was rented, less normal wear and tear, or to collect the required funds from the tenant. They failed to do that, leaving me holding the bag for many of the expenses, as well as for the responsibility to take time from my own job to find people to do the work as well as to coordinate the repairs. What was I paying them 10% of the rent every month for?
Final Business Response /* (4000, 20, 2014/03/28) */
In regards to the owner's response:
The owner had let us know that they were going to be remodeling the unit. We tried to work with them in regards to the repairs that were needed and what they anticipated doing to prevent any unnecessary rework. Unfortunately the owner was not cooperative. We suggested providing the funds collected from the security deposit directly to the owner so they could address the issues as part of the remodel and the owner asked us to repair the unit as if it was not going to be remodeled. The tenant's security deposit letter was mailed on 9/11/13 with the proper estimates for tenant caused damage. The work orders for the work were given to the vendors and one of the vendors was unable to immediately start work because he had prior commitments. During this time, Stott Property Management also had to coordinate with the Honolulu Police Department to remove a firearm left by the tenant before work could commence. We will concede that the repairs took longer than anticipated. The owner cancelled our services on 9/24/13.
The water damage, in our opinion is normal wear and tear. The vendor has provided a letter stating that he never made comments regarding the dog causing the damage.
The vendor has provided a receipt for the door ($28.08) and a written statement that he bought a new door, hung the door incorrectly at first, and then fixed the issue.
Stott Property Management followed proper protocol in checking out the tenant. The tenant's full security deposit was not returned. They were charged for repairs backed by estimates that needed to be completed. The owner cancelled our services during the repair process. We stopped all vendors in process work upon receiving the cancellation notice. The vendors needed to be paid for the work that they had completed prior to releasing the funds to the owner. The owner received the remaining funds after the bills had been paid.
It is unfortunate to be in this position with one of our past clients. As stated previously, Stott Property Management will reimburse the owner for the Flea and Tick Treatment when a copy of the paid invoice is provided. We have not yet received an invoice. As stated before, Stott Property Management does not consider the issues in the master bathroom to be tenant caused damage. We will not reimburse any money for a new door since we have provided documentation that a new door was installed. Stott Property Management will not provide a reimbursement of the management fees for the last month the tenant was in the unit.