September 6, 2017 Re: Complaint ID # [redacted] To Whom It May Concern: We have received the rebuttal for complaint ID # [redacted]. We understand that Mr. [redacted] does not want to pay the costs associated with returning his unit into the condition in which he received it, however, as previously stated in our letter dated 8/28/17, we have found Mr. [redacted]'s itemized list to be accurate. Yes, Mr. [redacted] paid the cost for a professional cleaning coal any to clean and shampoo his unit. However, after not one, but three shampoos, the sticky tape residue was not removable and carpet replacement was required. Per NM State law, Mr. [redacted] is responsible for this cost. We have documentation of the condition of his carpet prior to his Tenancy as well as before and after each shampoo performed in attempt to remove the sticky residue. Mr. [redacted], may request the Leasing office directly for copies of these photos. Two of the drip pans are special order. GE drip pans that cannot be bought at Walmart, etc. The drip pans bought locally do not allow the burner to sit flush/flat such that a pot of water would not be stable, and therefore require replacement. On occasion Residents do damage. We want Mr. [redacted] to understand that his Itemized List of Deductions was not a personal attack against him. Sometimes, this damage is done intentionally and sometimes it just happens. In no way do we believe Mr. [redacted] did any damage intentionally. We understand that he may not recall or even realize that tiles were cracked/chipped from impact during his Tenancy. The fact remains that the (1) cracked tile the at the entry and the (1) chipped tile in the bathroom, we not present prior to his Tenancy nor were they notated on his move in checklist. Mr. [redacted] was only billed for any new damaged tiles that were not present prior to his move in. Additionally, a. great deal of time was spent on Mr. [redacted]'s iiemized. list of deductions and the length of his Tenancy was taken into consideration and the sole reason that an additional $302.54 was waived on his behalf, as indicated. on his Itemized list. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this Matter. Sincerely, Pavilions at South Fork
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The business management failed to explain why I should be responsible for the replacement of the whole apartment, although the tape issue was only in the living and dining areas. They should have sent me the photos AFTER the professional cleaning at the very beginning. At this moment I request that they send me the photos of everything after the professional cleaning. About the drip pans, they failed to explain why they need to replace all FOUR of them. As I mentioned earlier, I replaced two of them by GE drip pans, not by some generic drip pans from Walmart. As for the tiles, again I would say that the cracks were normal wear and tear.
Regards,
[redacted][To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]
Re: Complaint ID # [redacted] To Whom It May Concern: We have received complaint ID # [redacted] Inc have researched Mr. [redacted]'s resident file, our apartment condition records and have found his itemized list to be accurate. Per NMSA# 47-8-22 and Lease Agreement term #9a and #9b, Mr. [redacted] is...
responsible to return the apartment to the condition in which he received it, with the exception of ordinary wear. The condition of Mr. [redacted]"s apartment at the time he moved out was significantly different from the condition when he moved in. The move-in inspection that Mr, [redacted] submitted had no notation of carpet damage, cracked and chipped tiles, burned and stained drip pans, or burns on TWO separate counter tops, nor do our detailed records indicate these damages prior to his occupancy of the unit. However, upon move-out these damages were present, as indicated on the Itemized list of deductions. Mr. [redacted] was charged for only those costs required to return the unit to the condition in which he received it, with the exception of ordinary wear. This is standard procedure in the property management industry. Upon review, it is evident that the great majority of charges are a direct result of damage from numerous large areas with glue adhesive stuck onto the carpet. This damage was not present when Mr. [redacted] took possession of the apartment, nor was it notated on the move in checklist he submitted. The Rules and Policies term #4 clearly states "DO NOT place duct tape nor any other tape or sticky residue substance etc., on your carpet". While this is unfortunate, these are damages as a result of Mr. [redacted]'s own decisions of which this company can not bear on his behalf. Mr. [redacted] and his family were wonderful Residents and in an effort to show our appreciation, we only billed Mr. [redacted] $1,524.60 of the total $2,178.00 it cost our company to replace his carpet. Mr. [redacted] has apparently misinterpreted his Itemized List of Deductions. His complaint states that he was charged for "sun damage to the mini blinds in the kitchen", which upon review of his Itemized List are shown as "No Charge," which indicates no charge.Additionally, Mr. [redacted] was only charged for (1) cracked tile at the entry and (1) chipped tile in the bathroom. Upon review of his itemized List, it clearly says "prior tiles N/C" which indicates prior tiles no charge. Mr. [redacted] was only billed for any new tiles that were not present prior to his move in. We do apologize for any confusion this has caused. Waived items appear for our detailed record keeping purposes only. TWO large burn rings on the two separate counter tops are NOT considered ordinary wear. Per Lease Agreement Rule and Policy term#18 "cutting boards and heat protectors must be used on counter tops at all times". Mr [redacted] was NOT charged the full cost of replacement of the burned counter-tops, as appropriate per the Lease and NM state law. Instead he was only billed $91.04 of the $273.18 cost of the first counter top and $96.71 of $580.28 cost for the second, sink side counter top. Again, Mr. [redacted] and his family were wonderful residents and we loved having them here at our community for four years. In an additional effort to show our appreciation, we waived an additional $302.54, as indicted on their Itemized List. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matter. Sincerely, Pavilions at South Fork
September 6, 2017 Re: Complaint ID # [redacted] To Whom It May Concern: We have received the rebuttal for complaint ID # [redacted]. We understand that Mr. [redacted] does not want to pay the costs associated with returning his unit into the condition in which he received it, however, as previously stated in our letter dated 8/28/17, we have found Mr. [redacted]'s itemized list to be accurate. Yes, Mr. [redacted] paid the cost for a professional cleaning coal any to clean and shampoo his unit. However, after not one, but three shampoos, the sticky tape residue was not removable and carpet replacement was required. Per NM State law, Mr. [redacted] is responsible for this cost. We have documentation of the condition of his carpet prior to his Tenancy as well as before and after each shampoo performed in attempt to remove the sticky residue. Mr. [redacted], may request the Leasing office directly for copies of these photos. Two of the drip pans are special order. GE drip pans that cannot be bought at Walmart, etc. The drip pans bought locally do not allow the burner to sit flush/flat such that a pot of water would not be stable, and therefore require replacement. On occasion Residents do damage. We want Mr. [redacted] to understand that his Itemized List of Deductions was not a personal attack against him. Sometimes, this damage is done intentionally and sometimes it just happens. In no way do we believe Mr. [redacted] did any damage intentionally. We understand that he may not recall or even realize that tiles were cracked/chipped from impact during his Tenancy. The fact remains that the (1) cracked tile the at the entry and the (1) chipped tile in the bathroom, we not present prior to his Tenancy nor were they notated on his move in checklist. Mr. [redacted] was only billed for any new damaged tiles that were not present prior to his move in. Additionally, a. great deal of time was spent on Mr. [redacted]'s iiemized. list of deductions and the length of his Tenancy was taken into consideration and the sole reason that an additional $302.54 was waived on his behalf, as indicated. on his Itemized list. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this Matter. Sincerely, Pavilions at South Fork
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The business management failed to explain why I should be responsible for the replacement of the whole apartment, although the tape issue was only in the living and dining areas. They should have sent me the photos AFTER the professional cleaning at the very beginning. At this moment I request that they send me the photos of everything after the professional cleaning. About the drip pans, they failed to explain why they need to replace all FOUR of them. As I mentioned earlier, I replaced two of them by GE drip pans, not by some generic drip pans from Walmart. As for the tiles, again I would say that the cracks were normal wear and tear.
Regards,
[redacted][To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]
Re: Complaint ID # [redacted] To Whom It May Concern: We have received complaint ID # [redacted] Inc have researched Mr. [redacted]'s resident file, our apartment condition records and have found his itemized list to be accurate. Per NMSA# 47-8-22 and Lease Agreement term #9a and #9b, Mr. [redacted] is...
responsible to return the apartment to the condition in which he received it, with the exception of ordinary wear. The condition of Mr. [redacted]"s apartment at the time he moved out was significantly different from the condition when he moved in. The move-in inspection that Mr, [redacted] submitted had no notation of carpet damage, cracked and chipped tiles, burned and stained drip pans, or burns on TWO separate counter tops, nor do our detailed records indicate these damages prior to his occupancy of the unit. However, upon move-out these damages were present, as indicated on the Itemized list of deductions. Mr. [redacted] was charged for only those costs required to return the unit to the condition in which he received it, with the exception of ordinary wear. This is standard procedure in the property management industry. Upon review, it is evident that the great majority of charges are a direct result of damage from numerous large areas with glue adhesive stuck onto the carpet. This damage was not present when Mr. [redacted] took possession of the apartment, nor was it notated on the move in checklist he submitted. The Rules and Policies term #4 clearly states "DO NOT place duct tape nor any other tape or sticky residue substance etc., on your carpet". While this is unfortunate, these are damages as a result of Mr. [redacted]'s own decisions of which this company can not bear on his behalf. Mr. [redacted] and his family were wonderful Residents and in an effort to show our appreciation, we only billed Mr. [redacted] $1,524.60 of the total $2,178.00 it cost our company to replace his carpet. Mr. [redacted] has apparently misinterpreted his Itemized List of Deductions. His complaint states that he was charged for "sun damage to the mini blinds in the kitchen", which upon review of his Itemized List are shown as "No Charge," which indicates no charge.Additionally, Mr. [redacted] was only charged for (1) cracked tile at the entry and (1) chipped tile in the bathroom. Upon review of his itemized List, it clearly says "prior tiles N/C" which indicates prior tiles no charge. Mr. [redacted] was only billed for any new tiles that were not present prior to his move in. We do apologize for any confusion this has caused. Waived items appear for our detailed record keeping purposes only. TWO large burn rings on the two separate counter tops are NOT considered ordinary wear. Per Lease Agreement Rule and Policy term#18 "cutting boards and heat protectors must be used on counter tops at all times". Mr [redacted] was NOT charged the full cost of replacement of the burned counter-tops, as appropriate per the Lease and NM state law. Instead he was only billed $91.04 of the $273.18 cost of the first counter top and $96.71 of $580.28 cost for the second, sink side counter top. Again, Mr. [redacted] and his family were wonderful residents and we loved having them here at our community for four years. In an additional effort to show our appreciation, we waived an additional $302.54, as indicted on their Itemized List. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matter. Sincerely, Pavilions at South Fork