Real-Time Leasing, LLC

I am rejecting this response because:(1) RTL never presented an official receipt of cleaning service from a "cleaning company." What was sent to me was a billing statement from the RTL's Billing Office.(2) The fact that the RTL refuses to present the before and after receipts demonstrated its all along intent to deliberately and intentionally to gouge security deposits through the shell company it refers "professional cleaner."(3) On previous communication, RTL admitted that it in fact collected double rent and offered to reimburse me a day of rentYet, in its latest response on this platform, RTL claims it does not charge double rent.In the final analysis, since RTL is not sas a customer friendly, ethically sound reputable company to voluntarily correct its business indiscretions, I found it discouraging to pursue this mediation further Consequently, since the legal owners and the primary beneficiaries of the rental property are the named landlords; shortly, a law suite will be filed against the named land lords at the United States District Court, Northern District of California.Thank you! [redacted] M [redacted] , M.D., MPH

I ill make my response simple and to to the point, however if we are continually going to be accessed of "fraud" with no evidence to back it up we will discontinue to mediate the situation in a professional manner and forward to our attorney for a claim of slander against the firm by the past tenantOur security deposit = month's rent or sometimes a double deposit. This is standard operating procedure for ALL of our units under management and in the Twin Cities and is not against any law. If the tenant thought it was too high upon move in, he was under no obligation to rent the unit in the first placeOur tenant portal is a form of email communication that works internally with our office and also saves all correspondence to avoid any 'he said/she said' concerns. This was explained in the beginning of tenancy, again he was under no obligation to rent if the 'terms' were not to his liking.3. We did NOT deny month-to-month conversation. We do not OWN the unit, this is entirely up to the owner. The lease is written between the tenant and owner, we are acting as the owners agent. The owner declined extensionOur policy is that we do not perform move out walk through's at the end of the month. With over 10+ turnovers each month it is physically impossible for us to meet the needs and schedule of every tenant. This is explained in the lease and in person upon move in. This only seemed an issue...now. He never requested a move out walk throughAgain - we DO hire a third party cleaning company through Real-Time Property Services (License #BC ***). They are not a co-conspirator and I will discontinue defense of our vendors and policies at this point.Refund request:We offered $- this stands, we will not be refunding the cost of any additional cleaning that WAS performedWe will NOT be reimbursing any additional prorated rent. You are responsible for the lease as signed until the lease expires or a new tenant takes possessionWe are NOT double dipping. The tenant moved in and you were charged up until that date. We are very aware this is not a legal practiceNamed above w/license infoReceipts were provided in the move out packet sent to the tenant. Any outside vendor is hired by RTL - NOT the tenant and we are under no obligation to share receipts. As stated however, this was all provided to the tenant upon move out with Real-Time Property Services name on the invoice sent to the tenantThis is not something we will be handing over and makes no sense too. Cost of cleaning is purely subjective and dependent on the "condition" of the unit at time of cleaning. All communication can be made available for court if neededRTL has been in constant contact with the owners of the unit and they are fully aware of the issue at hand. The tenant need not worry how to tell us to run our business

We have already spoke to the tenant on the phone this afternoon AND posted to her portal the following explanation as to the charges. Also to be clear - we NEVER stated we would EVER 'evict' her. All charges stand as we do have sufficient evidence upholding our claims and charges.
A courtesy reminder was sent on November 14th by our General Manager, Janelle *** to ensure she had been properly up-keeping the items listedYou are not being charged for physical plumbing, only general maintenance on the disposal, which had several cups of noodles and a Cub Foods plastic bag, which was wrapped around the blades of the disposal. She only complained about the garbage disposal approximately months after move in and cancelled any work orders requested as she addressed the problems on her own (which she admitted on the phone to Janelle)Due to the negligence in the upkeep of the disposal this charge is her responsibilityShe was also given a document upon move in (also posted to her portal) on how to properly care for her home (written by the owners)This document states how to maintain the water softener (salt), air exchanger, wood blinds, central vacuum system, etcNeither the water softener nor the air exchanger were being properly kept up as outlined for herHer lease also states specifically, "Tenant will maintain all appliances, equipment, facilities and systems in or on the Property in a good state of repair"Also, on page Sec 11C VI states, "Change furnace filter no less than every three months." Our walk through should a different outcome thus requiring the charges to be placed.The $she is requesting is the charge for the repair to the disposal, which stands and will stay on her ledger until paid or moved to collections if not received with her December rent. Photos attached are of the garbage disposal with bag wrapped around and also filter not cleaned

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/10) */
*** See attached ***
IN RESPONSE TO Revdex.com Complaint Case# *** (Ref#19-***-***-4-302)
We have received several complaints today from *** and responded to her a few times via email with the following:
"There was more
than just a few spots of dirtThis was a new turnover when you moved in - we have NO documentation from you in writing (aside from the blank move in report which you mentioned nothing regarding cleaning) that the place was disgustingDo you have something? If so we will be please share and we would be HAPPY to reevaluate our report
Here is a brief list of what was cleaned:
Baseboards,
In/out appliances
Dryer vents
Cupboards
Counters
There was also a missing light bulb; the screens were fact from your unitDo you have proof to show otherwise? If so - please submit
In regards to other charges/complaints: Bringing up changes made is irrelevant to the issue at hand(i.ekitchen knobs and common area); you were not charged for anything like this on your move out and has no merit now with regards to the deposit disputeWe will respond and state that yes, while you lived there towards the end and we tried to conduct showings, you were charged for having dirty underwear and other items out during a showing - that was disgusting, not the property conditionWe are not ashamed of the unit, only of the condition it was left inAGAIN, If you would like us to re-evaluate based on EVIDENCE you have for us to counter ours, we will be happy to re-evaluate the deposit refund/report
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/06/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

I am rejecting this response because:(1) RTL never presented an official receipt of cleaning service from a "cleaning company." What was sent to me was a billing statement from the RTL's Billing Office.(2) The fact that the RTL refuses to present the before and after receipts demonstrated its all along intent to deliberately and intentionally to gouge security deposits through the shell company it refers "professional cleaner."(3) On previous communication, RTL admitted that it in fact collected double rent and offered to reimburse me a day of rent. Yet, in its latest response on this platform, RTL claims it does not charge double rent.In the final analysis, since RTL is not set-up as a customer friendly, ethically sound reputable company to voluntarily correct its business indiscretions, I found it discouraging to pursue this mediation further.  Consequently, since the legal owners and the primary beneficiaries of the rental property are the named landlords; shortly, a law suite will be filed against the named land lords at the United States District Court, Northern District of California.Thank you![redacted] M. [redacted], M.D., MPH