RPM Rushing Property Management

I am rejecting this response because: It is truly unfortunate that the defendants lie about nearly everything, and it encourages us only to move forward aggressively with every avenue at our disposal to cause them harm to their business reputation as well as cost them as much money as possible Sadly, this matter is over $300, the amount over the one month's rent, that we have been childishly bickering over for months As one can easily see from their responses, they clearly admit that only item in the home at the time was a single air mattress on the floor, which we actually moved so they could view the carpet under it during their walk through We went to great lengths to patch and paint all holes in the walls, even those from previous renters, and did an absolute thorough cleaning of the house The defendants case consists of routine cleaning that any landlord would do in between renters But their greed over $is clear, making excuses of landscape and routine cleaning.There is a year severe drought in California, and over half of the neighbors lawns and landscapes were in the exact same condition as ours The neighbor spent over $installing a large foot by foot drain in his front yard in between the water meter and the sidewalk due to the previous renter constantly flooding his yard due to the defective sprinkler system He pointed it out to us purposely so that we would get it fixed before using the sprinkler system, which I explained to Mr [redacted] via telephoneIn June of 2016, I submitted a page letter to the defendants itemizing over items that were extremely filthy or in need of repair Please see attached The defendants addressed none of these issues The home was so filthy, one of the items I cite in my letter to them includes "dirt inside the electrical outlets and light switches", if you can imagine thatAt any rate, we will have to agree to disagree, all over $that we are owed Should the defendants wish to resolve this amicably this matter can be put to rest If not however, we are proceeding with a Federal Law Suit against them in the amount of $90,which will be filed sometime in August At the very least, the defense of this suit will cost the defendants approximately $15,in attorney fees alone This suit will be filed regardless of the DFEA findings The DFEA was able to find no documentation whatsoever refuting our claims, only the defendants "verbal denials" of the offenses in questionAs far as we are concerned this closes the matter

Attached please find an e-mail from Mr*** at the DFEH in which he confirms that mediation was offered to Mr*** and he refused Additionally, I spoke with Mr*** this morning who confirms that although their investigation is complete the complaint is not officially closed He assured me that when the complaint was closed we will receive a letter advising their findingsHe anticipates we will receive that letter the first week of August and I will be happy to forward a copy of the final letter to you once it is received. While the tenant is correct that the deposit was higher than the rent (Rent was $1500/Deposit was $1800) the cost of cleaning, repairs and unpaid rent exceeded the amount of deposit we held in our trust account On January 5, we attempted to do a final walk through but some of the tenant's belongings were still in the homeIn the master bedroom a mattress was still on the floor plus miscellaneous items throughout the house such as lamps and small furnitureSince the tenant still had items in the home there was no way of completing the walk through The tenants advised that they were leaving for their new home out of state early the next morning, therefore, it would have been impossible for them to take care of the problems they left behindAfter the mattress in the master bedroom was removed we discovered pet stains on the floor The contract we utilize is created by the State of California and specifically states that the Security Deposit must not be used in lieu of payment of the last months rentTherefore, the tenant was in breach of contract and should have been charged late fees on the unpaid rent, however, it was decided to waive the late fees since the tenant's charges already were beyond the amount of money we were holding Regarding the landscaping, the property owner spoke with the neighbor that the tenant claims complained about the flooding, according to the information that was provided to me from the property owner, the neighbor said no such discussion took place. Attached you will also find my response to the tenant's complaints As you will see, some of the issues he claims were never reported, valid issues were repaired or corrected and others were issues of convenience and not a necessity, such as paper towel holders etc. Also attached you will find the final e-mail I received from the tenant in which he threatened to hire a demolition crew and to sue us just to cost us money All e-mails I am referencing are stored in my gmail account and can be forwarded directly to you from that account so that you may verify their validity If you require any further documentation I will be happy to forward it to you. Thank You,*** ***

This tenant has been offered arbitration through the office of Consumer Affairs and he has refused. We have provided all documents with backup showing that his complaints are false to the Consumer Affairs office. The tenant left without paying his final month of rent, installed a patio cover without...

permits or permission from the owner. Carpet cleaning due to pet stains resulted in an invoice of $400.00. The contract called for the tenant to maintain the landscaping, his failure to do so caused plants and the lawn to die. The property owners had to replant lawn and plants in order to ready the house to sell. The tenant currently owes $485.97 due to the damage/cleaning/unpaid rent.

I am rejecting this response because: It is truly unfortunate that the defendants lie about nearly everything, and it encourages us only to move forward aggressively with every avenue at our disposal to cause them harm to their business reputation as well as cost them as much money as possible.  Sadly, this matter is over $300, the amount over the one month's rent, that we have been childishly bickering over for 7 months.  As one can easily see from their responses, they clearly admit that only item in the home at the time was a single air mattress on the floor, which we actually moved so they could view the carpet under it during their walk through.  We went to great lengths to patch and paint all holes in the walls, even those from previous renters, and did an absolute thorough cleaning of the house.  The defendants case consists of routine cleaning that any landlord would do in between renters.  But their greed over $300 is clear, making excuses of landscape and routine cleaning.There is a 20 year severe drought in California, and over half of the neighbors lawns and landscapes were in the exact same condition as ours.  The neighbor spent over $1000 installing a large 2 foot by 2 foot drain in his front yard in between the water meter and the sidewalk due to the previous renter constantly flooding his yard due to the defective sprinkler system.  He pointed it out to us purposely so that we would get it fixed before using the sprinkler system, which I explained to Mr. [redacted] via telephone. In June of 2016, I submitted a 3 page letter to the defendants itemizing over 20 items that were extremely filthy or in need of repair.  Please see attached.  The defendants addressed none of these issues.  The home was so filthy, one of the items I cite in my letter to them includes "dirt inside the electrical outlets and light switches", if you can imagine that. At any rate, we will have to agree to disagree, all over $300 that we are owed.  Should the defendants wish to resolve this amicably this matter can be put to rest.  If not however, we are proceeding with a Federal Law Suit against them in the amount of $90,000 which will be filed sometime in August.  At the very least, the defense of this suit will cost the defendants approximately $15,000 in attorney fees alone.  This suit will be filed regardless of the DFEA findings.  The DFEA was able to find no documentation whatsoever refuting our claims, only the defendants "verbal denials" of the offenses in question. As far as we are concerned this closes the matter.

I am rejecting this response because:Their claims are false for several reasons. First, our deposit EXCEEDED one months deposit, and the defendants still refuse to return the excess amount.  Second, the defendants conducted a walk through of the property on January 5, 2017, 25 days prior to the end of the lease.  The house was completely vacant of all furniture and our items on that date. The entire purpose of requiring the defendants to conduct a walk through 25 days prior to the end of the lease, was SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of allowing us time to correct any deficiencies that were found.  A complete walk through was done by the owner Mr. [redacted] and Manager Ms. [redacted] on January 5, 2016, and NO issues were noted.  At no time did the defendants email us, send us a letter or contact us via telephone, stating there was ever any issues of cleaning or otherwise.  Only after months of us requesting the balance of our deposit to be returned, did the defendants create a false backdated letter claiming there were damages. Regarding the landscape.  This is another false claim by the defendants. I notified Mr. [redacted] in June 2016 that the sprinkler system had a serious issue, and the underground pipes were broken and resulted in severe ground flooding of the neighbors yard. Due to the broken sprinkler system that the defendants refused to repair, sadly the landscape became dehydrated and died.  The defendants could care less about the suffering landscape then, and its sad that they now claim to have any concern about it now. Feel free to contact the neighbor who installed an expensive yard drain due to the previous tenant constantly flooding his  patio and yard.Regarding my intent to mediate, this is also a false claim by the defendant. On May 17, 2017, I sent a written letter to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing of San Francisco, who was investigating our complaint against the defendants.  This letter states quote [redacted]   Staff Service Analyst   DFEH, [redacted]    [redacted]           RE:  DFEH Number [redacted]"Mr. [redacted]: ..................... However, should the defendants desire to resolve this matter amicably, we have asked our CPA and Financial Planner Mr. [redacted] MS, ALMI, AFCto act as an Intermediate.  The Defendants may submit any proposal for resolution in writing to:  [redacted]  " While we would have like to mediate an amicable settlement to this matter, unfortunately we never received any such offers from the defendants.  However, in the defendants defense, it may be possible that Mr. [redacted] never passed along this mediation request to the defendants. Should the defendants wish to mediate this matter, we remain open to that possibility.