Sacramento Delta Property Management, Inc.

Run, run, run as fast as you can from this unprofessional folks...We are currently renting one of their properties in the gated Morgan Creek Golf Community in Roseville. I'm 64 and this is by far the worse experience I've ever had renting a home. Our rent is $3500 and are creit reports are all close to 800.
We have lived here since January 1, 2019. The house was to have the fence replaced (rented to owners with dogs) we are a few days short of 9 months and they have done nothing on the fence, they were to replace all appliance still waiting for the range etc...6 windows on the first floor were lockable (illegal to rent) and it took until July 27th to complete...we are still waiting to get a drain cleared in our master suite, sprinklers don't work...all in all a nightmare and Sac Delta continues doing nothing but lip service...Recently we found out that the master suite upstairs has a "bedroom egress" issue. That means there is no exit door going outside or windows that open to exit in cause of a fire...We are in process to getting the County Code Enforcement to come over. This is a serious allegement. They didn't even clean the house when we moved in...The list is so long and the individual managing this, Diane thinks I work for her...I would run the other way before renting anything from this group and if anyone out there has had a similar experiences, please post. These guys need to go out of business...

Review: A realtor for Sac Delta said we would be first in line for a property if the original request fell through. It did, and he gave it to someone else.

I contacted Sac Delta on July 10 to pursue a rental my husband and I liked. I spoke with [redacted] and he said an application was already approved for the place. However, he emailed me saying if they decide not to rent the place, we would be first in line. [redacted] emailed me on July 15 at 10:00am saying the original applicants weren't sure if they wanted the property so it was still available. He asked if he could run my application (which we emailed on July 10) to approve us for the property. I called and emailed him on July 15 at 2:30pm letting him know how excited we were and to run our application. I also requested a time for a relative to come look at the property since we are not currently in the area. I called again on Tuesday and left him a message. [redacted] did not get back to me until Wednesday, July17 at 10:20am, letting me know that he couldn't make my requested time of Wednesday at 11:00am work to view the property. He made requests to view the property on Wednesday at 5:00pm and Thursday and Friday at 4:30pm. In his email he made no mention of processing my application or any other potential applicants. I received a call from the receptionist on July 17 to process my application. She said she would process it right away - again no mention of any other potential applicants. Then I received an email from [redacted] this morning saying "I have some bad news. Another application came in before yours and it was approved. They will be taking the property you wanted to rent." I of course was taken aback by this message. [redacted] told us we would be first in line for this property, so how could he give it to someone else? I decided to call [redacted] to find out what happened. He said the other application came in on Monday, July 15 and was approved before our application. However, we turned in our application on July 10! I also called and emailed him on July 15 asking for our application (which was already on file) to be run and he did not get back to me until Wednesday. So while I was patiently waiting for him to return my emails and phone messages to approve us for a property, he was working with someone else to get them approved for the same property. In addition, they actually ran my application yesterday (and charged me!) knowing that someone else was nearly approved for the rental. And when I confronted him, he said he was sorry and tried to interest me in some of his other properties. I couldn't believe it. My experience with this realtor was awful. I assumed that when he said we would be first in line for a property he actually meant it, but there was little integrity in his actions. As a result, I will certainly never try to rent a property through [redacted] and will caution others to do the same. Unfortunately, while the other people I spoke to with at Sac Delta seemed nice, [redacted] actions negatively reflect on the company he works for. I can only hope that the other realtors for Sac Delta are more professional and work with much more integrity when dealing with clients.Desired Settlement: I obviously wish things could be turned around and we could be given a chance to rent the property we originally wanted. If this can be done, I would appreciate it. However, [redacted] made it sound like the other renters had already signed contracts, etc so it was a done deal. With that said, I do want to make sure that we receive a refund for our application fee ($60) due to the unprofessional way things were handled during the renter approval process.

Business

Response:

Business' Initial Response

There was some office miscommunication in this situation and we certainly apologize to the applicant for our error--it was no fault on her part. The application refund was processed on 7/22.

Sincerely,

Sacramento Delta Property Management

Review: We were excellent renters at the property we rented from [redacted]. When we moved in, we took photos of all the holes in the walls (from pictures or wall hangings), as well as photos of the averagely clean carpet and floors. Out of our $1600 deposit, we only received $700 back. We attempted to talk to [redacted] about it and she would only discuss over email.

She responds to our emails about a week later each time, if she responds at all. We had the carpets professionally cleaned and provided her with the proof, yet she charged us for carpet cleaning. We took the smoke detectors down to replace batteries and didn't have time to put them back on the walls due to my labor beginning. She charged us to purchase all new smoke detectors, even though the smoke detectors were left in the house. She even sent us photos that the owner took of the house after we moved out, that show the smoke detectors in the house on the wall without the battery.

The move-out checklist stated that we should NOT fill hold in the walls, so we didn't. [redacted] took $180 from our deposit for filling holes & painting. She tried to charge us to repaint the entire house, but said she didn't have enough time. She also claimed that she was going to charge us to paint the exterior but she gave us a credit. I later found out she legally cannot charge us for the exterior, so I don't understand her "credit".

We called the company [redacted] used for paint and they stated they went out to the property for a quick touch up and to patch some holes. They said it was a small job. We asked [redacted] to provide us with an itemized invoice for the painting so we could understand the charges and she refuses to provide us with this. We also asked for an explanation of why we were charged for smoke detectors that were clearly there, and she refuses to acknowledge our question. We also asked why we were charged for painting holes when we were told not to fill them, and there were holes in the walls when we moved in. We are now being ignored.Desired Settlement: I would either like a detailed explanation of the following charges or I would like a refund for these charges.

1) Why were we charged to fill/paint over holes in the wall, when the move-out checklist says not to do so? Why were the holes from the previous tenant not patched before we moved in? We have photos, & we noted the holes in the wall in our move-in walkthrough.

2) Why were we charged to purchase new smoke detectors when photos from the owner show they were there after we moved out?

Business

Response:

Dear Mr. & Mrs. [redacted], Here are explanations for your questions in the e-mail dated 2/3/2016 as I understand them. 1. All of the (old) smoke detectors had been removed from the walls. Our contractor informs us that he cannot install or reinstall obsolete models of smoke detectors, but can only install currently approved models. Possibly you have been following the news about smoke detectors—lots of new laws and requirements. For a period of time, certain older models can be grandfathered in, but once they have been removed, we have to install what the current law requires. Had you replaced the batteries and left the smoke detectors on the walls, I suspect there would not have been an issue. 2. The carpet cleaning was found to be lacking. I am sorry about that. [redacted] did work to find the most reasonable charge to clean the carpet. It was new when you moved in and there were a number of stains that still had to be removed. I see in your notes that you were going to ask for a refund from your original carpet cleaner, so maybe this matter has been resolved. 3. You are correct. Our paperwork does ask that holes in the walls not be filled. Our experience is that many (most) residents are not knowledgeable about how to properly fill holes, and when they attempt to do so, leave filling putty or plaster that comes above the holes requiring far more time and expense to sand them down and retexture the walls. It’s less expense all around to have a professional take care of it in the first place. [redacted] did not add in any of the patches, etc. that were noted in your move-in documentation. She only included the patching or repairing of holes that she found to be above ordinary wear and tear, but nothing from before you moved in. 4. The paint bill is for the hole patching attributable to your occupancy and the touch up painting for those holes. The amount the owner paid is what was charged back to you. 5. The removal charge was for several things: the pool in the rafters that you mentioned, a rolled up carpet and some items in the back yard (I looked through the owner’s pictures and it appeared to me that the items were some tomato cages and miscellaneous tools. $50 was what the vendor charged the owner for the job (travel time and dump charges). [redacted] did pass on your points to the property owner and he believes the charges are reasonable. If there are any specific items that we have not addressed with the owner, please state them and we will relay them. I hope this letter better clarifies the process and reasoning behind the charges. Thank you for contacting me. I wish you the very best in 2016 with your new family member. [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:1) All of the old smoke detectors were not removed from the walls. Please refer to photo from the owner showing the smoke detector on the wall, but opened to change the battery. Why are we being charged for all new smoke detectors, when the owner's photo shows a smoke detector still on the wall? Please show us the document we signed that states we will be held responsible for smoke detectors being replaced if they are outda[redacted]. This seems like it would be the owner's responsibility to pay for upda[redacted] smoke detectors. Please also cite the new law that [redacted] is referring to regarding smoke detectors. If you do not have a signed document from us stating we will pay to ensure the smoke detectors are up to date, we should not be charged for new ones. 2) [redacted] did not answer my question in regards to the carpet. I want to know the date that [redacted] inspec[redacted] the carpet because I believe she looked at it before we had it cleaned. I would like to see the paperwork to prove what date she did her walk-through.3) [redacted] said we are correct that your paperwork states we should not patch homes. According to our lawyer, if your paperwork states not to patch holes, we should not be charged to patch holes, period. Your paperwork does not state that we may be charged for holes that we don't patch. We should not be charged for something you told us not to do. Please show me the document we signed that said we will pay to patch holes, despite the fact that you told us not to. If you cannot provide us with this, we should be refunded. If the owner refuses to refund us, why can't you, as the property management company refund us for something you charged us for, but told us not to do?

Business

Response:

When a resident causes damage above normal wear and tear and the owner has to fix it, s/he can charge the resident. It’s the lease agreement that spells all this out and it follows California law. This can be found in the California Department of [redacted] handbook:Common problems and how to avoid themThe most common disagreement between landlords and tenants is over the refund of the tenant's security deposit after the tenant has moved out of the rental unit. California law therefore specifies procedures that the landlord must follow for refunding, using, and accounting for tenants' security deposits.California law specifically allows the landlord to use a tenant's security deposit for four purposes:For unpaid rent;For cleaning the rental unit when the tenant moves out, but only to make the unit as clean as it was when the tenant first moved in;[redacted]For repair of damages, other than normal wear and tear, caused by the tenant or the tenant's guests; andIf the lease or rental agreement allows it, for the cost of restoring or replacing furniture, furnishings, or other items of personal property (including keys), other than because of normal wear and tear.215 [redacted]Or, this:4. Other damage to wallsGenerally, minor marks or nicks in walls are the landlord's responsibility as normal wear and tear (for example, worn paint caused by a sofa against the wall). Therefore, the tenant should not be charged for such marks or nicks. However, a large number of holes in the walls or ceiling that require filling with plaster, or that otherwise require patching and repainting, could justify withholding the cost of repainting from the tenant's security deposit. In this situation, deducting for painting would be more likely to be proper if the rental unit had been painted recently, and less likely to be proper if the rental unit needed repainting anyway. Generally, large marks or paint gouges are the tenant's responsibility.[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:Although I appreciate the citation of law, the response sent does not answer my questions. 1) We received pictures from the owner of the holes in the walls that we left and they are NO MORE DAMAGING THAN THE HOLES LEFT IN THE WALLS WHEN WE MOVED IN (as shown in the photos I provided in my last response). When we moved in, there were nail holes in the walls in the living room & bedrooms, and holes from screws in the bathrooms. So I still would like to know why we are being charged to patch and paint the holes that we left, when the holes left by the previous tenants were not patched and painted upon our moving in. It appears you pick and choose who you charge for patching and painting holes. And since you stated not to patch and paint the holes, I remain firm that we should not be charged for something you told us not to do. I am definitely feeling discriminated against. We were charged $180 for patching holes and painting.You responded (I'm addressing parts of this with [redacted]): Generally, minor marks or nicks in walls are the landlord's responsibility as normal wear and tear (for example, worn paint caused by a sofa against the wall). Therefore, the tenant should not be charged for such marks or nicks. However, a large number of holes in the walls or ceiling that require filling with plaster, or that otherwise require patching and repainting, could justify withholding the cost of repainting from the tenant's security deposit. [redacted]We did not leave a large number of holes in the walls that would require plaster. If the holes that we left in the walls required plaster, than why didn't the holes left in the walls by the tenant before us require plaster? The tenant before us left holes, even large holes from screws, and they were not patched prior to us moving in. This leads me to believe that they were not charged to fix the holes that they left, which in turn leads me to believe we are being targeted and discriminated against. I'm not sure if it's my race or if it's just taking advantage of a woman in labor with a baby.[redacted] In this situation, deducting for painting would be more likely to be proper if the rental unit had been painted recently, and less likely to be proper if the rental unit needed repainting anyway [redacted]This seems to be an improper case because clearly the home was not recently painted since there were a lot of nail and screw holes left by the previous tenant. We only left nail holes, not screw holes like the previous tenant. It seems we are being charged for the holes we left and the holes the previous tenant left. In this case, it appears the home "needed repainting anyway".[redacted] Generally, large marks or paint gouges are the tenant's responsibility. [redacted]We did not leave large marks or paint gouges.[redacted]2) We were charged $30 to "hang carbon monoxide detector" (seems expensive to hang something on a wall), and $28.50 each for 3 new smoke detectors (total of $85.50). I assume this is for the 3 smoke detectors that needed to be updated to current law (which I still do not believe we should be responsible for). We were living in a home that was out of compliance from current law from July 2015 to November 2015. I would assume maintaining current smoke detectors should be a priority for the owner since it's a safety issue. It sounds like we are the scapegoat for the owner to buy new smoke detectors to get in compliance. 3) The total for the charges that I'm disputing is $295.50. Although I appreciate the offer, I think we should be given more than $100. Is $100 the best that you can offer? I would like the full $295.50 because I truly do not feel we are being treated fairly or equally. I feel that we are being discriminated against and taken advantage of because I went into labor and was not able to complete a move-out walk-through with [redacted].