San Diego Premier Property Management

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
My goal in contacting the Revdex.com was to seek a mutual resolution to some obvious shortcomings with the services provided by Mr*** and his company San Diego Premier Property Management (SDPPM) after all previous attempts with him failed. After several correspondences through this Revdex.com forum, I, unfortunately, am no closer to reaching a satisfactory agreement with Mr*** . In addition to completely ignoring my valid complaints, Mr*** has made statements such as "the property was returned in better condition then it was received years prior", that I "pursue an issue that was resolved well over months ago", or that I have an "agenda"These statements are untrue and insulting. Mr*** stated "The property was professionally cleaned by a third/party vendor on 4/10/14"The last tenant moved out in late May of 2015. (???)Mr *** also stated the condo unit had "only days of total vacancy throughout the entire year relationship"This is not a true statementThe condo unit was vacant from at least January 11, to February 20, alone (days)And vacant again from April 1, to May 1, (more days)(I have the e-mails from the SDPPM office manager to verify these dates.) This is more than double Mr*** claims just for these two instances alone. I mention these things because they demonstrate how this straightforward claim to the Revdex.com has been muddied by Mr*** attempts to marginalize my claims while at the same time applaud his company's own expertiseUnfortunately, his claims are completely inaccurate and/or untrue.To summarize, I have placed complaints to SDPPM through this Revdex.com forum to remedy several items in the condo unitThese items have not been damaged by wear and tearNote: Not finding damages on a move out inspection does not excuse SDPPM from responsibilityAnd not agreeing with how something (medicine cabinet) was damaged also does not excuse SDPPM from responsibility. (Mr*** took issue with the way I described the medicine cabinet damage.) Regardless of how I described it, or how it was damaged, it is damaged, and is the responsibility of SDPPM to repair or replace.(I have photographic images and email correspondence to verify everything I have claimed in this Revdex.com complaint.)Some reasonable, competent businesses would look into these complaints and seek mutual solutions, other businesses, however, make excuses, claims, and only seek to protect their own interestsAfter trying repeatedly to resolve these issues, it is clear that Mr***, and his company San Diego Premier Property Management, have chosen to take the latter approachI have not given up thoughI feel Mr*** knows what is right and will seek a satisfactory solution.I do not accept Mr***, of San Diego Premier Property Management, responseThis complaint has not been resolved.
Regards,
*** ***

Mr ***, rgb(34, 34, 34)">The accusations regarding the cleanliness of the property are unfounded. Theproperty was professionally cleaned by a third/party vendor on 4/10/(Receipton file) and very well maintained by the tenant with the exception of a fewisolated areas. The move out pictures taken on 6/1/show the property to bein excellent and clean condition. As mentioned previously the inside (innerworkings) of the washer/dryer are beyond the scope of cleaning for the tenantand the third party cleaning service. Out of courtesy, San Diego PremierProperty Management will take the following measures per your request to resolvethis matter.Our office has scheduled for Thursday June 18th a SECOND professional thirdparty cleaning service to re-clean the requested items (window sills, blinds,baseboards, shower doors, kitchen floor, wall light switches, refrigerator vent,balcony floorboards) for your unit.Our office will debit the tenant for the HVAC air filter and credit you back the$which will be reflected on your final statement.Our office will debit the tenant for the bathroom face plate and credit you back$which will be reflected on your final statement.Our office will not pay for the repair or replacement of the damaged mirrorsliding doors. As we have advised in the previous emails SDP Management is nota fault for this damage and neither are the previous tenants based on their movein move out inspection and pictures on file. Upon reviewing our archived fileson your property it has been determined that the mirror doors were damaged as aresult of an earthquake that occurred on April 4th, 2010. It was reported bythe tenants at that time (Tuerk) and subsequently communicated with you at thattime in which you opted not to make any repairs or replacement. Our office wasable to contact the previous tenants from and collaborate our findings inwriting, which we also shared with you.Our office will not make any concessions regarding the wear of the doorstoppers and other minor misc items. As mentioned previously they were notevident on our "pre move out inspection" performed 5/20/or our move outinspection performed 6/1/15.Our office will not take any action regarding the medicine cabinets as our "moveout" pictures which were provided to you show they are in good condition and notin need of repair or replacementThe statement regarding the conditionindicating that "numerous scratch marks, as if from an animal" is suggestive anddoes not make sense based on many reasons but mainly the location of the item inquestion"Sincerely,
*** ***Managing Broker

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I have read Mr*** response to my Revdex.com complaint and do not agree with his assessmentI have attached some of the many images supporting my claims concerning the cleanliness and condition of the condo unitWhile cleanliness is not the primary area of contention in this complaint to the Revdex.com, the attached images serve to demonstrate the unsatisfactory level of care which SDPPM, a "professional property management" company, has provided to its customer.
Several more images demonstrate my primary purpose of this complaint, the damage to the unit that is beyond the limits of "reasonable wear and tear"These images plainly depict damage to the unit and its fixtures that have been damaged by abuse or mistreatmentMr*** has repeatedly claimed that these items are wear and tear and has even stated that many of these items "were not evident in our pre move out inspection"It is difficult to understand how a home inspection by a representative of a professional real estate management company can fail to see so many obvious discrepanciesFurthermore, while it is true that a certain level of subjectivity is involved when determining wear and tear, I am confident that the items I am concerned with would be considered, by any reasonable person, to fall outside the realm of wear and tear
As I stated in my initial Revdex.com complaint, I request that SDPPM repair those items which can be repaired, and replace those which cannotIt is my hope that Mr***, of San Diego Premier Property Management, will be as eager as I am to seek a resolution to this dilemma
Sincerely,
*** ***

Mr [redacted],The accusations regarding the cleanliness of the property are unfounded.   Theproperty was professionally cleaned by a third/party vendor on 4/10/14 (Receipton file) and very well maintained by the tenant with the exception of a fewisolated areas.  The move out pictures...

taken on 6/1/15 show the property to bein excellent and clean condition.  As mentioned previously the inside (innerworkings) of the washer/dryer are beyond the scope of cleaning for the tenantand the third party cleaning service.  Out of courtesy, San Diego PremierProperty Management will take the following measures per your request to resolvethis matter.Our office has scheduled for Thursday June 18th a SECOND professional thirdparty cleaning service to re-clean the requested items (window sills, blinds,baseboards, shower doors, kitchen floor, wall light switches, refrigerator vent,balcony floorboards) for your unit.Our office will debit the tenant for the HVAC air filter and credit you back the$21.57 which will be reflected on your final statement.Our office will debit the tenant for the bathroom face plate and credit you back$1 which will be reflected on your final statement.Our office will not pay for the repair or replacement of the damaged mirrorsliding doors.  As we have advised in the previous emails SDP Management is nota fault for this damage and neither are the previous tenants based on their movein move out inspection and pictures on file.   Upon reviewing our archived fileson your property it has been determined that the mirror doors were damaged as aresult of an earthquake that occurred on April 4th, 2010.  It was reported bythe tenants at that time (Tuerk) and subsequently communicated with you at thattime in which you opted not to make any repairs or replacement.  Our office wasable to contact the previous tenants from 2010 and collaborate our findings inwriting, which we also shared with you.Our office will not make any concessions regarding the normal wear of the doorstoppers and other minor misc items.  As mentioned previously they were notevident on our "pre move out inspection" performed 5/20/15 or our move outinspection performed 6/1/15.Our office will not take any action regarding the medicine cabinets as our "moveout" pictures which were provided to you show they are in good condition and notin need of repair or replacement. The statement regarding the conditionindicating that "numerous scratch marks, as if from an animal" is suggestive anddoes not make sense based on many reasons but mainly the location of the item inquestion. "Sincerely,
[redacted]Managing Broker

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.My goal in contacting the Revdex.com was to seek a mutual resolution to some obvious shortcomings with the services provided by Mr. [redacted] and his company San Diego Premier Property Management (SDPPM) after all previous attempts with him failed. After several correspondences through this Revdex.com forum, I, unfortunately, am no closer to reaching a satisfactory agreement with Mr. [redacted] . 
In addition to completely ignoring my valid complaints, Mr. [redacted] has made statements such as "the property was returned in better condition then it was received 8 years prior", that I "pursue an issue that was resolved well over 4 months ago", or that I have an "agenda". These statements are untrue and insulting. Mr. [redacted] stated "The property was professionally cleaned by a third/party vendor on 4/10/14". The last tenant moved out in late May of 2015. (???)
Mr [redacted] also stated the condo unit had "only 30 days of total vacancy throughout the entire 8 year relationship". This is not a true statement. The condo unit was vacant from at least January 11, 2012 to February 20, 2012 alone (40 days). And vacant again from April 1, 2015 to May 1, 2015 (31 more days). (I have the e-mails from the SDPPM office manager to verify these dates.) This is more than double Mr. [redacted] claims just for these two instances alone. 
I mention these things because they demonstrate how this straightforward claim to the Revdex.com has been muddied by Mr. [redacted] attempts to marginalize my claims while at the same time applaud his company's own expertise. Unfortunately, his claims are completely inaccurate and/or untrue.
To summarize, I have placed complaints to SDPPM through this Revdex.com forum to remedy several items in the condo unit. These items have not been damaged by normal wear and tear. Note: Not finding damages on a move out inspection does not excuse SDPPM from responsibility. And not agreeing with how something (medicine cabinet) was damaged also does not excuse SDPPM from responsibility. (Mr. [redacted] took issue with the way I described the medicine cabinet damage.) Regardless of how I described it, or how it was damaged, it is damaged, and is the responsibility of SDPPM to repair or replace.
(I have photographic images and email correspondence to verify everything I have claimed in this Revdex.com complaint.)
Some reasonable, competent businesses would look into these complaints and seek mutual solutions, other businesses, however, make excuses, false claims, and only seek to protect their own interests. After trying repeatedly to resolve these issues, it is clear that Mr. [redacted], and his company San Diego Premier Property Management, have chosen to take the latter approach. I have not given up though. I feel Mr. [redacted] knows what is right and will seek a satisfactory solution.
I do not accept Mr. [redacted], of San Diego Premier Property Management, response. This complaint has not been resolved. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
    I have read Mr. [redacted] response to my Revdex.com complaint and do not agree with his assessment. I have attached some of the many images supporting my claims concerning the cleanliness and condition of the condo unit. While cleanliness is not the primary area of contention in this complaint to the Revdex.com, the attached images serve to demonstrate the unsatisfactory level of care which SDPPM, a "professional property management" company, has provided to its customer. 
     Several more images demonstrate my primary purpose of this complaint, the damage to the unit that is beyond the limits of "reasonable wear and tear". These images plainly depict damage to the unit and its fixtures that have been damaged by abnormal use or mistreatment. Mr. [redacted] has repeatedly claimed that these items are normal wear and tear and has even stated that many of these items "were not evident in our pre move out inspection". It is difficult to understand how a home inspection by a representative of a professional real estate management company can fail to see so many obvious discrepancies. Furthermore, while it is true that a certain level of subjectivity is involved when determining normal wear and tear, I am confident that the items I am concerned with would be considered, by any reasonable person, to fall outside the realm of normal wear and tear.
    As I stated in my initial Revdex.com complaint, I request that SDPPM repair those items which can be repaired, and replace those which cannot. It is my hope that Mr. [redacted], of San Diego Premier Property Management, will be as eager as I am to seek a resolution to this dilemma.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]