Stewart Property Management Services Inc

Please read our explanation of events leading to Mrs. [redacted] dissatisfaction andhopefully a final resolve of these issues that have been ongoing.Between Mrs. [redacted] claim of no communication between 7/08 and 8/17 there areseven (7) documented email exchanges and several phone calls as well....

Between 8/17and 8/19 there were an additional seven (7) emails. Mrs. [redacted] did not demonstrate awillingness to listen and followed several phone calls with an email reiterating the samematerial discussed on the phone with hopes of obtaining a different answer; I can onlyspeculate. There is much conjecture of facts in her mind that simply aren't the case andrefuses to accept. Repeated phone calls and emails requesting rent to be forwardedafter clearly explaining to her and her husband that in the scenario of a rental that hasbeen sold and the tenants who are free to leave without notice (per our propertymanagement agreement) rent is held. The purpose is that those monies may need to bereimbursed if the tenant paid for a whole month but left earlier and utility bills that wouldgo back into our name requiring payment before the termination of our agreement.Mrs. [redacted] repeatedly sent the invoice requesting payment of $~45 after she was clearly informed that the tenant noted the windowcondition on their move-in inventory report and there were in fact smokedetectors/carbon monoxide detector in the home. History proceeds these requests withthe [redacted] past challenges to repair costs that can occur in any home from normalwear and tear. It was their misguided belief that tenants should bear all maintenancerepairs to their home and possibly is a result of a measured budget to support a rentalproperty. The inspectors report required a smoke detector in every bedroom whichwasn't the building code in 1973. The code below shows at the sale of a dwelling it mustmeet code from time of construction, not the current code of new construction of adetector in each bedroom. Not the tenant's responsibility to pay for these per theinspector's interpretation. The window had a crack in the outer decorative piece, notedby the tenant at the time they returned their check-in condition report after moving in.Although the exact conversation is not remembered, per standard practice, we ask thetenant to inform us if a condition noted changes to affect habitability. This was not thecase. Per the picture it appears cracks are running from what appears to be possibly aBB hole. If so, this could be a case of vandalism, but no one knows the facts. Thewindow did not appear broken after our last visit due to the possibility it has alreadybeen replaced.
 
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:The complaint filed with Revdex.com against Stewart Property Management remains for reimbursement of $285.00 to repair front door broken window only (invoice dated 7/22/16). As my property agent it was their responsibility to address the need for repair upon checking in or checking out tenants (I found out only through the home inspector's report of June 13, 2016). Note the attached correspondence from Jack S[redacted] of July 7, 2016 states "I looked at the front door glass and the decorative panel is intact and no cracks." This was clearly not the case. The damage was not due to normal wear and tear (see attached photo).  By not performing due diligence, I believe Stewart Property management is liable for the cost to repair the broken window.Sincerely,[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]

We are at a loss to provide any further information that has not already been addressed. Unfortunately the timeline is a long one. At the tenant’s move in approximately the first of November 2013 their check in report stated a broken (crack) front door glass and it was documented with a picture. The information was given to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] at the time along with report of an inoperative hot tub. Response was the maintenance of the hot tub was tenant’s responsibility and no further communication was given. The tenants were instructed to advise if condition changed. Mrs. [redacted] dogged determination that the tenant is responsible for the glass replacement was unenforceable, so she turned to us demanding payment. In the course of several cordial phone calls it was clearly outlined that while unfortunate, we were not witness to the cause of the original crack and as is the nature of glass that is unstable in a binding frame in a metal door that is opened and closed (possibly forcibly at times) the cracks may run/spread and fall out. We manage over 400 properties, a few have leaded glass inserts in entry doors and a few have cracked over the years with no witness to how, my own home included. The email report that Mrs. [redacted] repeatedly refers to simply offers that the window at the time of inspection was still intact and no different than originally reported. During the course of the home sale, we have received conflicting information from Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] separately, wanting information sent to different addresses and this made resolution difficult in an already stressful situation. Claims of no smoke or carbon monoxide detectors were simply inaccurate as well. 
 
Prior to Mrs. [redacted] tirade of posting inaccurate and possibly litigious allegations on any social media she can get her fingers on, communication was clear and concise until the very end when she couldn’t get her way and lost any decorum she may have possessed. 
 
[redacted]