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 On December 5, 2014, we were notified by Kassie ***, leasing employee for Hanover, that Hanover was waiving the $security, so we signed the lease renewal Kathryn ***'s only defense was that Kassie no longer worked for the company, so she did not have to follow what we agreed upon On January 10, 2015, we were not able to view a Move-Out Statement on the Portal We notified Amber ***, the Assistant Manager and Karen, our leasing employee, that we were not able to view it and did not receive it We also notified Kathryn *** that we were not able to view it Kathryn *** said she was too busy to provide it to us and said she was not required to provide it because the Texas Property Code did not apply to us or them, which was not true, as this has never been Mr***'s contention We have over emails requesting the move out statement, and it was first provided to us in May via an email attachment Hanover has never provided any proof that they sent us this statement in January We have also sent emails with screenshots of the online Portal, which does not have a move out statement available anywhere on it We have emails documenting all of this The fact of the matter is that we never received the move out statement or an itemization of any damages withheld from the security deposit until May An email stating Hanover intents to provide the statement, but never actually does, does not comply with the Texas Property Code We were not refunded the full $ever as Hanover attempted to keep damages from the security deposit for carpet cleaning, which they provided the details in the itemization of damages in May 2015, well past the day deadline Hanover also attempted to keep carpet cleaning damages for Apartment ***, the new apartment, which does not make any sense No where does the application ask where tenants are *** students Kassie was aware that we were, which is why she guaranteed Hanover was waiving the deposit Despite Mr***'s contention, being a student and working are not mutually exclusive activities, so his argument does not make any sense Hanover is trying to make rules after the fact of new residents versus current residents because Kassie was well aware that we were current residents when she guaranteed our security deposit would be waived, so any policies implemented after the fact are not applicable retroactively when an agreement has already been reached When we asked for the statement, we were provided it months later, which is well past the days required under the law We were never offered a housekeeper for *** Only the maintenance man came to clean the fridge, which is all Hanover offered, and we absolutely accepted We would have never refused a housecleaner We were offered one in *** after the black mold, which we absolutely accepted The other random charges were because Hanover charged us for an additional unreserved parking space, but we never asked for this or agreed to it We only have one car here, so that would have never been necessary Hanover tries to wrongfully obtain tenant's monies any way they can apparently hoping tenants will not notice it For example, in our lease we agreed to a $per month storage space, and on our moday, Hanover told us they only has $per month units available, so we had to pay an additional $per month Mr*** did not address the other concerns because Hanover just brushed over them and try to pretend like they didn't happen Mr*** and Hanover seem to have the same questionable legal, moral and ethical behavior, which has been an ongoing issue
Regards,
*** ***
On or about
December 5, 2014, the [redacted] signed a lease in connection with their agreement with the Owner to transfer from
apartment no. [redacted] to apartment no. [redacted]. Pursuant to their lease, they were
required to pay a $200...
security deposit. By email dated January 10, 2015, the
[redacted] were notified that their Move Out Statement (the “Statement”) was
viewable on the property’s portal, the same portal that they had previously
viewed on multiple occasions. Pursuant to the Statement, they received a credit
of $923.84 which included $600 (which included a $200 pet deposit) that
represented the security deposit the [redacted] paid pursuant to their lease for
apartment no. [redacted].
The [redacted]’ credit
of $923.84 was used to pay off their unpaid obligations from December 21, 2014
through January 2015, including their obligation to pay the $200 security
deposit pursuant to their lease and their rental obligations for the last
portion of December 2014 and January 2015 and other charges less the amount they
paid during this period of time (a total of $1,148.54).
Pursuant to the
application they submitted online, neither of them indicated that they were [redacted]
students. To the contrary, Ms. [redacted] indicated that she was employed when she
applied. Any special provided to [redacted] students regarding the security deposit
would not have been given to them since they did not identify themselves as [redacted]
students at the time of application. The offer made to [redacted] students would have
applied to new applicants, not existing residents that transfer.
The other issues
raised by the [redacted] either have no merit or have been addressed. When the [redacted]
asked for a copy of the Statement, they were provided one. When they moved into unit [redacted] and expressed
concerns regarding the condition of this unit, the owner offered to have a
housekeeper clean the unit; however, the [redacted] indicated this was not
necessary. The leak referred to in the complaint occurred in unit [redacted], prior to
the [redacted]’ occupancy of unit [redacted] (and in or around September 2014). This issue
was addressed promptly. Pursuant to
section 10 of their lease, the [redacted] rented a storage space (#106) for $50 per
month. It is not clear what “random charges” the complaint refers to; however,
in their lease, the [redacted] agreed to pay $20 a month for an unreserved parking
space. However, since they were unsatisfied where the unreserved parking spaces
were located, the owner agreed to modify their lease to take off the unreserved
parking space and charge. Contrary to the complaint, the manager’s family
members did not take a space away from the [redacted]. Also contrary to the allegations in the
complaint, the owner has never required the [redacted] to make repair requests in
any way other than as provided in their lease.
The [redacted] are
not entitled to the damages they are seeking. The owner did not intentionally
deprive the [redacted] of a refund they were lawfully due. In fact, the [redacted] were
provided with a copy of the Statement in the same manner that they had
previously viewed other communication from the owner.
It is also
interesting to note that the [redacted] are claiming attorneys’ fees, even though to
the owner’s knowledge, the [redacted] have not been represented by an attorney and
are not attorneys themselves. This could raise other issues outside the scope
of our response to this complaint.
Howard M. [redacted]
Hoover Slovacek LLP
Galleria Tower II
5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77056
Tel: (713) 977-8686
Fax: (713) 977-5395
[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.
Hanover has continuously changed its story and defenses
throughout this process as to why they did not follow the law. Hanover just keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall
to see what sticks to cover-up its wrongdoings.
As of March 17, 2015, it was Ms. [redacted]’s contention, per
her email, that Hanover was not required to return our deposit or provide an
itemization of damages of monies withheld from the deposit within 30 days because
the Texas Property Code Section 92 did not apply. Per Ms. [redacted]’s email on March 17, 2015,
she stated, “In regards to your security deposit, you transferred onsite so the
property code you referenced is not applicable.” After 3 months of asking about what happened
with our deposit and/or an itemization of damages withheld from the deposit, I
informed Ms. [redacted] on March 12, 2015, that the Texas Property Code Section 92
requires landlords to return the deposit or provide an itemization of damages
within 30 days from the move out date, and if Hanover did not, it forfeited the
right to retain any portion of the deposit and is legally liable for treble damages
because the landlord is presumed to have acted in bad faith under Section
92.019.
We stated if it’s Hanover’s contention that Section 92 did not
apply somehow, we will entertain that idea, but requested Hanover to provide any
legal authority to support such allegation because, on the contrary, we found
the opposite and even supplied Ms. [redacted] with the Texas Property Code and
[redacted] v. [redacted] case for Hanover’s reference supporting our contention. We also noted to Ms. [redacted] the numerous
attempts over 5 months of requesting the deposit or itemization, in person and
in writing, and asked Ms. [redacted] to please provide the status on the itemization
or explain what was happening with our deposit.
It wasn’t until we sent Ms. [redacted] this legal authority that
Hanover’s attorney got involved and its story changed, which was well beyond
the 30-day requirement. Hanover then shifted
from saying in March that it did not need to provide to the statement to apparently
realizing the Texas Property Code did, in fact, apply and they had not followed
the law. Then, for the first time we
received a response, without any support or proof, that Hanover provided the
statement online, however, this is not true.
We were never able to view the alleged statement online, so we
personally asked Ms. [redacted] where it was and asked how to view it, but Ms.
[redacted] simply stated she was too busy to explain or even show us the
statement. We even sent screenshots of
our online Portal showing the statement was not there, and then in normal Hanover
style, Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] never responded to that hole in their story. This is because we were never provided with the
statement online to view.
Me simply stating I’m a cat does not make me a cat, nor does
it go back in time and change me into a cat as Hanover somehow believes such phenomenon
exists. We did not receive the statement
within the 30 days, and Hanover was well aware of this fact as we had put them
on notice for months with over 40 emails back and forth. Hanover simply did not follow the law. A new lease was signed for a new, separate
and distinct unit, with all new terms and conditions. We surrendered our interest and the premise
of Unit [redacted], which marked the beginning of the 30- day timeline in December
2014.
For over 8 months we asked Hanover for any proof, any proof
at all, that Hanover provided or we received an itemization of damages, and even
to date, Hanover has refused to provide any evidence because it does not exist.
Most landlords simply pull out a certified mail return receipt from the [redacted]. In over 40 emails with Ms. [redacted], she never
asserted we were previously provided with the itemization until May 2015. In fact, prior to that, as evidenced in her
March emails, it was Ms. [redacted]’s contention that Hanover did not need to
provide the itemization of damages or explain what was going on with our
security deposit. The only proof we have
is when Hanover provided the statement via an email attachment in May 2015,
well outside the 30 days when Hanover finally realized they were in fact
required to follow the law and Section 92 does apply, which Hanover thus
forfeited its right to retain any of the deposit and is liable for treble the
amount. Texas courts obviously feel
strongly about landlords taking advantage of tenants and doing just want
Hanover did by providing, by statute, a penalty for Hanover’s behavior.
Each time Hanover’s story changed and we confronted Hanover and
Mr. [redacted] with the holes and inconsistencies in each new version, Mr.
[redacted] and Hanover would just not respond or make up another new story,
apparently hoping the issue would just go away, making tenants constantly fight
Hanover to make them do what is right and require it to follow the law, which
has been our experience since the first day we moved in. We were also told different stories by Amber
[redacted], the Assistant Manager and Karen, our leasing agent regarding the
security deposit prior to March 2015.
Additionally, in regard to the new deposit on Unit [redacted],
again, when confronted with the holes in their story, Hanover and Mr. [redacted]
just don’t respond because they know they are caught in their lies. It was Ms. [redacted]’s contention that Hanover
did not have to waive the security deposit for Unit [redacted] per our agreement because
the leasing agent that made the agreement, Kassie [redacted], was no longer
employed with Hanover, so Hanover did not have to uphold what Kassie had
represented to tenants. Then, 5 months
later in May 2015, was the first time Hanover via Mr. [redacted] ever mentioned
an alleged some policy that we had never heard of not applying to
current/previous tenants, apparently realizing once an attorney got involved
that their former employee defense was not valid under the law, so they had to
change their story again. Ms. [redacted] never
made this contention in over 5 months. This
alleged policy was never mentioned when we signed our lease, and obviously was
not in place or enforced by Hanover at the time based on Kassie’s
representations.
When we were discussing moving from Unit [redacted] to Unit [redacted],
Unit [redacted] had a $400 security deposit that we paid. Kassie stated she was surprised we paid a
$400 deposit because Hanover waives the deposit for students, but said that
special must not have been going on when we moved it, but not to worry, because
she knew I was a student, so Hanover would waive the security deposit for Unit
[redacted] because I was an [redacted] student. Then,
Hanover, always trying to wrongfully take more money from its tenants, charged
us a deposit. In fact, Ms. [redacted] was
involved in the latter part of the conversation regarding the security deposit. Kassie represented to us that the security
deposit would be waived when we were debating whether to sign a new lease for
Unit [redacted], which occurred in the same conversation where Hanover (Ms. [redacted])
agreed to waive the $500 month-to-month fee for signing a new lease because
these were deal-breakers. We signed the
lease based on these representations and agreed to sign the lease given these
conditions. Then, Hanover wrongfully
attempted to charge us a $400 deposit for Unit [redacted] on move-in day, and Karen
tried to tell me that Hanover was charging a $400 security deposit for Unit [redacted]
because we were already “in the system” with a $400 security deposit for Unit
[redacted] as a two-bedroom apartment and Hanover had no way of changing or refunding
it. We immediately raised the issue, and
Karen told us to immediately email Kathryn to fix the problem, which we did,
but Ms. [redacted] did not hold up to her end, which seems to be the Hanover
way. This made no sense to me because
first, Hanover said they were waiving the deposit, and second, the normal
deposit for a one-bedroom apartment is $200, so I was baffled at the fact that
they were trying to change our agreement and not only charge me a deposit, but
charge me more than anyone else with a one-bedroom apartment. I contested both of these matters immediately
upon move-in day on December 20, 2014.
Besides the fact that we’ve poked holes in every part of
Hanover’s false stories that they keep creating as they go, if Hanover provided
the statement before May 2015, when we asked for it numerous times in January
through March, why wouldn’t they just have provided it rather than saying they
didn’t need to provide it and sending abrasive, rude and condescending emails
each time (over 40 emails)? Or when the
story changed to that they did provide it online, why didn’t Hanover take 2
minutes to show us where it was online when we asked and notified them it
wasn’t online rather than ignoring the emails or saying they were too busy? The simple answer is because they didn’t
provide the statement as required by law, so now this is just a cover story.
Hanover has a pattern of refusing to the legally, morally,
and ethically correct its wrongdoings until forced to, and taking advantage of
its tenants and treating them horrendously.
It keeps changing the terms of our agreements and then just says tenants
have to suffer all the consequences because it has the mentality that we are a
big company and can do whatever we want, and there’s nothing you can do about
it unless you fight us like crazy and legally make us do what we have to. For example, on the first day we moved in with
our storage unit Hanover was to provide per our signed lease, on move-in day
they told us the unit was unavailable for the first time and gave us 2
options: (1) to pay $75 more per month
for a larger unit that was available (against the signed lease); or (2) they
would let us out of the lease forcing us to find a new apartment when we had
already signed a lease approximately 3 months earlier. Hanover did not give us the courtesy to
inform us beforehand, they just said too bad on moving day when we had our
movers at the apartment with all our outdoor patio furniture, extra
washer/dryer, etc. Hanover breached our
lease, but somehow, that meant we had to pay extra per month. Hanover also changed the date we were to get
our keys to move into Unit [redacted] after we had arranged everything (movers and
holiday travel) upon our agreed move-in date of December 18th. Hanover changed the date last minute to
December 20th and told us too bad the week before move in when we
already had a flight to see family that day.
Additionally, this is further evidenced by the $20 parking charge, that
makes no sense to have on our account and Hanover absolutely agrees it should
not be on our statement, but keeps reappearing and Hanover admitted they keep
adding it and makes us fight like crazy each time to have it removed. Hanover has a payment system where you can
only pay the full amount requested, not a different amount, so we can’t pay our
rent without the $20 charge until Hanover removes it, so we keep going through
this hassle, apparently hoping we won’t notice it, again, trying to continually
wrongfully take money from its tenants.
Besides these examples and previous examples give in the
Complaint and our additional responses, these situations appear to be normal
around Hanover. For instance, a tenant
on the fifth floor signed a lease with Hanover for $1,500 per month for a 1
bedroom apartment. Even though Hanover
and the tenant discussed and signed a lease for $1,500 per month, Hanover
unilaterally decided to charge the tenant $1,800 because it wanted more
money. Hanover just posted this to the
tenant’s online account, so the tenant couldn’t pay the amount without paying
the full amount. When the tenant
contacted Ms. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] said she would just discuss the issue
orally, in person. The tenant is a
doctor and said she is at work by 7am and gets home after 6pm and requested to
discuss the issue via email. Ms. [redacted]
then told the doctor/tenant to go into work late, so they could discuss it in
person because she wouldn’t discuss the issue over email. Ms. [redacted] told the doctor to go into work
late or reschedule her appointments with her child patients, so the matter could
be discussed orally because Hanover has a shady practice in refusing to put
things in writing to try to cover-up its wrongs.
I don’t understand Mr. [redacted]’s comment about “we will
continue to uphold our obligations under the lease” despite the Complaint. I don’t understand what Mr. [redacted] meant
by that because they are required to uphold their obligations under our lease and
trying to do anything other than this, like trying to evict a tenant for
exercising their legal rights, would be retaliation and is illegal, so I’m not
sure what that means other than some sort of threat if I continued to pursue my
legal rights, which has proven to be the Hanover way.
Generally, courts favor parties trying resolve their disputes
outside the court system to help control the heavy dockets of the courts, which
we have put in a good faith effort to try to resolve this dispute, but,
unfortunately, Hanover has not acted in the same good faith and are abusing the
system unnecessarily. All of its
responses are unsupported, unsubstantiated statements for 9 months, and each
time we asked for any proof at all, we receive no response. We tried to resolve this issue January through
March by simply asked what was going on with our deposit, and if any monies
were withheld, to please provide the itemization, which Hanover was legally
obligated to do, but refused to do.
In terms of reasonable attorney’s fees, I have a law
degree. Solely because of Hanover’s
actions, bad faith and refusal to follow the law, I have spent a ridiculous
amount of time trying to resolve this dispute, as evidenced by over 40 emails,
providing Hanover with legal authorities of the Texas Property Code Section 92
and case law ([redacted] v. [redacted]) showing that Section 92 of the Texas Property
Code did in fact apply to Hanover. All
of this could have been avoided if Hanover had just followed the law and
provided the statement when they were required to within 30 days, or even if
they had provided the statement in our numerous requests, but unnecessarily
made us fight them for 6 months to provide the statement.
Regards,
[redacted]
We have reviewed the response to
the rejection provided by Ms. [redacted]. We have responded to the same allegations a
number of times directly with Ms. [redacted] and now in our response to the RevDex.com. It appears that the [redacted], who remain residents in our apartment
community, are attempting to use the good offices of the Revdex.com
to continue to try to recover funds to which they are not entitled.
I should note that Ms. [redacted], in her
response to the rejection, has failed to justify her claims for excessive funds
including her claim for attorneys’ fees.
We have, and will continue to,
comply with our obligations under the [redacted]’ Lease and applicable law with
respect to their occupancy in our community.
Sincerely,
Howard M. [redacted]
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 On December 5, 2014, we were notified by Kassie ***, leasing employee for Hanover, that Hanover was waiving the $security, so we signed the lease renewal Kathryn ***'s only defense was that Kassie no longer worked for the company, so she did not have to follow what we agreed upon On January 10, 2015, we were not able to view a Move-Out Statement on the Portal We notified Amber ***, the Assistant Manager and Karen, our leasing employee, that we were not able to view it and did not receive it We also notified Kathryn *** that we were not able to view it Kathryn *** said she was too busy to provide it to us and said she was not required to provide it because the Texas Property Code did not apply to us or them, which was not true, as this has never been Mr***'s contention We have over emails requesting the move out statement, and it was first provided to us in May via an email attachment Hanover has never provided any proof that they sent us this statement in January We have also sent emails with screenshots of the online Portal, which does not have a move out statement available anywhere on it We have emails documenting all of this The fact of the matter is that we never received the move out statement or an itemization of any damages withheld from the security deposit until May An email stating Hanover intents to provide the statement, but never actually does, does not comply with the Texas Property Code We were not refunded the full $ever as Hanover attempted to keep damages from the security deposit for carpet cleaning, which they provided the details in the itemization of damages in May 2015, well past the day deadline Hanover also attempted to keep carpet cleaning damages for Apartment ***, the new apartment, which does not make any sense No where does the application ask where tenants are *** students Kassie was aware that we were, which is why she guaranteed Hanover was waiving the deposit Despite Mr***'s contention, being a student and working are not mutually exclusive activities, so his argument does not make any sense Hanover is trying to make rules after the fact of new residents versus current residents because Kassie was well aware that we were current residents when she guaranteed our security deposit would be waived, so any policies implemented after the fact are not applicable retroactively when an agreement has already been reached When we asked for the statement, we were provided it months later, which is well past the days required under the law We were never offered a housekeeper for *** Only the maintenance man came to clean the fridge, which is all Hanover offered, and we absolutely accepted We would have never refused a housecleaner We were offered one in *** after the black mold, which we absolutely accepted The other random charges were because Hanover charged us for an additional unreserved parking space, but we never asked for this or agreed to it We only have one car here, so that would have never been necessary Hanover tries to wrongfully obtain tenant's monies any way they can apparently hoping tenants will not notice it For example, in our lease we agreed to a $per month storage space, and on our moday, Hanover told us they only has $per month units available, so we had to pay an additional $per month Mr*** did not address the other concerns because Hanover just brushed over them and try to pretend like they didn't happen Mr*** and Hanover seem to have the same questionable legal, moral and ethical behavior, which has been an ongoing issue
Regards,
*** ***
On or about
December 5, 2014, the [redacted] signed a lease in connection with their agreement with the Owner to transfer from
apartment no. [redacted] to apartment no. [redacted]. Pursuant to their lease, they were
required to pay a $200...
security deposit. By email dated January 10, 2015, the
[redacted] were notified that their Move Out Statement (the “Statement”) was
viewable on the property’s portal, the same portal that they had previously
viewed on multiple occasions. Pursuant to the Statement, they received a credit
of $923.84 which included $600 (which included a $200 pet deposit) that
represented the security deposit the [redacted] paid pursuant to their lease for
apartment no. [redacted].
The [redacted]’ credit
of $923.84 was used to pay off their unpaid obligations from December 21, 2014
through January 2015, including their obligation to pay the $200 security
deposit pursuant to their lease and their rental obligations for the last
portion of December 2014 and January 2015 and other charges less the amount they
paid during this period of time (a total of $1,148.54).
Pursuant to the
application they submitted online, neither of them indicated that they were [redacted]
students. To the contrary, Ms. [redacted] indicated that she was employed when she
applied. Any special provided to [redacted] students regarding the security deposit
would not have been given to them since they did not identify themselves as [redacted]
students at the time of application. The offer made to [redacted] students would have
applied to new applicants, not existing residents that transfer.
The other issues
raised by the [redacted] either have no merit or have been addressed. When the [redacted]
asked for a copy of the Statement, they were provided one. When they moved into unit [redacted] and expressed
concerns regarding the condition of this unit, the owner offered to have a
housekeeper clean the unit; however, the [redacted] indicated this was not
necessary. The leak referred to in the complaint occurred in unit [redacted], prior to
the [redacted]’ occupancy of unit [redacted] (and in or around September 2014). This issue
was addressed promptly. Pursuant to
section 10 of their lease, the [redacted] rented a storage space (#106) for $50 per
month. It is not clear what “random charges” the complaint refers to; however,
in their lease, the [redacted] agreed to pay $20 a month for an unreserved parking
space. However, since they were unsatisfied where the unreserved parking spaces
were located, the owner agreed to modify their lease to take off the unreserved
parking space and charge. Contrary to the complaint, the manager’s family
members did not take a space away from the [redacted]. Also contrary to the allegations in the
complaint, the owner has never required the [redacted] to make repair requests in
any way other than as provided in their lease.
The [redacted] are
not entitled to the damages they are seeking. The owner did not intentionally
deprive the [redacted] of a refund they were lawfully due. In fact, the [redacted] were
provided with a copy of the Statement in the same manner that they had
previously viewed other communication from the owner.
It is also
interesting to note that the [redacted] are claiming attorneys’ fees, even though to
the owner’s knowledge, the [redacted] have not been represented by an attorney and
are not attorneys themselves. This could raise other issues outside the scope
of our response to this complaint.
Howard M. [redacted]
Hoover Slovacek LLP
Galleria Tower II
5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77056
Tel: (713) 977-8686
Fax: (713) 977-5395
[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.
Hanover has continuously changed its story and defenses
throughout this process as to why they did not follow the law. Hanover just keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall
to see what sticks to cover-up its wrongdoings.
As of March 17, 2015, it was Ms. [redacted]’s contention, per
her email, that Hanover was not required to return our deposit or provide an
itemization of damages of monies withheld from the deposit within 30 days because
the Texas Property Code Section 92 did not apply. Per Ms. [redacted]’s email on March 17, 2015,
she stated, “In regards to your security deposit, you transferred onsite so the
property code you referenced is not applicable.” After 3 months of asking about what happened
with our deposit and/or an itemization of damages withheld from the deposit, I
informed Ms. [redacted] on March 12, 2015, that the Texas Property Code Section 92
requires landlords to return the deposit or provide an itemization of damages
within 30 days from the move out date, and if Hanover did not, it forfeited the
right to retain any portion of the deposit and is legally liable for treble damages
because the landlord is presumed to have acted in bad faith under Section
92.019.
We stated if it’s Hanover’s contention that Section 92 did not
apply somehow, we will entertain that idea, but requested Hanover to provide any
legal authority to support such allegation because, on the contrary, we found
the opposite and even supplied Ms. [redacted] with the Texas Property Code and
[redacted] v. [redacted] case for Hanover’s reference supporting our contention. We also noted to Ms. [redacted] the numerous
attempts over 5 months of requesting the deposit or itemization, in person and
in writing, and asked Ms. [redacted] to please provide the status on the itemization
or explain what was happening with our deposit.
It wasn’t until we sent Ms. [redacted] this legal authority that
Hanover’s attorney got involved and its story changed, which was well beyond
the 30-day requirement. Hanover then shifted
from saying in March that it did not need to provide to the statement to apparently
realizing the Texas Property Code did, in fact, apply and they had not followed
the law. Then, for the first time we
received a response, without any support or proof, that Hanover provided the
statement online, however, this is not true.
We were never able to view the alleged statement online, so we
personally asked Ms. [redacted] where it was and asked how to view it, but Ms.
[redacted] simply stated she was too busy to explain or even show us the
statement. We even sent screenshots of
our online Portal showing the statement was not there, and then in normal Hanover
style, Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] never responded to that hole in their story. This is because we were never provided with the
statement online to view.
Me simply stating I’m a cat does not make me a cat, nor does
it go back in time and change me into a cat as Hanover somehow believes such phenomenon
exists. We did not receive the statement
within the 30 days, and Hanover was well aware of this fact as we had put them
on notice for months with over 40 emails back and forth. Hanover simply did not follow the law. A new lease was signed for a new, separate
and distinct unit, with all new terms and conditions. We surrendered our interest and the premise
of Unit [redacted], which marked the beginning of the 30- day timeline in December
2014.
For over 8 months we asked Hanover for any proof, any proof
at all, that Hanover provided or we received an itemization of damages, and even
to date, Hanover has refused to provide any evidence because it does not exist.
Most landlords simply pull out a certified mail return receipt from the [redacted]. In over 40 emails with Ms. [redacted], she never
asserted we were previously provided with the itemization until May 2015. In fact, prior to that, as evidenced in her
March emails, it was Ms. [redacted]’s contention that Hanover did not need to
provide the itemization of damages or explain what was going on with our
security deposit. The only proof we have
is when Hanover provided the statement via an email attachment in May 2015,
well outside the 30 days when Hanover finally realized they were in fact
required to follow the law and Section 92 does apply, which Hanover thus
forfeited its right to retain any of the deposit and is liable for treble the
amount. Texas courts obviously feel
strongly about landlords taking advantage of tenants and doing just want
Hanover did by providing, by statute, a penalty for Hanover’s behavior.
Each time Hanover’s story changed and we confronted Hanover and
Mr. [redacted] with the holes and inconsistencies in each new version, Mr.
[redacted] and Hanover would just not respond or make up another new story,
apparently hoping the issue would just go away, making tenants constantly fight
Hanover to make them do what is right and require it to follow the law, which
has been our experience since the first day we moved in. We were also told different stories by Amber
[redacted], the Assistant Manager and Karen, our leasing agent regarding the
security deposit prior to March 2015.
Additionally, in regard to the new deposit on Unit [redacted],
again, when confronted with the holes in their story, Hanover and Mr. [redacted]
just don’t respond because they know they are caught in their lies. It was Ms. [redacted]’s contention that Hanover
did not have to waive the security deposit for Unit [redacted] per our agreement because
the leasing agent that made the agreement, Kassie [redacted], was no longer
employed with Hanover, so Hanover did not have to uphold what Kassie had
represented to tenants. Then, 5 months
later in May 2015, was the first time Hanover via Mr. [redacted] ever mentioned
an alleged some policy that we had never heard of not applying to
current/previous tenants, apparently realizing once an attorney got involved
that their former employee defense was not valid under the law, so they had to
change their story again. Ms. [redacted] never
made this contention in over 5 months. This
alleged policy was never mentioned when we signed our lease, and obviously was
not in place or enforced by Hanover at the time based on Kassie’s
representations.
When we were discussing moving from Unit [redacted] to Unit [redacted],
Unit [redacted] had a $400 security deposit that we paid. Kassie stated she was surprised we paid a
$400 deposit because Hanover waives the deposit for students, but said that
special must not have been going on when we moved it, but not to worry, because
she knew I was a student, so Hanover would waive the security deposit for Unit
[redacted] because I was an [redacted] student. Then,
Hanover, always trying to wrongfully take more money from its tenants, charged
us a deposit. In fact, Ms. [redacted] was
involved in the latter part of the conversation regarding the security deposit. Kassie represented to us that the security
deposit would be waived when we were debating whether to sign a new lease for
Unit [redacted], which occurred in the same conversation where Hanover (Ms. [redacted])
agreed to waive the $500 month-to-month fee for signing a new lease because
these were deal-breakers. We signed the
lease based on these representations and agreed to sign the lease given these
conditions. Then, Hanover wrongfully
attempted to charge us a $400 deposit for Unit [redacted] on move-in day, and Karen
tried to tell me that Hanover was charging a $400 security deposit for Unit [redacted]
because we were already “in the system” with a $400 security deposit for Unit
[redacted] as a two-bedroom apartment and Hanover had no way of changing or refunding
it. We immediately raised the issue, and
Karen told us to immediately email Kathryn to fix the problem, which we did,
but Ms. [redacted] did not hold up to her end, which seems to be the Hanover
way. This made no sense to me because
first, Hanover said they were waiving the deposit, and second, the normal
deposit for a one-bedroom apartment is $200, so I was baffled at the fact that
they were trying to change our agreement and not only charge me a deposit, but
charge me more than anyone else with a one-bedroom apartment. I contested both of these matters immediately
upon move-in day on December 20, 2014.
Besides the fact that we’ve poked holes in every part of
Hanover’s false stories that they keep creating as they go, if Hanover provided
the statement before May 2015, when we asked for it numerous times in January
through March, why wouldn’t they just have provided it rather than saying they
didn’t need to provide it and sending abrasive, rude and condescending emails
each time (over 40 emails)? Or when the
story changed to that they did provide it online, why didn’t Hanover take 2
minutes to show us where it was online when we asked and notified them it
wasn’t online rather than ignoring the emails or saying they were too busy? The simple answer is because they didn’t
provide the statement as required by law, so now this is just a cover story.
Hanover has a pattern of refusing to the legally, morally,
and ethically correct its wrongdoings until forced to, and taking advantage of
its tenants and treating them horrendously.
It keeps changing the terms of our agreements and then just says tenants
have to suffer all the consequences because it has the mentality that we are a
big company and can do whatever we want, and there’s nothing you can do about
it unless you fight us like crazy and legally make us do what we have to. For example, on the first day we moved in with
our storage unit Hanover was to provide per our signed lease, on move-in day
they told us the unit was unavailable for the first time and gave us 2
options: (1) to pay $75 more per month
for a larger unit that was available (against the signed lease); or (2) they
would let us out of the lease forcing us to find a new apartment when we had
already signed a lease approximately 3 months earlier. Hanover did not give us the courtesy to
inform us beforehand, they just said too bad on moving day when we had our
movers at the apartment with all our outdoor patio furniture, extra
washer/dryer, etc. Hanover breached our
lease, but somehow, that meant we had to pay extra per month. Hanover also changed the date we were to get
our keys to move into Unit [redacted] after we had arranged everything (movers and
holiday travel) upon our agreed move-in date of December 18th. Hanover changed the date last minute to
December 20th and told us too bad the week before move in when we
already had a flight to see family that day.
Additionally, this is further evidenced by the $20 parking charge, that
makes no sense to have on our account and Hanover absolutely agrees it should
not be on our statement, but keeps reappearing and Hanover admitted they keep
adding it and makes us fight like crazy each time to have it removed. Hanover has a payment system where you can
only pay the full amount requested, not a different amount, so we can’t pay our
rent without the $20 charge until Hanover removes it, so we keep going through
this hassle, apparently hoping we won’t notice it, again, trying to continually
wrongfully take money from its tenants.
Besides these examples and previous examples give in the
Complaint and our additional responses, these situations appear to be normal
around Hanover. For instance, a tenant
on the fifth floor signed a lease with Hanover for $1,500 per month for a 1
bedroom apartment. Even though Hanover
and the tenant discussed and signed a lease for $1,500 per month, Hanover
unilaterally decided to charge the tenant $1,800 because it wanted more
money. Hanover just posted this to the
tenant’s online account, so the tenant couldn’t pay the amount without paying
the full amount. When the tenant
contacted Ms. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] said she would just discuss the issue
orally, in person. The tenant is a
doctor and said she is at work by 7am and gets home after 6pm and requested to
discuss the issue via email. Ms. [redacted]
then told the doctor/tenant to go into work late, so they could discuss it in
person because she wouldn’t discuss the issue over email. Ms. [redacted] told the doctor to go into work
late or reschedule her appointments with her child patients, so the matter could
be discussed orally because Hanover has a shady practice in refusing to put
things in writing to try to cover-up its wrongs.
I don’t understand Mr. [redacted]’s comment about “we will
continue to uphold our obligations under the lease” despite the Complaint. I don’t understand what Mr. [redacted] meant
by that because they are required to uphold their obligations under our lease and
trying to do anything other than this, like trying to evict a tenant for
exercising their legal rights, would be retaliation and is illegal, so I’m not
sure what that means other than some sort of threat if I continued to pursue my
legal rights, which has proven to be the Hanover way.
Generally, courts favor parties trying resolve their disputes
outside the court system to help control the heavy dockets of the courts, which
we have put in a good faith effort to try to resolve this dispute, but,
unfortunately, Hanover has not acted in the same good faith and are abusing the
system unnecessarily. All of its
responses are unsupported, unsubstantiated statements for 9 months, and each
time we asked for any proof at all, we receive no response. We tried to resolve this issue January through
March by simply asked what was going on with our deposit, and if any monies
were withheld, to please provide the itemization, which Hanover was legally
obligated to do, but refused to do.
In terms of reasonable attorney’s fees, I have a law
degree. Solely because of Hanover’s
actions, bad faith and refusal to follow the law, I have spent a ridiculous
amount of time trying to resolve this dispute, as evidenced by over 40 emails,
providing Hanover with legal authorities of the Texas Property Code Section 92
and case law ([redacted] v. [redacted]) showing that Section 92 of the Texas Property
Code did in fact apply to Hanover. All
of this could have been avoided if Hanover had just followed the law and
provided the statement when they were required to within 30 days, or even if
they had provided the statement in our numerous requests, but unnecessarily
made us fight them for 6 months to provide the statement.
Regards,
[redacted]
We have reviewed the response to
the rejection provided by Ms. [redacted]. We have responded to the same allegations a
number of times directly with Ms. [redacted] and now in our response to the RevDex.com. It appears that the [redacted], who remain residents in our apartment
community, are attempting to use the good offices of the Revdex.com
to continue to try to recover funds to which they are not entitled.
I should note that Ms. [redacted], in her
response to the rejection, has failed to justify her claims for excessive funds
including her claim for attorneys’ fees.
We have, and will continue to,
comply with our obligations under the [redacted]’ Lease and applicable law with
respect to their occupancy in our community.
Sincerely,
Howard M. [redacted]