The Towbes Group, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10134240, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
I'd like to add that our time while living in the Cypress apartment community was very positive...

and before the hassle we experienced at move out/while trying to resolve our complaint, we would recommended Cypress to people moving in the area; unfortunately, we stopped recommending Cypress due to this issue.  It seems there has been a change in administration or at the very least a change in approach (much more professional responses) to complaint resolution at Cypress and with this change I once again feel comfortable recommending Cypress.  Thank you.
 
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: Cypress Point Apartments in Ventura made inappropriate deductions from our security deposit: $69.73 for painting, $29.23 for carpet cleaning and $55 for blind cleaning. Painting: We didn't damage the walls and the checkout condition form signed by Cypress staff didn’t note any damage to the walls, so there was no reason to repaint the full unit at a prorated cost to us. Carpet cleaning: We didn’t damage the carpets beyond normal wear & tear and we vacuumed our empty apartment before we left (steam cleaning was not stipulated in our lease agreement). The checkout condition form indicated only “wear marks” for the carpet. Blind cleaning: Blinds were noted to have dust and cobwebs only; this would fall under moderate dirt which is normal wear & tear for blinds. I contacted Doug Burbidge at Cypress Point regarding these disputed costs and requested reasons for the deductions (as required by law) as none were provided with our statement. He responded by explaining how they calculate the prorated paint cost, but did not provide a reason that repainting was necessary. He stated the wear marks on the carpet were dark (I dispute this and only wear marks were noted on the checkout condition form). He said they are legally allowed to deduct for wear & tear to the carpets and dust on the blinds as those wear & tear conditions were not present when we moved in. This is incorrect, California Civil Code 1950.5 doesn’t allow for wear and tear costs to be deducted from our security deposit.Desired Settlement: See Complaint Text

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10134240, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

I'd like to add that our time while living in the Cypress apartment community was very positive and before the hassle we experienced at move out/while trying to resolve our complaint, we would recommended Cypress to people moving in the area; unfortunately, we stopped recommending Cypress due to this issue. It seems there has been a change in administration or at the very least a change in approach (much more professional responses) to complaint resolution at Cypress and with this change I once again feel comfortable recommending Cypress. Thank you.

Regards,

Review: 1. Sumida Gardens Property Management requires unreasonable level of cleaning upon tenant move out. This includes (1) giving tenants an excessive list of items to clean at the last minute (notice of lease termination) that includes everything from dusting curtain edges to cleaning the interior of 12' high lamp shades to removing dirt from inherently dusty outdoor space, (2) instructing tenants to clean using Q-tips, an unreasonable standard for an ordinary move out inspection cleaning, (3) requiring tenants to leave the unit in 'new' or 'move in ready' condition, as opposed to 'reasonable wear and tear' of an empty and standard cleaned apartment (sweeping, vacuuming, dusting, surface cleaning, etc.). 2. SG Prop. Mgmt extorts tenants for extra charges upon move out by requiring unannounced cleaning/maintenance-related fees from a monopoly of pre-approved vendors. This monopoly on vendor choice (a) permits above-market price inflation and (b) forces tenants to pay high bills outside the scope of the lease. SG Prop. Mgmt does not inform tenants that they will be billed hundreds of dollars at minimum to move out. Landlords have an obligation to maintain their properties for tenants; it is unethical, if not illegal, for them to force their tenants to assume this entire burden.2. SG Prop. Mgmt failed to mitigate damages to tenant upon early lease termination. They refused to publish a rent rate. They quoted interested parties an unreasonably high rent rate, above market value. They charged us, the tenant, rent up to 1 minute (literally) before the next tenant moved in; this either supports the unreasonable claim that they do no work and can force tenants to do all tenant exchange-related cleaning and maintenance, or it is extortion of money from diligent tenants who should not be charged for days that property management company requires exclusive access to the unit.3. Front office staff (M. & L.) are uncommunicative, unavailable during stated business hours, and untrustworthy.Desired Settlement: 1 Refund all security deposits deductions for our move out & 2 Publically post rental rates, to prevent abusing prospective tenants and meet landlord's duty to mitigate damages in case of early lease termination & 3 Remove unfair move out policies, including (1) unreasonable standard of cleanliness above and beyond 'reasonable wear and tear', (2) forced charges for cleaning, regardless of need and (3) failure to disclose mandatory move out charges of $200-$1000+ to prospective tenants.