Trinity Properties

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is not satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

From: [redacted] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:35 PM To: Info; [redacted] Subject: Response to Complaint Re: Revdex.com Complaint Product Service:  35,000 Purchase Date:  2/28/2015 Problem Occurred:  3/6/2015 Account...

number:  [redacted] Name of Salesperson:  [redacted] Complaint involves:  Service Issues Purchase Price: $35,000 ____________________________________   April 7, 2015 To: Revdex.com via [redacted] To: Complainant via [email protected] My name is [redacted] and I am an attorney representing “[redacted]” and all those associated with her in response to the subject complaint filed in the Revdex.com on March 25, 2015.   My contact information is: [redacted], Esq. Attorney at Law [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted]
[redacted]
  Please be aware that:   1]  The complainant (and all in their party, the named renter is [redacted]), hereafter collectively, “complainant”, requested 2 chefs.  One was allowed and one was denied.  The rented home is a private home in a residential neighborhood and the maximum number of guests is 12 (as agreed to in the contract).  This number 12 is inclusive of guests and their invitees.   2]  Prior to checkin, on the day of checkin, the owner (of the home) offered a full 100% refund the complainant’s agent because the owner was afraid that the complainant, who planned to have a wedding at the rented home, made requests that reasonably indicated to the owner that the complainant may have intended to allow more than 12 onsite at one time.  For example, the complainant said that the pool was too small, requested 2 chefs, and 2 tents.  Due to the offer of a 100% refund, the complainant’s allegation that they were not able to get a refund because their money was wired and there is no [redacted] on island is not true.  The owner wanted to give them a 100% refund prior to check in.  The delay in checkin (alleged by the complainant from 12noon to 3pm) was due to the owner offering the complainant’s agent the opportunity to cancel the rental agreement and receive a full 100% refund.  The complainant’s agent refused to cancel the rental agreement, and refused a 100% refund.  Note: prior to checkin, we did not know how to contact the guests.   3]  The complainant was greeted at the home by two individuals; one of whom wrote the following:          •   I arrived at the property shortly after 1 p.m. completing the set up procedure for check in at the property.        • [redacted] arrived at 2:45 p.m. and met with me confirming a check in.        • [redacted] and I did a final walk through the property before guest arrival        • As per homeowner request, we took pictures of the main furnishings as well as some interior kitchen cabinets.         • At 3 p.m. the guests and some of their friends arrived at the property.        • We greeted the guests and introduced ourselves.        • We walked through the house and introduced most features of the property        • The guests seemed happy and content and we had a friendly check in procedure        • Guests signed all required paperwork         • Final friendly interaction with guests as we educated them about some preferred restaurants in the area.         • After completed check in procedure we departed the property.  At no time during the time of check in did we notice any disrespectful or negative behavior between ourselves and guests. The interactions were quite to the contrary and very friendly.    4]  We absolutely dispute that any of our people treated the complainant in a racist and/or discriminating way.   5]  The complainant claimed that the gas was off for 3 days.  We cannot confirm this. What we do know is that the second bottle of gas was turned on by the complainant.  And, that there was gas in it at checkout.  So, we believe that they did not “run out of gas”.  Please note that they did not ask for pool heat, nor did they pay (extra) for it.  Upon checkout, we noticed the guests had each and every feature of the pool running, including the spa, which means that because the spillway was on which overflows from the spa into the pool, the spa then heats up the pool.  Could it be that they partially heated the pool in this manner by leaving the spa on constantly?  And, partially heated the pool in this way without paying for pool heat?  Note: the spa is fueled by gas and if they had the spa running night and day, then the tank drains extremely fast.  However, we don’t know exactly what happened so we can only speculate.  We would appreciate any additional facts on this matter from the complainant.  The guests did not call us at any time to request gas.   6]  After departure, a damage assessment was performed and this is the basis of disagreement between the parties.  Please be advised that neither [redacted] nor anyone except the owner receives any money from claims against the security deposit.  So, 100% of all requested money by the owner, as and for damages, if paid by the complainant, will go to the owner.  Zero will go to [redacted] or anyone associated with her except for the owner.  The owner is willing to provide proof of all damages claimed.   7]  All cameras on the “exterior” walls of the home are “fake” and intended to deter burglary type crime in the area.  There is an info page about the “fake exterior” cameras in the info binder.   8]  Some of the facts and allegations are unclear to us and we reserve the right to further respond (and amend our response) once we understand more of the underlying facts and circumstances.  Please note that the above facts are based only upon a good faith “initial” review of the facts and further review of the facts by us may require us to amend some of the above statements.  We base our response only upon an “initial” review in order to comply with the 14 day response requirement of the Revdex.com.   Sincerely, [redacted]

As a result of overloaded electrical circuits we suffered damage to an expensive TV which Trinity Properties refuses to replace.We moved into our current apartment in late November 2013. Within two weeks of moving in we alerted the leasing company that our breaker was constantly kicking as a result of using 2-3 appliances, (i.e. TV, Dishwasher and Vacuum) at the same time. Upon our first complaint they came into our unit and installed one additional counter top outlet on a separate circuit. This however, did not solve the breaker problem because, we later discovered, the dishwasher was not on its own dedicated circuit which is why the breaker would kick if we were vacuuming while running the dishwasher. After nearly a year of this superficial fix and intermittent breaker kicking, the breaker kicked again, this time blowing out a $750 48' [redacted] flatscreen television. For weeks I tried to get the company to respond to the problem, during most of the time they kept telling me, via email, that I was using too many appliances at once and there was no way this could have caused damage to my television, all of this without ever once sending anyone into my home. Finally, they sent an electrician into our home who came in and looked at the breaker box, only to determine that it was so outdated that it needed to be replaced entirely. After still more complaints via email correspondence about my property damage they told my husband and I that they would release us from our rental agreement with no monetary penalty because we were "unhappy" with their business practices. Finally after weeks of email correspondence they sent an electrical contractor in who verified that the electrical circuits were overloaded and the breaker box was so old it was nearly indecipherable. He also concluded there was no way to definitively say the breaker kicking did not cause the damage to the television. They finally had the electrical contractor come in a replace the breaker box and separate the circuits, including putting the dishwasher on its own dedicated circuit, which is necessary to be up to electrical code in 2015. This solved the problem of the breaker kicking but they still refuse to replace our television which has been damaged due to their negligent decision to ignore the major electrical issues in the unit for over a year. They have not only caused us significantly expensive property damage but a great degree of pain, suffering and inconvenience as I have been trying to resolve this issue for nearly two months now, without any resolution to my property damage. At this point, they have stopped responding to email inquires all together and there is no way of knowing who is actually in charge because they keep using the property maintenance manager as a middle man but he has no authority to make any real decisions. At this point we have found a new place to live but we want our property replaced because we terminate our rental agreement and they cease to ever communicate with us again.Desired SettlementWe would like the $750 dollars necessary to replace the damage to our property that was caused due to their negligence.Business Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted], ManagerContact Phone: [redacted]Contact Email: [redacted]On 12/19/13 we received an email from our tenants, [redacted] and [redacted], that their breaker had tripped while using a coffee pot and microwave at the same time. We sent our technician right away. He found that the electrical system was working properly but the 15 amp circuit in their apartment did not support operating her two appliances at the same time. This caused the breaker to trip as it should. We instructed her to try using a separate outlet in the kitchen for her second appliance. On 12/19/13 she notified us that they did not have any outlets near their counter tops. On 12/20/14 we emailed the tenants to confirm that we would move an existing outlet to the counter top and schedule a day for this to be done. On 1/7/14 this work was completed and the tenants seemed happy. We did not hear back from them for another year regarding any electrical problems.On 2/18/15 they notified us that while vacuuming the apartment, a breaker had tripped again and that their TV would no longer turn on. She mentioned that "they were using a few electronics, appliances, and a vacuum at the same time" when this happened. She also stated that they had filed an insurance claim for the TV. We sent our technician out that same day. Our technician confirmed to us that their circuit had been overloaded, causing the breaker to trip as it should. The system was working properly but could not handle that amount of usage (several electronics, appliances, and a vacuum cleaner). We decided it was best to call an electrician and see what upgrades would be required to facilitate this kind of usage. He informed us that the circuit was working properly and we would need to upgrade the interior breaker panel to increase capacity for this tenant. We scheduled this work with the electrician and the tenants and it was completed on 3/6/15. During this time we received an email from the tenants explaining how unhappy they were with their apartment and our management of the property. We do not feel it is healthy to do business with someone you do not trust and therefore gave the tenants the option of terminating their lease without penalty. We felt that if they felt so strongly that we were treating them poorly, they would be happier living somewhere else. They did not take us up on this offer. Her notice to you that she had found another place is the first we had heard of her moving.Once the breaker panel was updated, all of the appliances seemed to be working well and we did not receive any more complaints about the breaker tripping which made us very happy. We take this situation very seriously and have made every effort to correct the problems immediately, to the best of our ability, and improving the apartment for the tenant. Regarding the malfunction of the television, we told the tenants that we had found no evidence of the overloaded circuit causing the damage to the TV, and therefore were not able to replace it for them. We require all of our tenants to have renters' insurance. Based on their previous correspondence, we are under the impression that these tenants are properly insured and have filed an insurance claim for their television.Furthermore, in doing our own research we found their specific TV model has had frequent problems with its power supply board and suspect this is the cause of their problem.

All residents have signed a parking and towing agreement with Trinity Properties which they refuse to uphold.I have signed an agreement with Trinity Properties which states that, among other things, "Any car, permit or not, parked in a NO PARKING area will be towed at the owner's expense. This includes vehicles parked... in any common area." It also states that "Any visitor parked in non-marked space is subject to towing without notice." I signed this agreement on December 16, 2013. The management office signed this agreement on the same date. And yet, the management office assures me that the property owner refuses to tow, despite the fact that we have (to the best of my knowledge) a legally binding agreement. I have called upwards of a dozen times, I have sent a nice email, I have sent a less nice email, I have been encouraged to email again. Tonight, on February 9, 2014, I came home to find six cars parked in the middle of the parking lot, not in spaces. There were at least three vehicles without permits parked in resident spaces. At this point, it was difficult for me to even enter the parking lot because there were so many people parked illegally in the middle of the parking lot. Sadly, this is not the first time this has happened, and the property owner has been made aware of this when it has occurred in the past. The property manager is willingly and knowingly endangering his lessees by allowing this to continue.In an attempt to remedy this issue, after calling the office to leave a furious voicemail that I have to continue dealing with this after at least six months of their promises that they will fix it, I called a local towing company, who told me that a different local towing company covers this property. This towing company, [redacted], does exist, unlike the one claimed in the sign at the entrance to the parking lot. I called [redacted]g and asked them to come tow the illegally parked cars out of my parking lot. They said that they would send a truck out here and told me that they had been towing from this property for "quite a while now" and that they "regularly patrol the area, especially when it's a busy night." I find these statements hard to believe considering that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been towed in the past eighteen months that I have lived here.Desired SettlementI want the property owner to issue a formal apology to his residents and employ a towing company that actually and effectively tows vehicles from the parking lot. I also would not mind him being fined for the reckless endangerment of his lessees, as well as for flagrantly violating a written agreement he keeps with them.Business Response To Revdex.comResponse to Case: XXXXXXXXDear Revdex.com,We always appreciate and greatly value when our residents bring up these questions, as we do take them into consideration when making decisions that are beneficial for the community as a whole. At [redacted] we have switched towing companies on the condition that they repaint the lines to make parking easier for all of our residents. There have been delays in getting the lines painted this winter due to the temperature and weather conditions, but they are still actively working on this project as the weather allows. Our lease states that we will tow vehicles that violate our parking policies. And we do. Because towing is such an onerous penalty, we prefer to give notice of violations before we tow. This usually corrects the problem. For these reasons, we have limited towing to a case by case basis.In response to this individual's complaints, we have notified the neighboring residents of the concerns and have put notices on their cars. We feel we are honoring our lease agreement in the best and most compassionate interest of our tenants. We do value this individual's tenancy and regret the frustration with our parking policy. We would be happy to work with this individual to explore other solutions to resolve this discontent, while not compromising the overall and appreciated policies we enforce for our community.