Vanquish Asset Progression, LLC

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me

Although VanquishAP is not changing its position on the reason for the maintenance charges, the company will agree to waive the $charge to the tenant in an effort to resolve this issue

The individuals attempting to lease the property did not meet the criteria set by the property owner in terms of Income/credit/rental history/background checkVanquishAP offered an option of a co-signer who would meet the criteriaAfter a couple weeks of checking in with the individuals and letting them know that applications were being filled up for the specific property, we never received a co-signer applicationThese reasons led to VanquishAP filling the unit with qualified tenantsAlthough application fees are not refunded if denied, Vanessa did in fact refund the application fees to the individuals who did not find a co-signerAfter speaking with [redacted] about the complaint and explaining why they did not get the property we were informed that the application was not submittedFor these reasons VanquishAP had to move forward with other applicants

VanquishAP has ensured that the most fair billing practice is being used to split the utility bill among tenants We do so based on adults on the lease The tenant even mentions this is how they would prefer the billing to be conducted in their original complaintA single person renting a unit should not have to pay more because the bill is an even split per unit This is why it is split per person.Regarding the city code violations and requests made by the tenant, this has little to do with VanquishAP, as the decision to do any repairs or updates is ultimately up to the property ownerVanquishAP as a management company, would coordinate the work with approval from ownershipWe request that the tenant remove the complaint to management regarding these issues.In response to the notification regarding billing we have the following conversation with our agent John, documented:John spoke with [redacted] on June 13th @ 2:23PM for minutes and seconds discussing the terms of the leaseDuring this conversation, [redacted] had asked, "For some of the utilities that would be shared between the different units, I think that's basically garbage, sewer and water, how do you envision this working between the units in this house?" John responded, "Bills that are common, are split between the number of tenants in each unit," he went on to say, "you would be paying for people's worth of the water and sewer in the entire building." [redacted] Signed the lease at 4:48PM on June 13th and [redacted] Signed at 6:21PM on June 13thThey were also notified once again in writing on Tue, Oct 4, at 4:PM that this is how the utility billing would be most equitable

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/01/13) */ The homeowners, [redacted] and [redacted] sent an invoice to our company to pay for fixing work that was never performed by our companyThe attached invoice is from the homeowner's relative in microsoft word, indicating they repaired a paint job in an upstairs bedroomThe painter our company sent in did work on the living room and the stairwell, not any bedroomsPaint was spilled on the handrail and VanquishAP has agreed to replace the handrail Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2016/01/22) */ The customer indicated that he/she ACCEPTED the business response Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (3000, 11, 2016/01/27) */ "They addressed the handrail but did not address the rooms that were not properly painted and they addressed with us that we could have our painter come in to redo thatWe are looking that they also cover the cost of our painter repainting those rooms" Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 13, 2016/02/05) */ VanquishAP is standing by its decision to reimburse customer for handrail in the amount of $The billing for rooms to be painted was not in the original scope of work as evidenced in the attached invoice previously provided

VanquishAP had tried trouble shooting with the tenants on this issue, even before maintenance was scheduled Tenant stated it was a bigger electrical and requested someone come out and fix it The technician fixed the issue and stated it took exactly what what the VanquishAP rep had suggested to the tenant Per the lease agreement, even stated by tenant's complaint, they are charged for this type of situation The tenant had also requested the technician to look at the furnace on the same request All items were cleared VanquishAP is not lying or cheating to gain $ The company will reserve its rights not to refund the $for sending out a technician again

I am rejecting this response because:
1) First and foremost, VanquishAP did not acknowledge that they broke the law (Minnesota state statute 504B.215)By law, they were required to inform us in the lease that billing of water, sewer, and trash was single-meteredThey were also required to include in the lease an equitable way to divide bills between unitsThey did neitherTherefore, whether their manner of dividing the bills is logical or not, they have no legal standing to tell us how the bill will be divided 2) Since we are reasonable people, we are willing to excuse the fact that VanquishAP violated MN state statute 504B.215, as long as we believe the manner of dividing bills is equitableWe have already outlined above why we believe VanquishAP has divided neither the garbage nor water/sewer bill equitably(To reiterate: (a) The city bills VanquishAP for garbage on a per dwelling basis; we live in one dwelling and should pay for one dwelling’s worth of garbage collection(b) All residents of all units in the house, including children, use waterSo if water is not split equally between dwellings, then it should at least be billed on a per person basis, not on a per adult basis.) But to address VanquishAP’s response above, the recorded conversation on June 13th supports our own case, not VanquishAP’sJohn told ***: "Bills that are common, are split between the number of tenants in each unit… you would be paying for people's worth of the water and sewer in the entire building." John told *** that water/sewer would be charged per “tenant.” Tenants include children in this houseFurther, we were never informed that VanquishAP would charge us more for garbage collection than our unit incurred from the city.As a show of good faith, we are willing to adjust our desired outcome to propose that we pay the water/sewer bill on a per occupant basis (currently 2/of the water/sewer bill from the city, since we are of total occupants in the house)We still request that we pay for the garbage bill incurred by our unit only (1/of the total garbage bill from the city)

VanquishAP has ensured that the most fair billing practice is being used to split the utility bill among tenants.  We do so based on adults on the lease.  The tenant even mentions this is how they would prefer the billing to be conducted in their original complaint. A single person renting...

a unit should not have to pay more because the bill is an even split per unit.  This is why it is split per person.Regarding the city code violations and requests made by the tenant, this has little to do with VanquishAP, as the decision to do any repairs or updates is ultimately up to the property owner. VanquishAP as a management company, would coordinate the work with approval from ownership. We request that the tenant remove the complaint to management regarding these issues.In response to the notification regarding billing we have the following conversation with our agent John, documented:John spoke with [redacted] on June 13th @ 2:23PM for 19 minutes and 34 seconds discussing the terms of the lease. During this conversation, [redacted] had asked, "For some of the utilities that would be shared between the different units, I think that's basically garbage, sewer and water, how do you envision this working between the 4 units in this house?" John responded, "Bills that are common, are split between the number of tenants in each unit," he went on to say, "you would be paying for 2 people's worth of the water and sewer in the entire building."[redacted] Signed the lease at 4:48PM on June 13th and [redacted] Signed at 6:21PM on June 13th. They were also notified once again in writing on Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:49 PM that this is how the utility billing would be most equitable.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/13) */
The homeowners, [redacted] and [redacted] sent an invoice to our company to pay for fixing work that was never performed by our company. The attached invoice is from the homeowner's relative in microsoft word, indicating they repaired a paint job...

in an upstairs bedroom. The painter our company sent in did work on the living room and the stairwell, not any bedrooms. Paint was spilled on the handrail and VanquishAP has agreed to replace the handrail.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/01/22) */
The customer indicated that he/she ACCEPTED the business response
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 11, 2016/01/27) */
"They addressed the handrail but did not address the rooms that were not properly painted and they addressed with us that we could have our painter come in to redo that. We are looking that they also cover the cost of our painter repainting those rooms"
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2016/02/05) */
VanquishAP is standing by its decision to reimburse customer for handrail in the amount of $150. The billing for rooms to be painted was not in the original scope of work as evidenced in the attached invoice previously provided.

Clearly by the statement in the complaint, VanquishAP had been addressing the issue, as stated we had hired 3 different professional companies to fix the problem.  The owner of the property was made aware of the issues right away. VanquishAP cannot schedule any type of maintenance without...

consent from the owner of a property.  An email sent to VanquishAP by the complainant, received May 11th, had asked to be released from the lease and that no rent money would need to be returned (See attached copy of email).  VanquishAP got approval from ownership quickly to release the complainant from the lease and followed through.  We have followed through on all recommendations from the extermination professionals, been in constant contact with the tenants and ownership, as well as provided an expedited effort to terminate additional lease obligations.  Based on the tenants own requests, there will not be a refund of the May rent obligation.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/29) */
[redacted] is not the payee of the damage deposit. His roommate paid the damage deposit in full during the move in. The tenant who paid the damage deposit did not properly notify for move out or submit forwarding address. This delayed the...

process significantly. We have reimbursed [redacted] for his portion of the damage deposit plus interest.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/07/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
There is no addendum to MN Statute 504B.178 stating "it may take additional time if....". It was never disclosed that there was a delay because Catie gave the whole security deposit. We all gave her cash and she paid with a money order, we figured this would be a convenience to process 1 check instead of 4. This was only brought up after I had to do multiple outreaches to John. He never brought up that it was an issue until approx July 27th.
I was given promises that it would be sent out on July 20th, and it wasn't sent out until July 27th as per the post mark on the envelope.
I was also charged $100 for carpet cleaning, however, no final inspection was done and no carpet cleaning has ever taken place since my vacancy which has now been 30 days.
Additionally, I was paid interest after I brought it up to John. If I wouldn't have brought it up, I doubt I would have gotten it as. This also violated MN Statute 504B.173 subdivision 2.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/08/05) */
As [redacted] already knows his roommate paid the deposit in cash so he has no claim on the deposit. His roommate also failed to notify us of a forwarding address. This obviously delayed any sort of payment he would received. In the end I did decide to issue a portion of the deposit to him. He was paid in full plus interest minus any carpet cleaning costs. We go through Bart's Carpet Cleaning Services and they typically are about $0.25/ square foot. This would bring the total carpet cleaning costs to about $300.00 but because the tenants had a dog I also expect to incur additional carpet cleaning costs. So in total I took $100.00 from the deposit. [redacted] received $215.63. If the carpet cleaning costs come back less then $400.00 then I will issue [redacted] an additional check.

VanquishAP had tried trouble shooting with the tenants on this issue, even before maintenance was scheduled.  Tenant stated it was a bigger electrical and requested someone come out and fix it.  The technician fixed the issue and stated it took exactly what what the VanquishAP rep had...

suggested to the tenant.  Per the lease agreement, even stated by tenant's complaint, they are charged for this type of situation.  The tenant had also requested the technician to look at the furnace on the same request.  All items were cleared.  VanquishAP is not lying or cheating to gain $35.  The company will reserve its rights not to refund the $35 for sending out a technician again.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. The main complaint we had was that explanation of denial of lease was not given. Explanation was given over the phone, and our application fees were refunded.

Although VanquishAP is not changing its position on the reason for the maintenance charges, the company will agree to waive the $35 charge to the tenant in an effort to resolve this issue.

This tenant had signed a legal binding contract to lease the property stated above.  He viewed the property in advance and had no issue with the condition of the property.  The owner of the property spent additional time cleaning items that the leasing agent had mentioned the tenant...

noticed.  VanquishAP has agreed to release the tenant from the lease, which normally constitutes 50% of the contract amount to be accelerated, due upon lease default.  VanquishAP feels that this tenant was given more than reasonable accommodation considering what the lease states the remedies are.As stated above, the tenant had agreed to forfeit the monies paid upon lease signing.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.They agreed to waive the $35 fee in which is what was asked.

The tenants are aware and have been aware of how the utility billing will be split.  VanquishAP will not be adjusting how the billing is split between tenants.  The lease signed by the tenants, outlines that they will be responsible to re-imburse for the usage at the property on a single metered home.  The language taken from the signed lease by these tenants is as follows:UTILITY NOTICE:UNDER MINNESOTA LAW, THE LANDLORD OF A SINGLE METERED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS THE BILL PAYER RESPONSIBLE AND SHALL BE THE CUSTOMER OF RECORD CONTRACTING WITH THE UTILITY FOR UTILITY SERVICES. THE TENANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO REIMBURSE THE LANDLORD FOR UTILITIES USED DURING TENANCY. We are sorry that the tenants do not agree with how their bill is split, however we will not be making any changes to billing as children are not legal tenants on the lease.

The individuals attempting to lease the property did not meet the criteria set by the property owner in terms of Income/credit/rental history/background check. VanquishAP offered an option of a co-signer who would meet the criteria. After a couple weeks of checking in with the individuals and...

letting them know that applications were being filled up for the specific property, we never received a co-signer application. These reasons led to VanquishAP filling the unit with qualified tenants. Although application fees are not refunded if denied, Vanessa did in fact refund the application fees to the individuals who did not find a co-signer. After speaking with [redacted] about the complaint and explaining why they did not get the property we were informed that the application was not submitted. For these reasons VanquishAP had to move forward with other applicants.