Vertus Properties

This company is extremely shady. Moved out of Edge in June of 2022 and they took over half of our deposit for $500 of cleaning and $600 of repairs. Completely illegal to charge that for cleaning and our unit was left in better condition than when we moved in. No one would respond to emails or calls until we sued them and suddenly they agree to return our full deposit. The cherry on top -- we eventually got pictures to support their cleaning and repair fees and the pictures were not even from our apartment. Different floors, different bathroom, absolutely ridiculous. Document EVERY interaction with this company, you may need it in court.

Security deposit dispositions are frequent points of disagreement with vacating residentsIn this case, we have a Move-out inspection, completed by a subisttute Community Manager, [redacted] *., which also contains Ms [redacted] signatureOn this Move-Out inspection it clearly states that some items need 'cleaning' and 'complete cleaning.' We consider that to be evidence that the "departing tenant left the rental unit (or a portion of it) less clean than when he or she moved in" as quoted from Ms [redacted] initial complaint

I am rejecting this response because:According to the California security deposit stature, "A landlord cannot routinely charge each tenant for cleaning carpets, drapes, walls, or windows in order to prepare the rental unit for the next tenancyInstead, the landlord must look at how well the departing tenant cleaned the rental unit, and may charge cleaning costs only if the departing tenant left the rental unit (or a portion of it) less clean than when he or she moved inBut the landlord could not charge for cleaning any of these conditions if they existed at the time that the departing tenant moved inIn addition, the landlord could not charge for the cumulative effects of wear and tear."The attached email from the property manager, ***, provides her assessment that there were no damages beyond wear and tearI am being charged for routine cleaning costs that the landlord would have incurred in order to prepare the rental unit for the next tenancy, not because of any actual damage that I cased during my tenancyI submit that the the notes provided in the moveout inspection form indicated wear and tear, which is substantiated by ***'s email, and therefore I should not be charged beyond thisAgain, had there been instances of damage or other issues of cleanliness outside of the wear and tear, that should have been clearly communicated to me at the time and it wasn'tInstead, I was praised by [redacted] and the maintenance person who completed the inspection for the condition of the apartment at the time and was only notified of weeks later that there was an issue that I was expected to remedy when I received the partial depositI maintain, and am supported my ***'s written assessment, that there was no damages beyond wear and tear

I am rejecting this response because: the business exhibited unfair and unclear practices. both [redacted] and [redacted] the maintenance man confirmed that the property was in great condition at he time of the move out inspection and neither indicated that I would be charged when we conducted the inspection. Neither offered any indication of what needed further cleaning and therefore provided no actual opportunity for me to remedy the situation. I turned in my keys well before my lease actually ended so if there was a stated issue, I would have had ample opportunity to address it. However, they only notified me of an issue weeks after I moved out, at the time during which they returned the partial deposit which was unfair. I urge them to remedy this process so that it is fair and transparent to tenants like myself who simply desire to comply with the rules and receive a full deposit in return for this compliance.

I am rejecting this response because:Both the executed lease between myself and the Vertus management company (attached) and the California security deposit stature affirm that the resident cannot be charged for any costs within the realm of wear and tear on the unit. Again, I assert that there was no damage to the unit beyond wear and tear, which is supported by the email statement from the property manager which I attached to my previous responseThe management company is attempting to charge me for cleaning costs that they would have necessarily incurred as part of their standard process to turn over a unit in preparation for a new tenantIn his previous response, *** produced an invoice for cleaning services to the subject unit prior to my moving inI would request documentation as to whether this too was charged to the previous tenant, as it was in my case and if this is a cost that they routinely pass through to each tenant who inhabits the unit.The management company had sufficient opportunity to address this matter with me upfront and clarify the assessment of fees, as well as their interpretation of wear and tear which clearly is divergent from a common sense definitionHad I been given the opportunity to have this conversation at the time of the move out inspection (which I initiated in an attempt to resolve these issues in real-time), as opposed to after they decided to move forward with a cleaning service that ultimately should not have been paid for using my security deposit, I believe that this manner could have been resolved in a much more timely and favorable manner for all involvedNonetheless, I contend that the management company's response is unacceptable and their business practices were unfair and that I should've been provided clear information in real time on any fees that would be assessed, and provided an opportunity to address them

CA Civil Code Section 1950.5(b)(3)"The cleaning of the premises upon termination of the tenancy necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it was in at the inception of the tenancyThe amendments to this paragraph enacted by the act adding this sentence shall apply only to tenancies for which the tenant’s right to occupy begins after January 1, 2003.”(SORCE: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=19...⇄ attached invoices [amounts redacted] for unit #at Governor’s TerraceOne is dated 04/05/2016, the other is 04/07/which is prior to Ms*** modate of 04/16/This shows that the units was cleaned by contracted vendors prior to Ms*** taking possession of unit #which gives evidence to the unit’s condition at the time Ms*** took possession.Ms*** was not charged for any cumulation of ‘wear and tear’ only to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness the unit was at when she took possession.Regards,*** ***C.O.O.Vertus Properties, Inc

I have attached 2 PDF’s:A scanned copy of Ms. [redacted] Security Disposition DocumentationA scanned copy of the Move In - Move Out Inspection Form, signed by both parties on Nov. 9, 2016“Needs Cleaning” appears in several locations on this documentRegards,[redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: the business exhibited unfair and unclear practices. both [redacted] and [redacted] the maintenance man confirmed that the property was in great condition at he time of the move out inspection and neither indicated that I would be charged when we conducted the inspection. Neither offered any indication of what needed further cleaning and therefore provided no actual opportunity for me to remedy the situation. I turned in my keys well before my lease actually ended so if there was a stated issue, I would have had ample opportunity to address it. However, they only notified me of an issue weeks after I moved out, at the time during which they returned the partial deposit which was unfair. I urge them to remedy this process so that it is fair and transparent to tenants like myself who simply desire to comply with the rules and receive a full deposit in return for this compliance.

Security deposit dispositions are frequent points of disagreement with vacating residents. In this case, we have a Move-out inspection, completed by a subisttute Community Manager, [redacted]., which also contains Ms. [redacted] signature. On this Move-Out inspection it clearly states that some items need...

'cleaning' and 'complete cleaning.' We consider that to be evidence that the "departing tenant left the rental unit (or a portion of it) less clean than when he or she moved in" as quoted from Ms. [redacted] initial complaint.

I am rejecting this response because:According to the California security deposit stature, "A landlord cannot routinely charge each tenant for cleaning carpets, drapes, walls, or windows in order to prepare the rental unit for the next tenancy. Instead, the landlord must look at how well the departing tenant cleaned the rental unit, and may charge cleaning costs only if the departing tenant left the rental unit (or a portion of it) less clean than when he or she moved in... But the landlord could not charge for cleaning any of these conditions if they existed at the time that the departing tenant moved in. In addition, the landlord could not charge for the cumulative effects of wear and tear."The attached email from the property manager, [redacted], provides her assessment that there were no damages beyond normal wear and tear. I am being charged for routine cleaning costs that the landlord would have incurred in order to prepare the rental unit for the next tenancy, not because of any actual damage that I cased during my tenancy. I submit that the the notes provided in the moveout inspection form indicated normal wear and tear, which is substantiated by [redacted]'s email, and therefore I should not be charged beyond this. Again, had there been instances of damage or other issues of cleanliness outside of the normal wear and tear, that should have been clearly communicated to me at the time and it wasn't. Instead, I was praised by [redacted] and the maintenance person who completed the inspection for the condition of the apartment at the time and was only notified of weeks later that there was an issue that I was expected to remedy when I received the partial deposit. I maintain, and am supported my [redacted]'s written assessment, that there was no damages beyond normal wear and tear