Sign in

Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc

Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc Reviews (3)

The tenant did not complete the items necessary to pass a vacate inspection. That is the only reason why they did not get all of the money back on there security depositThe carpets were not professional cleaned The stove was not cleaned/inspectedThe keys were dropped into the night drop box over a weekend (we are not open on Saturdays or Sundays) and the tenant was not present during the inspectionThe house was not cleaned to the specifications on the cleaning listThe security deposit money was spent on getting the property back to a rent ready conditionThe tenant had a $deposit
Prorated rent $
Inspection fee: $
Inv#*** Carpet Cleaning: $
AR Cleaning: $Items not completed on cleaning list
Pellet Stove Inspection/Cleaning: $
Money Returned to the Tenant: $

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Whidbey Residential Rentals' response to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com on December 15, 2015, is an affirmative declaration in writing of the intentional breach of the landlord's duty to repair and the selective enforcement of lease provisions. It refutes not the complaint but rather confirms it. The alleged gun incident never occurred. It is a LIE. It is libel. Libel is a tort. Retract the libel.
Whidbey admits to ignoring repair requests. Stating that you “assumed” repeated repair request was “just them trying to put the owner on the hook for an unnecessary service call” does not negate a duty to repair inoperable wall heaters. This is unethical and unlawful. A landlord must maintain the heaters in a rental unit under the Warranty of Habitability of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973. Wash. Rev. Code. §59.18.060(5, 8, 9, 11). Tenants do not have to make repeated requests for repairs: landlords must repair heaters, not assume they are functioning and ignore the request. Whidbey admits that it nevertheless repeatedly ignored repair requests over the course of three years. This, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
It is not true that “this is the first time (in their Revdex.com complaint) that they had said anything about the other heaters.” On October 1, 2014, a written repair request was submitted. On October 14, 2014, Whidbey responded via email:
I apologize, but I was not aware of any heaters not properly working. Can you provide me with any info on this and I'll see what I can do for you?
On October 17, 2014, Whidbey received the following response:
No need to apologize. I will gladly provide you with more information. I showed [Whidbey's co-owner] the non-functioning and/or inoperable heaters during her July [2014] inspection. It proved an ideal time to explain issues with the house. Also, I believe my husband spoke with you about the heaters, when you visited the house in May [2014]. You know [my husband]--always complaining about the heaters! You and I spoke on several occasions this past winter, if I remember correctly. In February or March [2014], I believe. I know we discussed the heaters, and other issues, in January [2014]. Late last year, I'd say in November or early December, 2013, I mentioned the heaters. In November, 2013, my husband told [Whidbey's co-owner] the heaters did not work. We must have spoke about the heaters in early September or early October, 2013, when the cold weather and seasonal rains arrived. In late April or early May, 2013, [Whidbey's co-owner] and I spoke about the heaters. About March 19 [2013], [Whidbey's co-owner] inspected the house. She observed the lack of heat. I wrote a letter to Whidbey on March 18, 2013. The letter addressed the lack of heat. Around that time, the owner informed me that he was aware of the issues with the heaters. Previously, on March 15 [2013], I had notified Whidbey of issues, including the lack of heat. On or about March 5-6 [2013], I spoke with [Whidbey's co-owner]. We discussed inter alia, the heat. There were a lot of phone calls back in March. The heat almost always came up. There were numerous discussions about the heat in February, 2013, mostly with your predecessor, [Whidbey's employee]. [Whidbey's co-owner], too, though, knew about the heaters. At the end of January, 2013, [Whidbey's employee] inspected the premises. She observed the lack of heat. I believe the painters informed Whidbey that the heaters were not functioning in/about mid-January [2013]. [Whidbey's employee] and I discussed the heaters in early January, 2013. Maybe around December 31, 2012, she and I discussed the lack of heat. Earlier, around December 18-20, 2012, when I first visited the house, [Whidbey's employee] assured us the heaters would be fixed. The owner was at the house at that time. It was probably then that he observed the lack of heat. Nothing has substantially changed, except to be a bit worse. The second floor has heat in only one room, instead of two. The “bonus” room has no heat. The master bedroom heater is unusable. And the heater in the master bedroom bathroom is, shall we say, erratic. It might be a good idea to have all the wall heaters inspected to ensure they are properly working.
A detailed response. Whidbey had full knowledge of numerous inoperable wall heaters and failed to act, and now Whidbey is denying that knowledge in writing. Feigning ignorance of inoperable wall heaters, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
It is not true that “this last time they brought in their letter, she made it clear that they would be moving out at the end of the month because they didn't want another rent increase for what they felt was a subpar house for the price.” Every word of this is a lie. Nothing was said about rent increases. The tenants had no knowledge of a pending rent increase. Nor was anything said about moving out.
On October 2, 2015, a written repair request was handed to a Whidbey employee, who accepted it with a jocular remark that he would be sure to “file” the request (a remark that was taken to mean he intended to ignore the request). And, indeed, as Whidbey admits, the request was put in a “file” and ignored. A landlord “will at all times during the tenancy keep the premises fit for human habitation, and shall in particular: […] Provide facilities adequate to supply heat and hot water as reasonably required by the tenant[.]” Wash. Rev. Code. §59.18.060(11). Whidbey had a duty to repair the heaters “at all times,” so Whidbey had a duty to commence repairs in October. Ignoring repair requests and lying about it, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
Whidbey confirms the rental was “a subpar house for the price.” Whidbey's response to the Revdex.com complaint annexed a “Move-in/Move-out Inspection” form. Included under “general comments” is the following, “Roof needs to be replace. [sic] Lots of moss.” Under maintenances, it includes, “Roof cleaning...I cannot find any evidence of a roof leak anywhere on the inside of the house. Some of the heaters are not working.” Whidbey received written requests for the repair of the roof, including moss removal, and repair of the inoperable wall heaters. These requests were acknowledged and ignored, repeatedly. Whidbey has confirmed the need for roof repairs, the removal of moss, sought to find the source of the leak, and acknowledged the existence of inoperable wall heaters, after the tenants vacated. It is a breach of the lease and the Landlord-Tenant Act to ignore written repair requests, and, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, it is highly unethical to breach the lease and the state statute governing property management and then investigate and confirm the defects after the tenant vacates.
This is a confusing statement, “When Jim M[redacted] went to clean carpets, he said the only heaters he noticed weren't working were the two upstairs that Mark S[redacted] fixed for us right away. Jim said he wouldn't clean the carpets until those two heaters were repaired.” Jim M[redacted] owns the Americlean Carpet Company, the carpet cleaning service that cleaned the carpets after the tenants vacated according to Whidbey's invoice. Does this statement refer to when the tenants vacated? If so it confirms our claim that two upstairs wall heaters were inoperable and that Whidbey ignored written repair requests until after we vacated, a breach of the lease and the Landlord-Tenant Act. Mark S[redacted] ought have fixed those heaters “right away” upon receipt of a written request for repairs. Ignoring repair requests, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
If the above statement does not refer to when Americlean shampooed the carpets after we vacated, this must refer to when Jim earlier visited the house. On March 14, 2013, he inspected the carpets and indeed refused to clean them. But he refused not because of inoperable wall heaters, which he never examined, but because the carpets, carpet padding, and floorboards IN THE ENTIRE HOUSE tested positive for “active” animal feces and urine. You see, Whidbey demised a patently uninhabitable rental to the tenants. Demising an uninhabitable rental with carpets, carpet padding, and floorboards saturated with “active” animal urine and feces, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
This is also a confusing statement, “Mike T[redacted] noticed that the master bedroom door had been slightly warped due to the heater being located behind the bedroom door and it must have been used by them for a while to cause that door to be warped. It also seemed to work when we turned on the heat when you and I were there.” Whidbey admits it had knowledge the master bedroom wall heater was a fire hazard. Why was it not repaired? Ought not Mark S[redacted] have “right away” fixed the heater. The “you and I” comment appears to refer to a physical inspection of the rental on June 28, 2014. Whidbey's co-owner and the daughter of the owner of the rental inspected the house for over two hours. They saw the damaged door and hazardous heater, and, in fact, Whidbey's co-owner exclaimed, “Oh your father HAS to fix that!” If the heater was a fire hazard, that is bad and it ought have been repaired. That it died and was not repaired when requested, is even worse. Ignoring a fire hazard in a rental, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
Also, the tenants did not use the heater “for a while” and cause the damage. The damage preceded the tenancy. During a physical inspection in January, 2013, the damaged heater was discussed at length with no other than Mike T[redacted] and Mark “Right Away” S[redacted] of Odd Jobs. Copious notes and digital photographs were taken during that inspection, and they must be among the aforementioned “file” Whidbey maintains. And a written request for repairs dated March 18, 2013, mentions, among other repairs, “The heater in the master bedroom is a fire hazard and needs to be moved or removed” and “The damage to the master bedroom door caused by location proximity to the heater needs to be addressed.” That letter had no fewer than 37(!) items that needed repair, including heaters and moss removal from the roof. Blaming tenants for damaged preceding the initiation of their tenancy and caused by a fire hazard you ignored, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
Almost nothing written about the roof is true. A roofer did inspect the roof and took photographs of what he declared was a “massive” leak, but all that was done was the spreading of moss killer. No action was taken to halt the ingress of water into the attic. No gun was involved; that is pure libel. Libel is a very serious tort as well as an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice. The libel must be retracted.
Whidbey and Mike T[redacted] must need glasses, if they saw “ZERO signs of any leaks or even past leaks.” The roof leaked because of extensive moss growth and wind damage. It visibly needs repair, even at a cursory glance, something the annexed Move-in Inspection form confirms. This is why we received written assurances on December 20, 2012, when we signed the lease, to have the moss removed. This was not done, of course. The roof leaks in several places. Rainwater entered the attic and pooled in several places. Wood rot was evident where water entered and thickets of black and white mold flourished in the moist environment; the entire attic smelled strongly of mold and mildew. Mold is evidence of moisture entering a structure in Washington State. Westlake View Condo. Assn v. Sixth Ave. View Partners, LLC, 146 Wn. App. 760 (Wash. App. 2008)(Mold growth and roof leak impact habitability.). Exposure to mold toxins is a health hazard recognized in the Landlord-Tenant Act. Wash. Rev. Code. 59.18.060(Finding -- 2005 c 465)(“Exposure to mold, and the toxins they produce, have been found to have adverse health effects, including loss of memory, impairment of the ability to think coherently and function in a job, and may cause fatigue, nausea, and headaches.”). Pictures, unlike Whidbey, do not lie. So a copy of this response is annexed with photographic evidence of the roof leak and the thickets of mold that it sustained in the attic. Lying about roof leaks and mold, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
The final paragraph is, frankly, an astonishing admission of the selective enforcement of lease provisions, the very basis of our complaint to the Revdex.com. It begins by alluding to the month-to-month lease, but citing the month-to-month lease does not extinguish a landlord's duty to repair. There is no “month-to-month lease” clause exempting a landlord from commencing repairs stipulated by the Landlord-Tenant Act. The law states, “The landlord will at all times during the tenancy keep the premises fit for human habitation” and enumerates specific duties a landlord must do to maintain the habitability, including maintaining the roofs and the heaters. Wash. Rev. Code. Wash. Rev. Code. § 59.18.060(2, 8, 9, 11). The law applies to ALL residential leases, even month-to-month leases. Alluding to a month-to-month lease as an excuse to avoid performing duties at law, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
Next, Whidbey cites lease provisions for inspection fees and additional cleaning and mentions that the tenants initialed these. The tenants also “initialed” the lease that Whidbey admits it breached. The breached lease contained a covenant to repair, specifically ¶17(k) (“notify immediately in writing of any necessary repairs”). The Landlord-Tenant Act defines what constitutes “necessary repairs” in Washington State and specifically mentions maintaining heaters and roofs. Wash. Rev. Code. Wash. Rev. Code. § 59.18.060(2, 8, 9, 11). But, in its response, Whidbey admits it “assumed” the heaters were repaired and thus ignored written repair requests, repeatedly. This is an admission that Whidbey knowingly and intentionally breached the landlord's duty to repair found in the lease and at law. After admitting it intentionally breached the lease and ignored repair requests, Whidbey then goes on to cite the very same breached lease for inspection fees and cleaning requirements. This is the unethical practice of selective lease enforcement—it is precisely what our complaint was about. Far from refuting our complaint, Whidbey's response confirms it!
Whidbey is admitting to nothing less than than the selective enforcement of lease provisions. It ignored—repeatedly, no less—written requests for repairs stipulated by lease and by state statute only then to enforce selectively lease provisions for inspection fees and additional cleaning to its advantage. Whidbey should return the $975.92 of the security deposit that it has just admitted in writing to retaining wrongfully through the selective enforcement of lease provisions. The selective enforcement of lease provisions, like lying about pulling a gun on roofers, is an act of bad faith and an unethical business practice.
This response is filled with lies and non-truths. Riddled with inaccuracies, it is deceptive and a patent effort at evasion. It was made in bad faith. It confirms the complaint filed with the Revdex.com. And, more importantly, it is libelous. Pulling a gun on a roofer is a serious crime, a crime that was not committed. And, in fact, if it was committed, an ethical property management company would call the police and commence eviction proceedings immediately. That does not appear to be the case, though. Whidbey named names, something the Revdex.com frowns on, and defamation ensued, the reputation of another was harmed by the communication of a false statement in writing. The statement must be retracted in writing. Whidbey's response must not be put on the Revdex.com website, a public forum. The Revdex.com must alter Whidbey's accredited score from the A+ rating it currently enjoys to reflect the bad faith acts unethical business practices herein described. And Whidbey, after admitting in writing to breaching the lease and the Residential-Landlord Tenant Act and the selective enforcement of lease provisions, must return the wrongfully retained $975.92.  
Sincerely,[redacted]

Regarding the heaters - they had complained about it each year, as they mentioned. They did it with a letter, if I remember correctly, that we would have put in their file. I don't know what we would find if we could get back into Promas regarding previous work orders, but I didn't send anyone...

out this past October because it was the same complaint they had made for 3 straight years and I assumed it was just them trying to put the owner on the hook for an unnecessary service call. I assumed that if they had brought this up to us previously, that we had it looked at and it was working correctly. Plus, this last time they brought in their letter, she made it clear that they would be moving out at the end of the month because they didn't want another rent increase for what they felt was a subpar house for the price. I am 99.9% certain that this is the first time (in their Revdex.com complaint) that they had said anything about the other heaters. When Jim M[redacted] went to clean carpets, he said the only heaters he noticed weren't working were the two upstairs that Mark S[redacted] fixed for us right away. Jim said he wouldn't clean the carpets until those two heaters were repaired. In that statement alone, it implies that he found other heaters to be functional. Also, Mike T[redacted] noticed that the master bedroom door had been slightly warped due to the heater being located behind the bedroom door and it must have been used by them for a while to cause that door to be warped. It also seemed to work when we turned on the heat when you and I were there.
The roof - Jeremy C[redacted] was the roofer who went out to look at the roof for cleaning. The story behind the gun was that [redacted] and I coordinated the roof cleaning and she told me that Dave would be home and she would contact him and let me know ONLY if it was not a good time or day. I specifically remember her saying to me that if I didn't get a call back, they were okay to go get started. When they arrived about 2 hours later (and no response back from [redacted], despite me calling her back), [redacted] was home and when the roofers pulled into the driveway, [redacted] had a gun pointed at them. Jeremy called me right away and threatened to not do work for us and that he was concerned for others who may have had to go back out there. I don't recall him saying anything about finding evidence of a leak (obviously, I would have notified Dan G[redacted] if he had reported any sign of leaks). Next, when we went out there and inspected the property, I was in the attic and saw ZERO signs of any leaks or even past leaks. Plus, Mike T[redacted], the Owner of ODD JOBS, even went into the attic crawlspace and also reported no evidence of leaks. He stated that the water they were complaining about was likely coming from the roof down over the edge of the gutters due to needing new gutters on the house. So, in total, at least two, if not 3 different people did not find any hard evidence regarding a roof leak.
They were on a month to month lease. The did give proper notice. In regards to the inspection I have attached a copy of the vacate report.  The tenant did not complete the necessary requirement as per their vacate.  The lease states completely moved out, leaving the premises in a clean, undamaged condition, with a paid receipt for the carpet cleaning, fireplace inspection.  The lease also states, the landlord can charge the tenant $10 for every phone call made to get the property in rent ready condition.   The tenant was only charged the amounts of the invoices the vendors gave us to complete the necessary items on the vacate check list. In regards to the inspection fee of $50, it states in the lease "Upon vacating, the tenant understands there is a $50.00 non-refundable administrative processing fee for service of move-out inspection and processing the deposit funds."  The tenant initialed this section on the lease with that understanding.   If you need any additional information please call me [redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 285 NE Midway Blvd Ste 2, Oak Harbor, Washington, United States, 98277-2699

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc.



Add contact information for Whidbey Residential Rentals Inc

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated