Windermere

Dear Ms [redacted] : Regarding complaint [redacted] , we have reviewed the renter's complaint and have the following response: We returned the deposit on March 5th, well before the day period as prescribed by law Because of the renter's poor penmanship, we mailed to PO Box [redacted] instead of [redacted] Upon learning of the mishap, a new check was sent When the renter did receive the check he claimed that the bank wouldn't deposit it because it said PO Box [redacted] instead of ***The VP of [redacted] here in Seattle notes (in his email we previously provided you) that it would be highly unlikely for a bank to deny such a deposit When the Renter said he couldn't deposit, we wired him the funds When proof of his payment of the water bill came through, he was sent yet another check [redacted] , we've complied with the law all along the way and highly recommend he seek the advice of an attorneyThe attorney will be able to help the Renter better understand the Washington State landlord Tennant Act to which we have, and always will respectPlease call if I can be of further service

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Hi [redacted],
I will first respond directly to the items that Mr. H[redacted] provided to you on April 27, 2015. I believe these responses clearly indicate negligence on the part of Windermere that is consistent with my overall experience over the last few months.
For clarification purposes, your response came from Mr. Peter H[redacted] as I was forced to elevate this matter after Brad G[redacted] (who I primarily dealt with during my tenancy) became combative and unprofessional, both verbally and in writing to both me and my wife. If I am forced to elevate this matter further, I will not hesitate to notify the Washington State Fair Housing Commission and Department of Real Estate of my experience.
It is my interest to resolve this amicably and without further incident. I sincerely hope that Windermere feels the same way and acts accordingly.
I provided move-out confirmation as required and requested that Windermere only charge me for the first 27 days of February. I have attached confirmation of this. Nothing was ever addressed or brought up prior to my departure.
 
Regarding the statement about my attendance of the final-walk through, this is not the rationale provided to me by Mr. H[redacted]’s associate (Brad G[redacted]). On February 25 2015, after a 2nd phone conversation in which Mr. G[redacted] stated that “he has seen too many houses where people st and don’t flush the toilet and leave bodily fluids all over the house, it grosses me out and its awkward.” Immediately after this conversation, I contacted the Seattle Tenants Union to explain the issue as well as to solicit insight as to the best course of action moving forward. The advice I received was to record and document all future conversations (which I did), as is evidenced by the email I sent to Mr. G[redacted] on February 25 (attached). In addition, had a face-to-face conversation taken place Mr. G[redacted] and I would have been able to review all documentation, including the move-out information in which his office claims to have misunderstood but managed to get correct without asking me for any sort of clarification.
 
I paid the last water bill on time on April 9, 2015 and have attached the receipt proving this.  There has never been a misunderstanding regarding a temporary withholding of my $300. Windermere owes this to me since I have fulfilled my obligation. Mr. H[redacted]’s accusations that I failed to fulfill my financial obligations (especially after this issue had to be elevated to the Revdex.com) is an excellent example of the negligence and incompetence that I have experienced over the last few months.
 
 
Windermere has offered no proof that a check was sent to me in a timely manner. Since they indicated a letter was returned, can they provide any sort of proof to substantiate this claim?  The envelope I received from Windermere was postmarked March 25, 2015 which is well outside the 14 day legal requirement. I have attached this documentation. Additionally, Windermere provided the Revdex.com with documentation (Document 1, page 8 of the attached .pdf) stating that:
“your landlord has 14 days in which to perform a move out inspection and either return your deposits, or give you a written statement of why all or part of the deposit is being retained”
I did not receive my deposit back in the agreed to time frame, which is the basis for my complaint. 
 
[redacted] would not accept an out of state check addressed to an incorrect PO Box. Is Mr. H[redacted] stating that a second check was sent with a correct address? If not, I’m not sure what the relevancy of this statement is.
In addition:
I question the legitimacy of the hand written statement on page 11 of the .pdf response to the Revdex.com complaint. The evidence showing the postmark date of 3/25 clearly refutes this. Regardless, 3/10/15 is outside the 14 day legal requirement (RCW 59.18.280) since I moved out on 2/27/2015.
 
Windermere’s correspondence omits a number of items that illustrate a level of dishonesty that is consistent with my recent experience. For reference, I have provided this correspondence.
 
I have been in contact with the owner of the home and made him aware of the situation. If forced to elevate further, I will continue to engage the homeowner, Revdex.com, state department of real estate and any other entity I am legally entitled in pursuit of money owed to me.
 
In living in this home for approximately 18 months, I never had any issue with money I owed to his office. I never once had to ask Mr. G[redacted]’s office for any sort of extension or had a careless mistake result in a delay in the fulfillment of my financial obligations. I have not received the same level of courtesy from Mr. G[redacted] or his associates at Windermere and was not granted the courtesy of an explanation after the initial error was made.
I feel that Windermere should be held financially responsible for the series of errors on their part and I am quite confident that the law is on my side. As I’ve stated previously, even though I am entitled to $4000 + legal fees should this matter escalate to the court system, I feel that my offer to settle this issue for an additional $1300 ($1000 for a “meet in the middle” settlement + a refund of the $300 which is not disputed) is fair and reasonable.
I sincerely hope that this matter is resolved through the Revdex.com as soon as possible and I appreciate your assistance.Sincerely,[redacted]

Dear Ms. [redacted]: Regarding complaint [redacted], we have reviewed the renter's complaint and have the following response: 1. We returned the deposit on March 5th, well before the 14 day period as prescribed by law 2. Because of the renter's poor penmanship, we mailed to PO Box [redacted] instead of [redacted] 3....

Upon learning of the mishap, a new check was sent 4. When the renter did receive the check he claimed that the bank wouldn't deposit it because it said PO Box [redacted] instead of [redacted]. The VP of [redacted] here in Seattle notes (in his email we previously provided you) that it would be highly unlikely for a bank to deny such a deposit 5. When the Renter said he couldn't deposit, we wired him the funds 6. When proof of his payment of the water bill came through, he was sent yet another check. [redacted], we've complied with the law all along the way and highly recommend he seek the advice of an attorney. The attorney will be able to help the Renter better understand the Washington State landlord Tennant Act to which we have, and always will respect. Please call if I can be of further service.