Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint Foothills Property maintains that rent was paid for the unit as a wholeHowever, each individual was responsible for paying rent separately (please see the check stubs)The sub-lease agreement stated that a late charge of $would be assessed for paying the rent lateLate rent charges would be assessed to me individually, if the unit was rented as a whole then wouldn’t late rent charges be assessed to all the tenants? On the security deposit charge form, Foothills calculated a charge of for lost rent [redacted] explained that this was because one of the roommates paid their rent lateIf this figure was split evenly then that totals $not the $listed in the agreement for late rentThe individual who paid late should have been charged just as I would have been charged $25, individually if I failed to pay my rent by the 5th of the monthIn an email with ***, she stated “the lease for [redacted] is the same one you are on at [redacted] (my current apartment)However, unlike at [redacted] where each tenant paid rent separately, at [redacted] my roommate pays rent for the apartment and I reimburse her my portionThat is a fundamentally different arrangement and Foothills understands that However, they choose to interpret the lease agreements in whatever way is most convenient to the company The lease agreement also stated that the sub-leasor ( [redacted] **) was not relieved of damages to the property yet when I informed Foothills that the carpet was stained before I took over the lease I was told “unfortunately you refunded Mr [redacted] security deposit prematurely.” Perhaps I did, but that was not always the caseSeveral days after I moved into my apartment, there was an issue with the toilet in my bedroomWhen the plumber (***) fixed the toilet, he said that the damage was done prior to my moving inFoothills later sent a bill to the apartment in which the charges for the toilet damage were assessed to [redacted] (the individual from whom I subleased the apartment)This was the fair thing to do because that damage, like the carpet damage, was “pre-existing” and since that was his own bathroom the other roommates should not be charged for the damageHowever, for the security deposit, Foothills claims that all damages are split equally because it rents the unit as a wholeIt would have been very simple for the company to charge individuals for damage to the individual room (like they did with [redacted] **) and split damages for the common areasHowever, I believe this practice is done, in part, to mask how excessive the charges are by splitting them in four (for example cleaning [redacted] = $and work orders *= $366) One of the other charges listed on the security deposit form was for blinds [redacted] later stated in an email that I should be refunded for that charge (which I have yet to receive)However, that makes me question the legitimacy of several other charges listed, another being cleaning chargesAs I previously told ***, I believe that the charges were excessive at best and fictitious at worstIt is unfair to renters, specifically those of us who make an effort to keep the property in good condition, when property managers are egregious in their assessment of damagesI understand that property owners and managers have an interest in maintaining their properties; however it should not be done by cheating the tenantI believe this is what Foothills Property is doing and will continue to do unless they are forced to reform their practices.Attached are the email correspondence between myself, my roommate and Foothills properties Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. Foothills Property has continued to regurgitate their
written policy without responding to the arbitrariness with which this policy
is carried out. In my previous correspondence, I provided specific examples of
how Foothills will charge individuals or the entire group of renters based on
what is convenient for their company.
Based on my own inspection of the apartment prior to moving
out and correspondence with my previous roommates, I believe that the apartment
was, in fact, cleaned and all the charges assessed, besides damage to the
kitchen countertop, were grossly exaggerated (if not downright
fictitious).
A simple google search of Foothills Property will provide
further evidence of Foothills Property’s dishonest dealing when it comes to
renters.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. Foothills Property maintains that rent was paid for the unit
as a whole. However, each individual was responsible for paying rent separately
(please see the check stubs). The sub-lease agreement stated that a late charge
of $25 would be assessed for paying the rent late. Late rent charges would be
assessed to me individually, if the unit was rented as a whole then wouldn’t
late rent charges be assessed to all the tenants? On the security deposit
charge form, Foothills calculated a charge of 13.75 for lost rent. [redacted] explained that this was because one of the roommates paid their rent
late. If this figure was split evenly then that totals $55 not the $25 listed
in the agreement for late rent. The
individual who paid late should have been charged just as I would have been
charged $25, individually if I failed to pay my rent by the 5th of
the month. In an email with [redacted], she stated “the lease for [redacted] is
the same one you are on at [redacted] (my current apartment). However,
unlike at [redacted] where each tenant paid rent separately, at [redacted] my roommate pays rent for the apartment and I reimburse her my portion. That
is a fundamentally different arrangement and Foothills understands that.
However, they choose to interpret the lease agreements in whatever way is most
convenient to the company.
The lease agreement also stated that the sub-leasor ([redacted])
was not relieved of damages to the property yet when I informed Foothills that
the carpet was stained before I took over the lease I was told “unfortunately
you refunded Mr. [redacted] security deposit prematurely.” Perhaps I did, but that
was not always the case. Several days after I moved into my apartment, there
was an issue with the toilet in my bedroom. When the plumber ([redacted]) fixed the
toilet, he said that the damage was done prior to my moving in. Foothills later
sent a bill to the apartment in which the charges for the toilet damage were
assessed to [redacted] (the individual from whom I subleased the apartment). This was the fair thing to do because that
damage, like the carpet damage, was “pre-existing” and since that was his own
bathroom the other roommates should not be charged for the damage. However, for
the security deposit, Foothills claims that all damages are split equally
because it rents the unit as a whole. It would have been very simple for the
company to charge individuals for damage to the individual room (like they did
with [redacted]) and split damages for the common areas. However, I believe this
practice is done, in part, to mask how excessive the charges are by splitting
them in four (for example cleaning 71.25 * 4 = $285 and work orders 91.5 *4 =
$366).
One of the other charges listed on the security
deposit form was for blinds. [redacted] later stated in an email that I
should be refunded for that charge (which I have yet to receive). However, that
makes me question the legitimacy of several other charges listed, another being cleaning charges. As I
previously told [redacted], I believe that the charges were excessive at best and
fictitious at worst. It is unfair to renters, specifically those of us who make
an effort to keep the property in good condition, when property managers are
egregious in their assessment of damages. I understand that property owners and managers
have an interest in maintaining their properties; however it should not be done
by cheating the tenant. I believe this is what Foothills Property is doing and will continue
to do unless they are forced to reform their practices.Attached are the email correspondence between myself, my roommate and Foothills properties.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint Foothills Property maintains that rent was paid for the unit as a wholeHowever, each individual was responsible for paying rent separately (please see the check stubs)The sub-lease agreement stated that a late charge of $would be assessed for paying the rent lateLate rent charges would be assessed to me individually, if the unit was rented as a whole then wouldn’t late rent charges be assessed to all the tenants? On the security deposit charge form, Foothills calculated a charge of for lost rent [redacted] explained that this was because one of the roommates paid their rent lateIf this figure was split evenly then that totals $not the $listed in the agreement for late rentThe individual who paid late should have been charged just as I would have been charged $25, individually if I failed to pay my rent by the 5th of the monthIn an email with ***, she stated “the lease for [redacted] is the same one you are on at [redacted] (my current apartment)However, unlike at [redacted] where each tenant paid rent separately, at [redacted] my roommate pays rent for the apartment and I reimburse her my portionThat is a fundamentally different arrangement and Foothills understands that However, they choose to interpret the lease agreements in whatever way is most convenient to the company The lease agreement also stated that the sub-leasor ( [redacted] **) was not relieved of damages to the property yet when I informed Foothills that the carpet was stained before I took over the lease I was told “unfortunately you refunded Mr [redacted] security deposit prematurely.” Perhaps I did, but that was not always the caseSeveral days after I moved into my apartment, there was an issue with the toilet in my bedroomWhen the plumber (***) fixed the toilet, he said that the damage was done prior to my moving inFoothills later sent a bill to the apartment in which the charges for the toilet damage were assessed to [redacted] (the individual from whom I subleased the apartment)This was the fair thing to do because that damage, like the carpet damage, was “pre-existing” and since that was his own bathroom the other roommates should not be charged for the damageHowever, for the security deposit, Foothills claims that all damages are split equally because it rents the unit as a wholeIt would have been very simple for the company to charge individuals for damage to the individual room (like they did with [redacted] **) and split damages for the common areasHowever, I believe this practice is done, in part, to mask how excessive the charges are by splitting them in four (for example cleaning [redacted] = $and work orders *= $366) One of the other charges listed on the security deposit form was for blinds [redacted] later stated in an email that I should be refunded for that charge (which I have yet to receive)However, that makes me question the legitimacy of several other charges listed, another being cleaning chargesAs I previously told ***, I believe that the charges were excessive at best and fictitious at worstIt is unfair to renters, specifically those of us who make an effort to keep the property in good condition, when property managers are egregious in their assessment of damagesI understand that property owners and managers have an interest in maintaining their properties; however it should not be done by cheating the tenantI believe this is what Foothills Property is doing and will continue to do unless they are forced to reform their practices.Attached are the email correspondence between myself, my roommate and Foothills properties Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. Foothills Property has continued to regurgitate their
written policy without responding to the arbitrariness with which this policy
is carried out. In my previous correspondence, I provided specific examples of
how Foothills will charge individuals or the entire group of renters based on
what is convenient for their company.
Based on my own inspection of the apartment prior to moving
out and correspondence with my previous roommates, I believe that the apartment
was, in fact, cleaned and all the charges assessed, besides damage to the
kitchen countertop, were grossly exaggerated (if not downright
fictitious).
A simple google search of Foothills Property will provide
further evidence of Foothills Property’s dishonest dealing when it comes to
renters.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. Foothills Property maintains that rent was paid for the unit
as a whole. However, each individual was responsible for paying rent separately
(please see the check stubs). The sub-lease agreement stated that a late charge
of $25 would be assessed for paying the rent late. Late rent charges would be
assessed to me individually, if the unit was rented as a whole then wouldn’t
late rent charges be assessed to all the tenants? On the security deposit
charge form, Foothills calculated a charge of 13.75 for lost rent. [redacted] explained that this was because one of the roommates paid their rent
late. If this figure was split evenly then that totals $55 not the $25 listed
in the agreement for late rent. The
individual who paid late should have been charged just as I would have been
charged $25, individually if I failed to pay my rent by the 5th of
the month. In an email with [redacted], she stated “the lease for [redacted] is
the same one you are on at [redacted] (my current apartment). However,
unlike at [redacted] where each tenant paid rent separately, at [redacted] my roommate pays rent for the apartment and I reimburse her my portion. That
is a fundamentally different arrangement and Foothills understands that.
However, they choose to interpret the lease agreements in whatever way is most
convenient to the company.
The lease agreement also stated that the sub-leasor ([redacted])
was not relieved of damages to the property yet when I informed Foothills that
the carpet was stained before I took over the lease I was told “unfortunately
you refunded Mr. [redacted] security deposit prematurely.” Perhaps I did, but that
was not always the case. Several days after I moved into my apartment, there
was an issue with the toilet in my bedroom. When the plumber ([redacted]) fixed the
toilet, he said that the damage was done prior to my moving in. Foothills later
sent a bill to the apartment in which the charges for the toilet damage were
assessed to [redacted] (the individual from whom I subleased the apartment). This was the fair thing to do because that
damage, like the carpet damage, was “pre-existing” and since that was his own
bathroom the other roommates should not be charged for the damage. However, for
the security deposit, Foothills claims that all damages are split equally
because it rents the unit as a whole. It would have been very simple for the
company to charge individuals for damage to the individual room (like they did
with [redacted]) and split damages for the common areas. However, I believe this
practice is done, in part, to mask how excessive the charges are by splitting
them in four (for example cleaning 71.25 * 4 = $285 and work orders 91.5 *4 =
$366).
One of the other charges listed on the security
deposit form was for blinds. [redacted] later stated in an email that I
should be refunded for that charge (which I have yet to receive). However, that
makes me question the legitimacy of several other charges listed, another being cleaning charges. As I
previously told [redacted], I believe that the charges were excessive at best and
fictitious at worst. It is unfair to renters, specifically those of us who make
an effort to keep the property in good condition, when property managers are
egregious in their assessment of damages. I understand that property owners and managers
have an interest in maintaining their properties; however it should not be done
by cheating the tenant. I believe this is what Foothills Property is doing and will continue
to do unless they are forced to reform their practices.Attached are the email correspondence between myself, my roommate and Foothills properties.
Regards,
[redacted]