Zazu Pannee Park Regent LLP

Summary of Event: Our resident Ms. [redacted] requested a non-emergency repair.  Generally such requests are completed within 24 hours.  Unfortunately the request came during Phoenix’s  “biggest storm in 100 years!”  Our maintenance and outside crews were addressing...

emergency issues affecting the entire property and unfortunately this request fell through the crack and was not attended to immediately.  Resolution was also delayed as the resident was unavailable to staff outreach.  Once the initial oversight was discovered a work order was opened and the maintenance issue reported initially was remediated.  The resident’s initial report of mold was incorrect and although the absence of mold is a good thing, the incorrect report by the resident delayed final resolution of the problem. This incorrect report of mold also delayed final resolution particularly as Ms. [redacted] was unavailable to staff directly to better explain her observations.  Resolution of Repair Request: When Ms. [redacted] schedule permitted her to meet with our General Manager and staff and all parties explored the issues in detail we ascertained what the actual problem was (not mold but a problem between the dishwasher and disposal waste lines) and we were immediately able to remediate the problem speedily and successfully. Additionally Follow up Required:Ms. [redacted] schedule has not allowed her to respond to our follow up inquiries.  Through our own independent inspection we’ve evaluated the issue to be fully remediated; the work order was closed and no additional follow up required For additional Detail of the issue and resolution please see the two attached documents.

This is a Tenant-Landlord dispute in which Ms. Phylane [redacted] was allowed very favorable terms releasing her from her contracted lease and rent obligations ($1697).  The release was granted despite Ms. [redacted] being at fault and negligent.  This release did not however allow Ms. [redacted]...

exemption from her responsibility to curing “pet remediation” damages to her unit caused by her dog’s allergens, danders and waste.  Ms. [redacted] has a remaining legitimate debt to the property of $105. Ms. [redacted] was a Tenant at Zazu Pannee Park—a provider of temporary and long term housing accommodations in Central Phoenix.  This is a Tenant/Landlord dispute caused by a number of serious lease violations by the Tenant.  We initiated eviction action against Ms. [redacted] to force her compliance. Ms. [redacted]’s statements are inaccurate and contain significant misinformation:1.     Ms. [redacted] entered into a lease agreement with the property 11/1/2015.  Though Ms. [redacted] did not bring her pet to the Community at her move-in, the Lease included her pet.  All pets must comply with the Community’s Non-Aggressive Behavior Guidelines and pass a “Pet Interview,” based on the AKC’s good behavior guidelines.2.     On 11/12/2015 a Manager observed Ms. [redacted] on property with her dog.  The dog was aggressive to other pets and Ms. [redacted] could not control her dog.  Ms. [redacted] was noticed about these infractions and reminded about the “Pet Interview” requirement.3.     Ms. [redacted]’s response: the dog was exempt from the Community’s Pet Policies and “Pet Interview” as the dog was not a pet, but a service animal.  Ms. [redacted] stated she needn’t pay pet deposits and rent.  The property requested supporting documentation to classify the dog as a service animal.  Ms. [redacted] failed to produce such documents and did schedule a “Pet Interview.  During the interview the dog exhibited aggressive behavior and Ms. [redacted] could not control the dog.  The dog was not approved.4.     Ms. [redacted] enrolled the dog in a professional training class to modify its aggressive behavior.  The Community agreed to re-interview the dog after successful completion of the program.5.     12/03/2016 Ms. [redacted] submitted a doctor’s letter stating this same dog was a service animal.  Ms. [redacted] stated she was exempt from pet rent and the dog needn’t be re-interviewed.  Upon review of the letter by legal counsel the property discontinued Ms. [redacted]’s pet rent charges and did not re-interview the dog.6.     02/28/16 Ms. [redacted] and her service animal were in a Common Area of the property when the service animal aggressively attacked two small dogs.  Ms. [redacted] lost control of her service animal which viciously clamped its jaw on the neck of one of the dogs.  Another resident interceded pulling Ms. [redacted]’s service animal by its hind legs, shaking its grip.  The critically injured dog required emergency and follow up care ($751.73) which Ms. [redacted] covered. 7.     3/04/2016 after thorough investigation of the dog attack the Community notified Ms. [redacted] to permanently remove the dog from the property or the lease would be terminated.8.     3/11/2016 as Ms. [redacted] failed to comply the Community served an “Eviction” notice instructing Ms. [redacted] that she could only remain in the Community if her aggressive service animal was removed.9.     3/17/2016 Ms. [redacted] requested return of her previously paid “Non-Refundable Pet Sanitation Fee” stating that she should not have paid that fee as the dog was reclassified as a service animal and exempt.  The Community’s reply was that the deposits were paid by Ms. [redacted] when she had represented the dog was a pet, not a service animal and regardless of the later reclassification Ms. [redacted] was correctly charged those fees and remained responsible for remediation of any dog related allergens, danders and waste at move out.10.   Ms. [redacted] hired an attorney (though she initially denied that when asked) and requested the property stop the “Eviction Process;” instead allow Ms. [redacted] to break her lease prematurely without penalty; be forgiven her final month’s rent payment ($1697) and receive a refund of the paid “Non-Refundable Pet Sanitation Fee” ($300).11.   Despite Ms. [redacted] negligence the Community consented to Ms. [redacted]’s demands but didn’t release Ms. [redacted] from responsibility for remediation of dog allergens, danders and waste to the unit.  Regardless of the pet’s status those costs remained Ms. [redacted]’s responsibility. No other charges were assessed to Ms. [redacted]’s account. 12.   Ms. [redacted] attended a walk through and was advised it was preliminary, conditional to our receipt of remediation costs from the outside vendor.  Arizona Laws allows us up to 14 days after move out for the Community to assess costs and apply/return deposits. There is no requirement that a Resident be present for outside vendor work or assessments during those 14 days.13.   Ms. [redacted] was assessed the direct vendor billed costs for remediation ($363).  Her deposit account was insufficient to cover those costs plus an additional past due, delinquent amount ($37).  In summary, Ms. [redacted] was allowed considerable consideration, financial and otherwise.  Ms. [redacted]’s legitimate debt to the property of $105 is unpaid and will be sent to collections. Sincerely,Eric H[redacted]General Manager

This is a Tenant-Landlord dispute in which Ms. Phylane [redacted] was allowed very favorable terms releasing her from her contracted lease and rent obligations ($1697).  The release was granted despite Ms. [redacted] being at fault and negligent.  This release did not however allow Ms. [redacted]...

exemption from her responsibility to curing “pet remediation” damages to her unit caused by her dog’s allergens, danders and waste.  Ms. [redacted] has a remaining legitimate debt to the property of $105. Ms. [redacted] was a Tenant at Zazu Pannee Park—a provider of temporary and long term housing accommodations in Central Phoenix.  This is a Tenant/Landlord dispute caused by a number of serious lease violations by the Tenant.  We initiated eviction action against Ms. [redacted] to force her compliance. Ms. [redacted]’s statements are inaccurate and contain significant misinformation:1.     Ms. [redacted] entered into a lease agreement with the property 11/1/2015.  Though Ms. [redacted] did not bring her pet to the Community at her move-in, the Lease included her pet.  All pets must comply with the Community’s Non-Aggressive Behavior Guidelines and pass a “Pet Interview,” based on the AKC’s good behavior guidelines.2.     On 11/12/2015 a Manager observed Ms. [redacted] on property with her dog.  The dog was aggressive to other pets and Ms. [redacted] could not control her dog.  Ms. [redacted] was noticed about these infractions and reminded about the “Pet Interview” requirement.3.     Ms. [redacted]’s response: the dog was exempt from the Community’s Pet Policies and “Pet Interview” as the dog was not a pet, but a service animal.  Ms. [redacted] stated she needn’t pay pet deposits and rent.  The property requested supporting documentation to classify the dog as a service animal.  Ms. [redacted] failed to produce such documents and did schedule a “Pet Interview.  During the interview the dog exhibited aggressive behavior and Ms. [redacted] could not control the dog.  The dog was not approved.4.     Ms. [redacted] enrolled the dog in a professional training class to modify its aggressive behavior.  The Community agreed to re-interview the dog after successful completion of the program.5.     12/03/2016 Ms. [redacted] submitted a doctor’s letter stating this same dog was a service animal.  Ms. [redacted] stated she was exempt from pet rent and the dog needn’t be re-interviewed.  Upon review of the letter by legal counsel the property discontinued Ms. [redacted]’s pet rent charges and did not re-interview the dog.6.     02/28/16 Ms. [redacted] and her service animal were in a Common Area of the property when the service animal aggressively attacked two small dogs.  Ms. [redacted] lost control of her service animal which viciously clamped its jaw on the neck of one of the dogs.  Another resident interceded pulling Ms. [redacted]’s service animal by its hind legs, shaking its grip.  The critically injured dog required emergency and follow up care ($751.73) which Ms. [redacted] covered. 7.     3/04/2016 after thorough investigation of the dog attack the Community notified Ms. [redacted] to permanently remove the dog from the property or the lease would be terminated.8.     3/11/2016 as Ms. [redacted] failed to comply the Community served an “Eviction” notice instructing Ms. [redacted] that she could only remain in the Community if her aggressive service animal was removed.9.     3/17/2016 Ms. [redacted] requested return of her previously paid “Non-Refundable Pet Sanitation Fee” stating that she should not have paid that fee as the dog was reclassified as a service animal and exempt.  The Community’s reply was that the deposits were paid by Ms. [redacted] when she had represented the dog was a pet, not a service animal and regardless of the later reclassification Ms. [redacted] was correctly charged those fees and remained responsible for remediation of any dog related allergens, danders and waste at move out.10.   Ms. [redacted] hired an attorney (though she initially denied that when asked) and requested the property stop the “Eviction Process;” instead allow Ms. [redacted] to break her lease prematurely without penalty; be forgiven her final month’s rent payment ($1697) and receive a refund of the paid “Non-Refundable Pet Sanitation Fee” ($300).11.   Despite Ms. [redacted] negligence the Community consented to Ms. [redacted]’s demands but didn’t release Ms. [redacted] from responsibility for remediation of dog allergens, danders and waste to the unit.  Regardless of the pet’s status those costs remained Ms. [redacted]’s responsibility. No other charges were assessed to Ms. [redacted]’s account. 12.   Ms. [redacted] attended a walk through and was advised it was preliminary, conditional to our receipt of remediation costs from the outside vendor.  Arizona Laws allows us up to 14 days after move out for the Community to assess costs and apply/return deposits. There is no requirement that a Resident be present for outside vendor work or assessments during those 14 days.13.   Ms. [redacted] was assessed the direct vendor billed costs for remediation ($363).  Her deposit account was insufficient to cover those costs plus an additional past due, delinquent amount ($37).  In summary, Ms. [redacted] was allowed considerable consideration, financial and otherwise.  Ms. [redacted]’s legitimate debt to the property of $105 is unpaid and will be sent to collections. Sincerely,Eric H[redacted]General Manager

My stay at zazu was undesirable. My intent with this review is to give people a snap shot of my zazu experience. As a pet friendly apartment complex, I was overwhelmed with the stench of animal droppings that laid around the property. The grounds are decent enough but the smell is horrendous. I also will note the disposition of the owner of the complex who works in the front office. I read other reviews that mentioned he has a temper and from first hand experience I can verify this too. It is sad to see a business owner behaveas churlish and as mean as this one has with not just me but with other patrons as well.

Summary of Event: Our resident Ms. [redacted] requested a non-emergency repair.  Generally such requests are completed within 24 hours.  Unfortunately the request came during Phoenix’s  “biggest storm in 100 years!”  Our maintenance and outside crews were addressing...

emergency issues affecting the entire property and unfortunately this request fell through the crack and was not attended to immediately.  Resolution was also delayed as the resident was unavailable to staff outreach.  Once the initial oversight was discovered a work order was opened and the maintenance issue reported initially was remediated.  The resident’s initial report of mold was incorrect and although the absence of mold is a good thing, the incorrect report by the resident delayed final resolution of the problem. This incorrect report of mold also delayed final resolution particularly as Ms. [redacted] was unavailable to staff directly to better explain her observations.  Resolution of Repair Request: When Ms. [redacted] schedule permitted her to meet with our General Manager and staff and all parties explored the issues in detail we ascertained what the actual problem was (not mold but a problem between the dishwasher and disposal waste lines) and we were immediately able to remediate the problem speedily and successfully. Additionally Follow up Required:Ms. [redacted] schedule has not allowed her to respond to our follow up inquiries.  Through our own independent inspection we’ve evaluated the issue to be fully remediated; the work order was closed and no additional follow up required For additional Detail of the issue and resolution please see the two attached documents.