D M S Roofing

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/07/01) */
The complainant has been a resident of this project since January 9, Management was first made aware of a problem with the dishwasher when he informed the new Manager in September while attending a monthly resident functionThe
complainant reported that the dishwasher was leaking and was not getting the dishes clean and a service request was generated on 09/25/Maintenance checked the appliance, trouble shooting and running the machine through several cycles to determine if a problem could be foundThere were no leaks found and the machine tested positively with no problems
A second verbal request was reported on November 12, and another service request generatedThe maintenance tech had permission to enter if the resident was not home and entered the unit to make the repairAfter running a series of trouble shooting tests, there was still no problem with the appliance that the tech found however, he did replace the cycle timer to play it safe as the complainant reported a problem with the knob
The General Manager, who is providing response on this matter, does not recollect speaking to the complainant in December as he indicatedThere is no record of such a call on a voice mail log or communication log maintained by the General Manager when calls are received; nor does the Manager or the Maintenance Tech recall the General Manager contacting them in December regarding the complaintSince November when the cycle timer was replaced, there have been no other reported problems with the dishwasher from the complainant until recentlyA new complaint was received a day prior to receiving the notification of complaint from the Revdex.comThis newest complaint was received in writing from the complainant dated 06/26/and received 06/27/stating that the dishwasher has not worked correctly since 01/10/(error with date based on move in) despite verbal requestsManagement has generated a new service request with plans to replace the dishwasher with a new one even though there is no evidence that the dishwasher is not functioning properly (for the resident's piece of mind)
It should also be noted that the current Manager transferred to this project on September 16, and she is the one who received the two verbal requests for service from the complainant regarding the dishwasher as indicated aboveThe previous Manager who was managing the project when the complainant moved in until the time she transferred to another project in September had not previously been contacted by the complainant, verbally or in writing and did not have knowledge that the appliance was not in working conditionSpecifically, this Manager states the complainant did not report anything or have any complaints during the time she was on-site
With regards to the rent increase the complainant referenced, Willows at Wells is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit property that is monitored by the Nevada Housing Division on behalf of the Internal Revenue ServiceThe rents charged at The Willows at Wells are based on income limits that are determined by HUD (Housing and Urban Development) annuallyThe maximum rent includes an allowance for utilities paid by the residentFor example, the MAX Rent at Willows at Wells for a Tax Credit 50% one bedroom apartment (the apartment set aside the complainant resides in) is $When the utility allowance is subtracted from that amount, in this case $56.00, the tenant paid rent would be $The rent increase at the Willows of Wells came about because of a decrease in the utility allowance, a net increase of $which is a 2% increase in tenant rent, but still paying a maximum of $(per this example) for rent and utilities(Rent $plus $for utilities = $670.00)
In this case however, the complainant had been given a reduced rent at the time he leased the apartment and was advised by the previous manager that his rent would in fact increase at the expiration of his lease as detailed in his Lease AgreementDue to a change in management the rental increase did not take effect until August 1, The complainant's rent is being raised to the maximum designated amount every other resident is paying or will be paying at the expiration of their individual leases
The complainant did not report the malfunctioning of the dishwasher in writing as per the requirement of his Lease Agreement, however he did report the matter verbally two times and each time the request was responded to in a timely manner and although no problem could be found, a part was replaced and the matter was not reported again by the complainant, verbal or otherwiseAs the complainant was already receiving the benefit of having a reduced rental rate of $a month, and as Management and Maintenance acted in a cooperative manner, the desired resolution the complainant has requested will not be considered at this time
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2016/07/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
All paragraphs are a lieI won't try to decipher each lie as I am above thatI would like to point out that if this dishwasher did or does work properly, why I am still complainingDoes that make sense? I would be the most happiest person in Washoe County if this dishwasher worked but the dial still sticks in different spots so I have to sit in front of each load to manually move the dial
I have gave the apartment complex a new letter of non-compliance dated 7/1/in accordance to RS 118Agiving them days to fix this problemOtherwise I will contract it out to be fixed & then deduct the expense off my 8/rentI am thru playing games with these peopleI am also filing a complaint with HUD over their lack of maintenanceLast but not least, why would I keep complaining & wasting my time if this dishwasher was fixed? I don't think soI have better things to do than to keep wasting my time with a bunch of liars
Final Business Response /* (1000, 18, 2016/08/09) */
Management received second letter from Revdex.com dated July 22, received July 28, that the complainant was NOT satisfied with the initial response and as Management had not provided an additional response, the case is now closed as an UNRESOLVED complaint
Management contacted Revdex.com that there was no record of receipt of a letter on or around July 5, of complainant's rebuttal as indicated and therefore was not offered an opportunity to respond to said rebuttalThe Revdex.com reopened the case to provide adequate time for Management to provide final comments
In response to complainant's rebuttal, the initial response provided was an accurate accounting to the best of Management's recollection as well as based on the documentation on handOnly two verbal and one written requests for complainants dishwasher were receivedFrom the initial request, no problem could be detected and the appliance appeared to be working correctly; For the second request, the cycle timer dial was replaced although there still was no problem detected with the appliance; the third and final request which was provided in writing, although there was still no problem with the appliance found, the dishwasher was replaced for Resident's peace of mind on July 12, On July 14, 2016, the on-site Manager verified with complainant that the new dishwasher was working to his satisfaction which the complainant confirmed that it was and that he was very happyComplainant also confirmed what his new rent would be effective August 1, No other complaints have been received and the matter appears to be resolved satisfactorily
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 20, 2016/08/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I do accept the response but I am still unhappy with the waiting of years to fix this problem & the out & out lies that management says