Kansas State Bank

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: A message was left for Jenni Nvis voice mail on said date, when we received no call back we did contact Revdex.comAfter filing our complaint we noticed an e-mail from Christi trying to explain the chargesWhen we spoke to Jenni in July in regards to breaking our lease due to medical circumstances, we were not told immed about the cost to break the lease only advised about incentive options to future residents in regards to the home being re-rented, it wasnt until offers came in that we learned about the $to re-rent the home in breaking the lease fees, shampooing if carpets at $to 114, and possibly the cost of cleaning cost if we did not clean the homeWe advised Jenni we would clean the house, which we did, every floorboard, every cupboard and shelves, closets and shelves, window sills and paper blinds, front and back patios swept, swept out garage, vacuumed all carpets, cleaned all bthrms, pantry, light fixtures, and left refrigerator spotlessYet we were charged $for housecleaning we did but due to the pics Christi sent saying we did not pull out the stove and refrigerator and cleaned behind or in between appliance and wall/counter.Not once were we told we needed to pull out appliances (risk damaging them) and clean behind them and in between appliance and counterIn the same we were not explained to either on the phone when we spoke to Christi about some weeds still being there but were very small and all the rain while moving was making it hardChristi's response was it was okay as long as they were not outrageous or up to our knees they were fine, end of callChristi did not indicate or mention during call that yard, weeds needed to be maintained while the home was vacant until 18th new tenants moving in, we would have had someone from our church handle it for us, but instead we were billed $for weeds and roundup sprayedNot once were we told we needed to keep utilities on and in our name until new tenants moved in so we were charged another $for someone to turn on the AC yet the utility company states they were only billed $13.00, plus on top of the $billed by Steinborn as the the re-lease fee- broke lease we were billed an additional outstanding amount of $111.42, which makes no sense since we paid prorated rent until the Aug18thIn the $invoice billed to us not only were we charged for the AC to be turned on, but the water heater, the retouch paint (which Jenni Ntold us was the landlords responsibility upon a tenant moving out), but to have light switches checked (??), and the cost of filter which were left there prior to my family and I and was advised to wash and reuse while we lived in the home.All these charges seem and very misleading to us as to what our responsibilities were and what we did per lease and contact there at SteinbornPer last conversation with Christi via e-mail she was going to discuss things Derek G on 09/09/and get back to us regarding these invoices but as of today 09/no word Regards, [redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Steinborn Property Management manages about single family homes and about apartment unitsWhen a tenant gives their day notice to move out of a single family home, Steinborn will begin advertising that propertyTo be able to show the house, we require that the person wanting to see the house bring in a driver’s license or similar government issued picture ID, and we will make a copyOnce we have that ID, we will try to set up an appointment with the tenant (who is moving out, but still in the property) to gain access to show the propertyWe generally do not show a house unless that tenant agrees to let us in to show itOn renting the property, Steinborn’s policy is that the first applicant to submit a complete application AND submit a deposit, will have first priority to rent that houseIf the applicant submits a deposit, the deposit is fully refundable, as long as Steinborn keeps advertising the property for rentOnce the applicant has had their application approved, and says that they definitely want the [property, Steinborn will stop advertising the house and that applicant’s deposit In the case of the complainant, she did submit an application on 11/22/17, and the application was reviewed and approvedHowever, she did not submit a deposit, even though she was advised of Steinborn’s policy, and that if another applicant provided an application and deposit, that they would have first priority to rent that houseThe complainant stated she wanted to see the house first, before she put down a depositSteinborn tried on multiple occasions to gain concurrence from the tenant occupying the property to schedule an appointment, but that tenant would not respondOn 11/30/a different APPLICANT (not the complainant) submitted an application and a depositThat applicant’s application was also reviewed and approvedWhen asked about the property, that applicant stated that she would take the property sight unseenAs a result, the complainant was not able to rent the property that she wanted to

Dear Revdex.com:Final Resolution/Response to RevDex.com Complaint-*** *** ***
The Business, Steinborn Property Management and Consumer, Mr***,
worked together to amicably resolve the matter.
All previous, outstanding issues between the two parties are now
satisfactorily resolvedSincerely, John LH***

HelloWe apparently did not receive your first email We apologize for any delay in responding.WE have attached a letter to Revdex.com of the Southwest outlining Steinborn's response and attached a file of emails and related documents as support information which is referenced in this letter.Please
contact us if you have questions or require additional information. February 8, Revdex.com of the Southwest Jefferson Street NE Suite A Albuquerque, NM Dear Sir or Madam: In response to the complaint submitted by Ms***, please note the following; CHRONOLOGICAL FACTS: On October 24, 2015, Steinborn notified the Ms*** that the tenant in her house had reported hail damage to the skylight and backyard canopySteinborn sent a contractor to effect a temporary fix On October 26, Steinborn sent a work order to one of the roofing companies (*** ***) that Steinborn uses for roof workOn November 10, an estimate was received for the roof work and was forwarded to the ownerThe owner responded back that she requested more than one quote(NOTE: Our email correspondence DOES NOT show this request until November response to the estimate sent to Ms***)On November 10, Steinborn requested a second estimate from a different roofing contractor (*** ***)On November 16, Ms*** advised that she had contacted her insurance companyIn her email she states that "They are going to have a local adjuster inspect the propertyWhen the adjuster contacts me (Ms***) I will refer him to you for access..." On November 21, the tenant called Steinborn and advised that someone was on the roof with no noticeAccording to the tenant, the company was *** *** ***, and had been sent to the house directly by the property owner (Ms***) with no notice to Steinborn or the tenantOn November 21, the insurance adjuster had contacted Steinborn to set up an appointment and Steinborn coordinated that with the tenantSteinborn followed up with the tenant on November to coordinate a revised timeOn December 14, Ms*** asked for quotes for the roof and quotes for interior repairs as she indicated that there was interior damageOn December 21, Steinborn requested a third estimate for roof repairs from *** *** ***On December 23, *** *** provided a detailed estimate, and that same day, Steinborn forwarded this estimate to the ownerDISCUSSION: Steinborn requested separate roofing companies look at the roof and provide estimatesOnly of the roofing companies provided estimates and both of those were forwarded to Ms*** on the same Day they were receivedMs*** apparently sent a separate contractor to the house, without discussing with Steinborn or without advising Steinborn or the tenant that this was occurringTherefore it would seem that Ms*** actually has the estimates she was initially seeking for roof repairs, provided by contractors sent by Steinborn, and from a contractor chosen by herSteinborn only uses a limited number of contractors, as Steinborn believes that they provide (to the best of our knowledge) good service and good quality workmanshipMs*** seems to believe that there should be multiple estimates for repair of the roof sand replacement of the roofSteinborn, as a matter of policy typically only seeks estimates for any given set of workThe contractors we use are aware that we are not going to be seeking multiple estimates, and so typically give Steinborn a better price that normally would be offered to the general publicSteinborn staff are not roofing contractors and we do not instruct or direct the roofing contractor preparing the estimate as to what action may be technically appropriate for any given projectThe roofing contractor, as the licensed professional, needs to make that assessment based on their inspection of the roofTo date, Ms*** HAS NOT provided Steinborn with a copy of the insurance adjusters' report, so we have no basis to look at what any roofing contractor may propose and compare it against what the insurance adjuster believes needs to be done on her roofWithout this information, we have nothing to go on in discussing any proposal with any roofing contractorSteinborn as a matter of policy, does not follow up with interior estimates until the roof work is completed and there is no chance of further interior damageCONCLUSION/OFFER FOR SETTLEMENT: Steinborn believes it has acted in good faith and has met the requirements for management of Ms***'s propertyWe have attempted to obtain estimates for roof repairs, and have forwarded the estimates received(Unfortunately we cannot guarantee that a contractor will provide us a response to a request for an estimate.) Ms*** has apparently (on her own initiative in late October) obtained an estimate from a roofing contractor, and has never acknowledged that she received this or provided it to SteinbornMs*** has not provided us with any information from the insurance adjuster, so it significantly limits our ability to make an informed decision as to how to proceed when seeking [possible contractors for the work that needs to be completedSince Ms*** believes we have not net her expectations, to resolve this issue, we would be willing to agree to refund management fees for November, December, January, and FebruaryAdditionally, so that Ms*** can seek to have the estimates and repairs completed by a contractor of her choosing, Steinborn will terminate the management agreement effective immediatelyBy this action, Ms*** can manage the property herself or seek another management companyEither she, or the alternate management company can assess the needed work and make the necessary arrangements to have it completedWe appreciate your bringing this issue forward to our attention, and look forward to a prompt and mutually satisfactory resolutionSincerely, Jim E*** Director of Property Management D

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: They DID NOT state that the deposit was refunded, they Stated that the deposit was non refundableThat is why I did not want to rent a house unseen, it’s not Realistic to rent a house unseenI feels it’s completely unfair to have not been contacted regarding someone wanting to rent it knowing I put an application in (approved application) and was waiting to look at the houseI feel that everyone that works at that office needs to know all the policy and procedures plus give a written statement to all applicants not give verbally
Regards,
*** ***
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: A message was left for Jenni N. vis voice mail on said date, when we received no call back we did contact Revdex.com. After filing our complaint we noticed an e-mail from Christi trying to explain the charges. When we spoke to Jenni in July in regards to breaking our lease due to medical circumstances, we were not told immed about the cost to break the lease only advised about incentive options to future residents in regards to the home being re-rented, it wasnt until offers came in that we learned about the $300.00 to re-rent the home in breaking the lease fees, shampooing if carpets at $112 to 114, and possibly the cost of cleaning cost if we did not clean the home. We advised Jenni we would clean the house, which we did, every floorboard, every cupboard and shelves, closets and shelves, window sills and paper blinds, front and back patios swept, swept out garage, vacuumed all carpets, cleaned all bthrms, pantry, light fixtures, and left refrigerator spotless. Yet we were charged  $134.45 for housecleaning we did but due to the pics Christi sent saying we did not pull out the stove and refrigerator and cleaned behind or in between appliance and wall/counter.Not once were we told we needed to pull out appliances (risk damaging them) and clean behind them and in between appliance and counter. In the same we were not explained to either on the phone when we spoke to Christi about some weeds still being there but were very small and all the rain while moving was making it hard. Christi's response was it was okay as long as they were not outrageous or up to our knees they were fine, end of call. Christi did not indicate or mention during call that yard, weeds needed to be maintained while the home was vacant until 18th new tenants moving in, we would have had someone from our church handle it for us, but instead we were billed $81.23 for weeds and roundup sprayed. Not once were we told we needed to keep utilities on and in our name until new tenants moved in so we were charged another $144.02 for someone to turn on the AC yet the utility company states they were only billed $13.00, plus on top of the $324.94 billed by Steinborn as the the re-lease fee- broke lease we were billed an additional outstanding amount of $111.42, which makes no sense since we paid prorated rent until the Aug. 18th. In the $144.02 invoice billed to us not only were we charged for the AC to be turned on, but the water heater, the retouch paint  (which Jenni N. told us was the landlords responsibility upon a tenant moving out), but to have light switches checked (??), and the cost of filter which were left there prior to my family and I and was advised to wash and reuse while we lived in the home.All these charges seem false and very misleading to us as to what our responsibilities were and what we did per lease and contact there at Steinborn. Per last conversation with Christi via e-mail she was going to discuss things Derek G on 09/09/15 and get back to us regarding these invoices but as of today 09/21 no word.
Regards,
[redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Steinborn Property Management manages about 500 single family homes and about 600 apartment units. When a tenant gives their 30 day notice to move out of a single family home, Steinborn will begin advertising that property. To be able to show the house, we require that the person wanting to see...

the house bring in a driver’s license or similar government issued picture ID, and we will make a copy. Once we have that ID, we will try to set up an appointment with the tenant (who is moving out, but still in the property) to gain access to show the property. We generally do not show a house unless that tenant agrees to let us in to show it. On renting the property, Steinborn’s policy is that the first applicant to submit a complete application AND submit a deposit, will have first priority to rent that house. If the applicant submits a deposit, the deposit is fully refundable, as long as Steinborn keeps advertising the property for rent. Once the applicant has had their application approved, and says that they definitely want the [property, Steinborn will stop advertising the house and that applicant’s deposit In the case of the complainant, she did submit an application on 11/22/17, and the application was reviewed and approved. However, she did not submit a deposit, even though she was advised of Steinborn’s policy, and that if another applicant provided an application and deposit, that they would have first priority to rent that house. The complainant stated she wanted to see the house first, before she put down a deposit. Steinborn tried on multiple occasions to gain concurrence from the tenant occupying the property to schedule an appointment, but that tenant would not respond. On 11/30/17 a different APPLICANT (not the complainant) submitted an application and a deposit. That applicant’s application was also reviewed and approved. When asked about the property, that applicant stated that she would take the property sight unseen. As a result, the complainant was not able to rent the property that she wanted to.

Dear Revdex.com,The following is our response to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint:Facts:
The tenant moved in to the property in mid-April 2014.  On
July 31, 2015, the tenant was on a month to month lease, and gave thirty (30)
day notice that he was moving out.  The notice...

stated  “ I will
be moved out by the end of August.”  The tenant turned in the keys
on August 14, 2015. 
Law:
As found in the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act 
(47-8-1 to 52 NMSA 1978 as amended)
47-8-37  Notice of Termination and damages:  Section
B; The owner or the resident may terminate a month-to-month residency by a
written notice given to the other at least thirty days prior to the
periodic rental date specified in the notice.  (emphasis
added)
47-8-37 Deposits: Section C. …the owner shall provide the
resident with an itemized written list of the deductions from the deposit and
the balance of the deposit, if any, within thirty days of the date of
termination of the rental agreement or resident departure, whichever is
later.  (emphasis added)
Analysis:
The tenant gave notice on July 31 and also paid a full month of
rent for August. His handwritten move out notice stated he would be out 
“by the end of August.”   Obviously,  any current claim to the
contrary, the tenant was well aware of his obligations under the provisions of
his lease, and state law. 
Conclusion:
If there is any legitimacy to this claim (which we absolutely do
not believe there is), it is an interpretative question related to the law, and
must be reviewed and addressed in the proper judicial venue, which under the
Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, is Magistrate Court in Dona Ana County.
Any other approach is premature and inappropriate.
Additionally, if a prior tenant has an issue, that needs to be
addressed by that person.  This current tenant has no knowledge of the
actual facts related to ANY other situation.Please let us know if there is any additional information we can provide.  Thank you.John L. H[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]

Response to Revdex.com for complaint
filed regarding disposition of tenant security deposit--[redacted]
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
This customer was a former
tenant who occupied a rental property under a written rental agreement managed
by...

Steinborn on behalf of a private owner. 
Tenant disputes charges levied against and withheld from their security
deposit as noted in our final disposition of their security deposit.  Due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the
tenant’s control, they unfortunately had to break the rental agreement early and
prematurely terminate the agreement. 
 
One of our rental managers spoke
to tenant on approximately July 27th, 2015 regarding early
termination/breaking of the Tenant’s lease. 
Tenant was verbally notified that, in accordance with the rental
agreement, they would be responsible for rent, utilities, and upkeep of the
property until such time as the property was re-rented.  In addition, tenant would be held responsible
for payment of a $300.00 plus tax re-lease fee along with any costs associated
with getting the property ready for a new Tenant.
 
Tenant’s written rental
agreement clearly stated their obligations and responsibilities to keep the
property maintained during the term of the Agreement until a new tenant could
be secured and a new rental agreement put into place.  These obligations included maintenance of all
utilities and yard up-keep, and the requirement for Tenant to return the
property back to Landlord in clean condition, including housecleaning and
professional carpet cleaning. 
 
As stated in the complaint,
charges for house and carpet cleaning, utilities restoration and interim
utility costs as well as make-ready and re-lease fees, were all legitimate
costs incurred and were unpaid by tenant at time of move-out.  All charges were allowable under the rental
agreement and were therefore charged against tenant’s deposit.
 
The property was successfully
re-rented to new tenants with the new lease start date commencing August 18,
2015.  Thereafter, no further costs for
rent or utilities or property maintenance were charged to the outgoing
tenant.  The outgoing Tenant vacated the
property on August 3, 2015 and Landlord performed an initial walk-through of
the property on approximately 8/4/2015. 
At that time, the yard was clean to acceptable standards. However,
during the approximate two week period until the start date of the new lease, the
weeds grew to an unacceptable level (due to rains) and had to be removed.  Therefore the cost for removal of weeds was
charged to the outgoing tenant.
 
A voicemail from the Tenant was
received by Jenni N. on September 8th, 2015.  Christi G. had been communicating via email
with tenant regarding the final disposition of security deposit.  Therefore, Christi G. was asked to respond
and did in fact respond via email on the same day, September 8th,
2015.
 
We will further review the
disposition of deposit, in particular the “make ready” charges, and will contact
the Tenants within 24 hours to discuss those charges further.