Mike's Home Improvements

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I have
reviewed Day-Lum Rentals & Management’s response to my initial complaint
and their recollection is both inconsistent and inaccurate.
They
are correct that I did meet with one of the property managers on June 8th
in regards to managing my property and I did remove the furniture and personal
property from the house at Day-Lum’s request. However, the property manager
assured me that a Day-Lum vendor was going to be coming into the home to repair
the bathroom door and possibly paint some of the walls that needed repainting
prior to new tenants moving into the home. Day-Lum’s response to my complaint
is the first time I have been notified that there were damaged cabinets inside
the home, nor can I locate that damaged cabinets have been fixed in the
multiple work logs received. As far as the broken curtain rod, this was a
traverse rod in good, working condition. I did, however, receive the traverse
rod a few weeks back broken from Day-Lum.
As far
as checking that the appliances and fixtures were in working order, I
personally checked all this prior to entering into an agreement with Day-Lum.
During the cleaning and painting of the home, the vendors had left all of the
fans on, non-stop, for more than three days with the front door and windows
visibly open and the security door shut but unlocked. You could see right
through the home from the outside. I called Day-Lum to ask if leaving the home
open with fans running for multiple days in a row was a normal process for
their vendors to which I was informed that this was not normal practice. I
requested permission to enter the home so that I would be able to close up
everything for security purposes.
The
days leading up to the new tenants moving presented the largest number of
issues working with Day-Lum. A Day-Lum vendor was supposed to come to the home
to make the necessary repairs a few days prior to the new tenants moving in.
The vendor never arrived and I called the property manager several times but
was informed she was on a two-week vacation so there was no one at Day-Lum to
contact the vendor. I tracked down the vendor myself and was informed a day or
two before the tenants were expected to move in that he would not be showing up
to do the work and provided no explanation. And since the property manager was
on vacation, no one from Day-Lum assumed responsibility for ensuring that the
referred vendor – or a replacement vendor – would show up and perform the
required work. At this point there was a lock box placed on the door and I was
previously informed by Day-Lum not to enter the home given that they are the
management company, therefore I was not able to assess if the vendors had
done what was supposed to be done.
I had
full faith that Day-Lum would have inspected the property at least the weekend
before to ensure that all the necessary repairs were completed prior to tenants
moving into the home. In my experience, this is both a fundamental and crucial
part of a property management company’s job. However, Day-Lum did not inspect
the home - that is prior to the day the tenants were moving in - and the tenants
then decided to go with another rental. We were then informed by Day-Lum that
the home needed approximately $3,000 worth of repairs for it to be rented.
Nothing
was signed in writing affirmatively stating that we were willing to incur what
inevitably amounted to about $4,400 in repairs. In fact, my daughter informed Day-Lum
on the phone that we certainly did not have thousands to put toward the home at
this time. We were also confused as to why Day-Lum had previously agreed to
take on the property, advertise and ultimately rent the home if it did in fact
need thousands in repairs and improvements.
In
response to Day-Lum’s assertion that photographs of the finished work was
unnecessary because we were able to enter the home and see all the repairs that
had been completed, that is not the case. As previously stated, we were told
not to enter the home and although we were doing yard work around the property,
we steered clear from entering as to not disrupt any Day-Lum process. Further,
we previously requested updated photos be taken so they could be used for
advertising the property on their website prior to the replacement tenants
moving in. If we had received the photographs when initially requested, there
would be no issue of disturbing the tenants currently in the home. After
spending $4,400 dollars for “repairs and improvements” it is not an
unreasonable request to be able to see photographs of the finished results.
In
response to Day-Lum’s assertion regarding the ceiling fan, it was operable prior to the electrician
coming in and, again, I'm sure when the property manager did the initial
assessment of the home to determine if it was rentable, this would have
been part of the assessment. Day-Lum states that “the owner and her personal agents were in the house
several times when all the repairs were being made and never mentioned the
desire to keep the broken fan when it was removed from the ceiling” - this is
again an inaccuracy. We were never notified that the ceiling fan was removed
and replaced with a light fixture prior to receiving the work log. Had we seen
this being done, we would have certainly expressed our disapproval and requested to at least retain the ceiling fan.
Regardless,
the vendor had no authority to remove and discard of any fixture in the
property without prior notification. Not only did we get charged for the
removal, but also for the light fixture that replaced the working ceiling fan –
and this was a fixture we never saw prior to it being installed. After learning the fixture was
replaced without our knowledge, we immediately requested to have the removed
fan returned, however it wasn’t until after
multiple emails were sent and calls were made that we were informed that the fan had
been discarded. We requested that a replacement fan then be installed at
Day-Lum’s expense but they informed us that we needed to provide a receipt for
the discarded fan – a fan we purchased about three years ago. It is more
than a little unreasonable to expect us to retain a receipt for this fan
considering we did not anticipate this would ever be an issue and the fan was
working when it was removed.
Beyond
the issues I have outlined above, there have also been many inconsistencies
between what we have been told by Day-Lum. For example, upon signing the rental
agreement, we were informed that we could use the $500 that was provided for
the Owner’s Fund for repairs and/or cleaning to get the home rent ready.
However, when we started receiving numerous bills from Day-Lum’s vendors and we
stated that we wanted to use the Owner’s Fund toward those costs, we were then
told by Day-Lum that this money could only be used for repairs while
tenants were renting the home.
Once
we received multiple bills from vendors, we asked Day-Lum to consider a payment
plan option or withholding only a portion of the rent as opposed to the entire
rental proceeds. They immediately responded that they would not consider this
as an option and they would be withholding the entire rental proceeds until
their vendors were paid in full. I would like Day-Lum to please reference where
in the rental agreement it states that this is acceptable.
In
response to Day-Lum’s statement that after the replacement tenants moved into
the home, the vendors completed additional repairs and the invoices were not
received until October 20th, this is also inaccurate. We were told that the
invoices were for repairs done prior to the replacement tenants moving in, but
now we are being informed in their response that these repairs were done after
the replacement tenants moved in. Prior to receiving the October 20th
invoice, the balance was paid in full on October 9th and were told that we were
caught up. At that point we asked that we be notified prior to any additional
expenses incurred, absent any emergency repairs, of course. If this is the case
that non-emergency repairs were done while the replacement tenants were renting
out the home, then our request of being informed prior to incurring any
additional expense was not adhered to. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I have
reviewed Day-Lum Rentals & Management’s response to my initial complaint
and their recollection is both inconsistent and inaccurate.
They
are correct that I did meet with one of the property managers on June 8th
in regards to managing my property and I did remove the furniture and personal
property from the house at Day-Lum’s request. However, the property manager
assured me that a Day-Lum vendor was going to be coming into the home to repair
the bathroom door and possibly paint some of the walls that needed repainting
prior to new tenants moving into the home. Day-Lum’s response to my complaint
is the first time I have been notified that there were damaged cabinets inside
the home, nor can I locate that damaged cabinets have been fixed in the
multiple work logs received. As far as the broken curtain rod, this was a
traverse rod in good, working condition. I did, however, receive the traverse
rod a few weeks back broken from Day-Lum.
As far
as checking that the appliances and fixtures were in working order, I
personally checked all this prior to entering into an agreement with Day-Lum.
During the cleaning and painting of the home, the vendors had left all of the
fans on, non-stop, for more than three days with the front door and windows
visibly open and the security door shut but unlocked. You could see right
through the home from the outside. I called Day-Lum to ask if leaving the home
open with fans running for multiple days in a row was a normal process for
their vendors to which I was informed that this was not normal practice. I
requested permission to enter the home so that I would be able to close up
everything for security purposes.
The
days leading up to the new tenants moving presented the largest number of
issues working with Day-Lum. A Day-Lum vendor was supposed to come to the home
to make the necessary repairs a few days prior to the new tenants moving in.
The vendor never arrived and I called the property manager several times but
was informed she was on a two-week vacation so there was no one at Day-Lum to
contact the vendor. I tracked down the vendor myself and was informed a day or
two before the tenants were expected to move in that he would not be showing up
to do the work and provided no explanation. And since the property manager was
on vacation, no one from Day-Lum assumed responsibility for ensuring that the
referred vendor – or a replacement vendor – would show up and perform the
required work. At this point there was a lock box placed on the door and I was
previously informed by Day-Lum not to enter the home given that they are the
management company, therefore I was not able to assess if the vendors had
done what was supposed to be done.
I had
full faith that Day-Lum would have inspected the property at least the weekend
before to ensure that all the necessary repairs were completed prior to tenants
moving into the home. In my experience, this is both a fundamental and crucial
part of a property management company’s job. However, Day-Lum did not inspect
the home - that is prior to the day the tenants were moving in - and the tenants
then decided to go with another rental. We were then informed by Day-Lum that
the home needed approximately $3,000 worth of repairs for it to be rented.
Nothing
was signed in writing affirmatively stating that we were willing to incur what
inevitably amounted to about $4,400 in repairs. In fact, my daughter informed Day-Lum
on the phone that we certainly did not have thousands to put toward the home at
this time. We were also confused as to why Day-Lum had previously agreed to
take on the property, advertise and ultimately rent the home if it did in fact
need thousands in repairs and improvements.
In
response to Day-Lum’s assertion that photographs of the finished work was
unnecessary because we were able to enter the home and see all the repairs that
had been completed, that is not the case. As previously stated, we were told
not to enter the home and although we were doing yard work around the property,
we steered clear from entering as to not disrupt any Day-Lum process. Further,
we previously requested updated photos be taken so they could be used for
advertising the property on their website prior to the replacement tenants
moving in. If we had received the photographs when initially requested, there
would be no issue of disturbing the tenants currently in the home. After
spending $4,400 dollars for “repairs and improvements” it is not an
unreasonable request to be able to see photographs of the finished results.
In
response to Day-Lum’s assertion regarding the ceiling fan, it was operable prior to the electrician
coming in and, again, I'm sure when the property manager did the initial
assessment of the home to determine if it was rentable, this would have
been part of the assessment. Day-Lum states that “the owner and her personal agents were in the house
several times when all the repairs were being made and never mentioned the
desire to keep the broken fan when it was removed from the ceiling” - this is
again an inaccuracy. We were never notified that the ceiling fan was removed
and replaced with a light fixture prior to receiving the work log. Had we seen
this being done, we would have certainly expressed our disapproval and requested to at least retain the ceiling fan.
Regardless,
the vendor had no authority to remove and discard of any fixture in the
property without prior notification. Not only did we get charged for the
removal, but also for the light fixture that replaced the working ceiling fan –
and this was a fixture we never saw prior to it being installed. After learning the fixture was
replaced without our knowledge, we immediately requested to have the removed
fan returned, however it wasn’t until after
multiple emails were sent and calls were made that we were informed that the fan had
been discarded. We requested that a replacement fan then be installed at
Day-Lum’s expense but they informed us that we needed to provide a receipt for
the discarded fan – a fan we purchased about three years ago. It is more
than a little unreasonable to expect us to retain a receipt for this fan
considering we did not anticipate this would ever be an issue and the fan was
working when it was removed.
Beyond
the issues I have outlined above, there have also been many inconsistencies
between what we have been told by Day-Lum. For example, upon signing the rental
agreement, we were informed that we could use the $500 that was provided for
the Owner’s Fund for repairs and/or cleaning to get the home rent ready.
However, when we started receiving numerous bills from Day-Lum’s vendors and we
stated that we wanted to use the Owner’s Fund toward those costs, we were then
told by Day-Lum that this money could only be used for repairs while
tenants were renting the home.
Once
we received multiple bills from vendors, we asked Day-Lum to consider a payment
plan option or withholding only a portion of the rent as opposed to the entire
rental proceeds. They immediately responded that they would not consider this
as an option and they would be withholding the entire rental proceeds until
their vendors were paid in full. I would like Day-Lum to please reference where
in the rental agreement it states that this is acceptable.
In
response to Day-Lum’s statement that after the replacement tenants moved into
the home, the vendors completed additional repairs and the invoices were not
received until October 20th, this is also inaccurate. We were told that the
invoices were for repairs done prior to the replacement tenants moving in, but
now we are being informed in their response that these repairs were done after
the replacement tenants moved in. Prior to receiving the October 20th
invoice, the balance was paid in full on October 9th and were told that we were
caught up. At that point we asked that we be notified prior to any additional
expenses incurred, absent any emergency repairs, of course. If this is the case
that non-emergency repairs were done while the replacement tenants were renting
out the home, then our request of being informed prior to incurring any
additional expense was not adhered to. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The company should not call the deposit a REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT in any wording of the contract. It is very unclear and confusing. Furthermore, we happened upon this property when we were searching [redacted] for a rental location on MAUI. it was not until after we had booked the place that a friend pointed out it was FOR THE WRONG ISLAND. For an honest mistake- the customer should NOT BE PENALIZED by LOSING $500. This is a terrible policy and Day Lum should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of unwary travelers. They had plenty of time to rebook the room, this is just a petty scam to get money you DO NOT DESERVE. Please refund us the $500.