Mill House Properties

Property managers have our unit's electrical box attached to another unit. We are responsible for paying their utilities and were told his in lease. On May 28, I was notified that their was no power in my unit. The maintenance manager told me I should try to have the power back on within 24 hours because another unit in the house was connected to our power box. An account was created with Duke Energy on May 28, servicing the house within 48 hours. I contacted [redacted] on June 26th regarding this problem. Ms. [redacted] told me that to her understanding each unit had separate electrical meters and I had been misinformed. She told me to contact [redacted] to confirm. I tried to get in touch with Mr. [redacted] via email but did not receive any response. I contact Ms. [redacted] on July 1st. She replied on July 2, forwarding the email to [redacted], once again telling me she was surprised maintenance would tell me this. On July 3rd, Ms. [redacted] emailed be again telling me that we were paying for the utilities of unit 1A. She told me that our rent was slightly lower than market value to accommodate this; however, this was never mentioned in our lease. On a later date in late August, my roommate called [redacted]. I was not present for this phone call but Ms. [redacted], reportedly, admitted the activity was illegal and they were still finding a solution. I contacted Ms. [redacted] on September 24 regarding this problems as well as another problem with the house. She had no response about the electricity.Desired SettlementCompensated for 1A's utility charges as well as a re-wiring of the house to ensure that future tenants do not have the same problem. Business Response /[redacted]/This is truly a non-issue and am quite surprised that it was reported. When we took over management of this property this is how the utilities were set-up and we followed that program. That should have been explained from the beginning, at the very least at lease signing. If it wasn't, I apologize. As explained to the roommate it came to our attention that the laws for utilities in rentals had changed and we are no longer allowed to have it set-up that way. I stated that we will be including the utilities for the rest of the lease. I just needed to to talk to the owner of the property first. The owner is just going to have to eat the cost for this lease term, so really they are getting electric for free for the rest of this lease term. We are adjusting all rents at this property to reflect the included utilities where they are not separately metered. The tenants made out quite well in this situation. As soon as we were aware of the changes in the law, we took action. I know that the tenants have had some roommate trouble and perhaps that negativity has colored their opinion of Mill House Properties, but we have acted professionally in regards to this and all other issues we have dealt with.

Complaint[redacted] was owed a deposit refund of $2650. Mill House Properties made a mistake and sent the money to the wrong person. As the parent who provided Mill House Properties with the guarantee of performance on the lease, which was notarized, I am writing this on [redacted] behalf. [redacted] entered into a rental agreement with Mill House Properties on 11/19/14 with a deposit amount of $750. Three other house mates did the same for the same address of [redacted], for the academic year of August 2015 - May 2016. Total deposit was $3000. In December 2015, the other three individuals broke lease and signed over their deposits ($750 each) to [redacted] at the Mill House office. Two of them left to return to home country of [redacted], one left to study abroad. [redacted] finished out the year and left the property at the end of May, expecting to receive the deposit back in June 2016. When [redacted] did not hear from Mill House by late July/early August, he followed up. Mill House made a mistake and sent the check to [redacted] the one who broke lease to study abroad. At first, Mill House was very apologetic and they said on at least 4 different occasions that they would send [redacted] the amount ($2650.) and that they would get the money back from [redacted]. [redacted] had given no indication that she had received the $2650. but she told Mill House in early August that she would divide the money. That is not a satisfactory response. Ms. [redacted] and the other two students BROKE LEASE. The $2650. legally belongs to [redacted]. It is no one's business how he would choose to divide it up. This is not a "room mate dispute" - this is a legal transaction. Mill House Properties owes [redacted] $2650. Further, Mill House Properties' policies and procedures need to be investigated. Further information about this can be provided. However, the primary concern for [redacted] is receiving not only what is rightfully his, legally his, but also what he was told he would receive by representatives of Mill House on at least 4 different occasions. Still waiting. We have also contacted the consumer section of the [redacted] office. They suggested that we file this complaint with the [redacted] as well. We have tried for several weeks to work this out directly with Mill House but they refuse to comply with the law and their own agreement.Desired SettlementFulfill the contract correctly. He is owed $2,650.00. in total. Business Response Thank you for the opportunity to state our position in regards to this complaint. Below I have outlined the chain of events. I have also added documents to support what transpired (it appears that your system doesn't allow attachments. Please contact me on how I can send them).We received an alert on 8/4/16 from reputation.com of a negative review on [redacted] (see attachment #1). We take these kinds of reviews very seriously. We were quite concerned, especially because we had never received a call or an email from [redacted]. I instructed all staff to search their emails and our Leasing Consultant found an alert from [redacted] in his junk folder. Apparently, she had messaged us on [redacted] (which no one has ever done before), but we did not receive the message (see attachment #2). I looked into our system for her son [redacted] (former tenant of [redacted]. [redacted]) and saw that the security deposit was returned months prior. I go to the file and realize that there are two Notice to Vacate Forms completed and that [redacted] our Finance Manager, had mistakenly sent the security deposit to [redacted] who was the former tenant chosen to receive the security deposit initially (see attachment #3). I immediately called [redacted] to explain the mistake that had been made. He did not answer, so I left a voicemail. When [redacted] called me back later that day, I explained what had happened and that I thought it was strange that his former roommate hadn't mentioned it to him. I told him that we would send him a check for $2650.00 and we would ask that [redacted] return the money to us. He stated that it was possible that [redacted] didn't realize that she was no longer supposed to receive the security deposit and that he would like to try and work it out with her directly. I agreed that it would be best for all involved and apologized again for the mistake. He called me back approximately a week later, stating that he could not work it out with [redacted] and she was not willing to send him the money owed to him. I told him that I would have [redacted] send him a check and that we would send a notice to [redacted] to send the money back to us. [redacted] sent a letter to [redacted] 8/12/16 (see attachment #4) asking her to return the money. Moments later she called [redacted] stating that she had already returned [redacted]'s portion to him and had made arrangements with all the other tenants as well. This prompted us to not send the check for $2650.00 to [redacted] as planned. We sent out a notice to [redacted] and all other tenants stating our position (see attachment #5). As you can see from the email thread and screenshots, most all involved are happy with the way that [redacted] handled the deposit with the exception of [redacted] (see attachment #5). The only cause we could determine for him to be unhappy (as he was made whole), was perhaps that he would have divided it differently among the roommates. We asked him to share how he would have divided it up and offered to pay the difference. He essentially refused (see attachment #6). I would like to take a moment to address several inaccuracies in the complaint filed by [redacted]. She repeatedly states that the tenants broke their lease, which isn't correct. They found new tenants to take over their lease term and everyone signed a Change of Tenant Addendum (see attachment #7). I also want to be clear that while the addendum states the outgoing tenants will not hold Mill House Properties responsible for the return of their security deposit, it doesn't mean we know what arrangements were made with the remaining or incoming tenants in regards to it. We require one check and we do not get involved with who pays what, nor did we ever endorse how [redacted] divided it up. We only posed the question to all involved if they were happy with the outcome. [redacted] states in her complaint that [redacted] paid $750.00 as well as the other three original lease signers. I am not sure why this makes [redacted] entitled to $2650.00. As of now, he has received the total amount that he paid in, regardless of the damages charged (as seen and explained in attachment #5). Also, [redacted] never contacted us about not receiving the security deposit. It only came to our attention due to the negative review that [redacted] wrote on [redacted]. It is clear to us that [redacted] and his Mother believe that the penalty for this honest mistake is a check for $2650.00 from Mill House Properties. Yes, we made a mistake and we feel we have done all that we can, within reason, to fix it. We do not find it fair to have to pay $2650.00 to [redacted] when he has already received the $750.00 that he admittedly paid in for the security deposit. Thank you for your time and let me know if you have any other questions. Sincerely, [redacted]Property ManagerMill House Properties Consumer Response 1) I did attempt to contact Mill House through the means that they advertised and got no response. Unfortunately, it took a low rating to get their attention and respond. After they said that they were going to correct the mistake and send [redacted] the $2650 rightfully owed to him, I changed the rating to a positive one because I was led to believe they were going to be honest.2) Ms [redacted] is correct that it is strange that Ms[redacted] never mentioned the deposit being refunded. That speaks volumes to the character of Ms[redacted]. Ms[redacted] also knew that Mill House had allegedly used false documentation for those [redacted] students, which was another poor business practice, if indeed Mill House did that. 3) Of course the [redacted] students and Ms[redacted] were "happy" with the arrangement. They had all three signed over their deposit to [redacted]. So, to then receive money that was not rightfully theirs and that was unexpected - of course they were happy. That does not make it right.4) Everything [redacted] did was right, legal, and in good faith. He was told on at least 4 different occasions, verbally and in writing, that Mill House would pay him the $2650 that he was owed and would resolve the rest with Ms[redacted]. Therefore, they still owe him $1900. 5) Mill House needs to pay [redacted] the balance of $1900 ($2650 minus the $750 he has been paid) and then get that money back from Ms[redacted], as they said they would do from the beginning. I understand that the Revdex.com cannot "make" Mill House do the right thing. However, consumers must go through the appropriate channels to get wrongs corrected. Poor and illegal business practices cannot be tolerated and consumers need some form of protection. 6) In this case, after you sift through the information provided by Ms [redacted], the fact remains that: a $3000. deposit was put down by 4 people; 3 of those people left the house and the contract - the replacement people did not put down any money - and those 3 people who left the house signed over their right to deposit because they left. [redacted] was left to live with 3 strangers for his last semester of college and stuck with bills as well as dealing with Ms[redacted]'s mother on collecting furniture and other items that Ms[redacted] left behind. It's Ms[redacted]'s fault that the full deposit was not replaced and that it was $2650 rather than $3000. Yet, we are not contesting any of that. What we are saying is that [redacted] is owed $2650-- you know it, you said it, you agreed to it -- but you have not done it. He is still owed $1900. Final Business Response My response will correspond with the rebuttal numbering. 1.) Yes,we have a [redacted] page but if it were me and my security deposit was a month late, I would have called or emailed the Property Manager directly. [redacted] is not a professional means of communication. This information is important because the initial negative review, made it sound as though we were dodging her calls and emails, but we never received any. 2.) I have no interest in calling anyone's character into question. I am solely dealing with the facts. I have no knowledge of any false documentation. We qualified all tenants on that lease the same as we qualify any rental prospect. I don't understand how being a victim of alleged false documentation is evidence that we have poor business practices. 3.) No one has ever told us that everyone "signed" over the security deposit to [redacted]. This is the first I've heard of it. None of our contracts or addenda signs over the security deposit to [redacted]. All remaining tenants agreed to where and who the deposit would be sent to in the Notice to Vacate and the outgoing tenants agreed to not hold MHP responsible for the return of their portion of the deposit in the Change to Tenant Addendum. None of those documents give [redacted] the sole right to the deposit. As stated, in the first response to the complaint, we do not get involved in how the tenants decide to handle the deposit. We only accept one payment and we only return it in one payment to the person that all lease signers agree to be the responsible party. 4.) We agree that [redacted] hasn't done anything illegal. We also agreed to send the money to [redacted] and try to recover the money mistakenly sent to [redacted]. That was before we received conflicting information. Upon receiving this new information we immediately sent out an email to all parties stating our position. 5.) MHP is a small real estate firm. We do not have thousands of dollars of disposable funds. We are not in a position to pay that kind of money without fully understanding what is going on. We have NEVER refused to send [redacted] the money. We said that sending any funds would be on hold until we could determine what is going on. 6.) Again, this is the first I've heard of the original lease signers signing over the deposit to [redacted]. As previously stated, we do not get involved with the tenants personal arrangements in regards to the security deposit. If the original lease signers relinquished their rights to the deposit, why didn't [redacted] or his Mother lead with that? We would be happy to send [redacted] the remainder of the deposit, if this were in fact true. Please see the underlined portion of the attachment- [redacted] stated in his email that "he had not considered an exact dollar amount of how the safety deposit should be divided". If what has been stated in the rebuttal is true, why is [redacted] considering how he would have split the deposit? It is also of note that he says in the same email that it is "irrelevant" how he would have divided it. We do not agree. All lease signers that admittedly paid in for the security deposit have received or have made arrangements to receive their portion. In [redacted]'s case he received the full amount he paid in despite the charges for damages. I am only left to deduce that [redacted] and [redacted] want MHP to pay them $1,900.00 as penalty for a honest mistake. Based on all the information we have, we do not feel comfortable sending any funds at this time.