Ray White Property Management

My apologies for the delayed response which required gathering information for full and complete accuracy and was reliant upon collecting statements from the associated parties.
Firstly, Ray White is the property manager engaged on behalf of the owner and it was the owner, who is actually a renovation company, that provided their instructions related to the charge-back costs and these were received after the inspection which took place post vacate.
The tenant resided in this brand new renovated property for just 6 months and the costs to return the property back to the original condition were calculated based on restoring the property to how it was 6 months earlier at the time of the move-in. I confirm there were no additional home improvements required and neither did any take place and neither was the tenant charged any additional cost other than restoring the property back to the original condition.
There are photo files to prove the outstanding quality of the new renovation at the time the tenant took possession of the property, another file to show the difference in the standard of the property after 6 months at the time of the vacate and again, another set of photos after the property had been returned back to the original condition of just 6 months prior. The charges on the invoice are indicative of the work required for the items billed back to the tenant and nothing more.
With complete transparency, I want to add the final billing was late to come to us and in our records we cannot see where the tenant has acknowledged receiving the invoice and if we are responsible then we truly apologize for the amount becoming known through a debt collector, whos involvement automatically becomes a part of the recovery process past any vacate.
I have a declaration from the owner's company who strongly disputes the allegations made by the claimant regarding an exchange of verbiage and adds to what they believe was the claimants understanding at the move-out inspection, which she had attended as the conclusion with the handover of the keys. It was made clear both at the inspection and prior to the lease-break any items requiring attention would be priced out and the cost would become the tenants responsibility.
Included were ONLY items that required repairing to take the property back to its original condition, ready for the next resident - nothing more. The property did not require any other considerations, it was a brand new renovation with new everything from floors to ceiling.
The following information will also dispute the claimants recollection and whilst is it not our intention to offend the claimant, there remains conflicting content to her story.
The maintenance inspector reports; "the tenant said when she and her husband returned from work they found the window broken but did not mention finding the door unlocked nor did she provide a specific date or time when both occurrences happened". He further confirms when he arrived the tenant had unlocked the door to allow him entry.
When Ray White learned of the broken window and alleged break-in, immediately asked if a police report had been filed which is always our first response and encouraged her to do so. This will waive any replacement cost responsibility of a tenant.
The maintenance inspectors response to the alleged discouragement to file a police report and saying 'these things happen ...' etc. said; "This is 100% untrue, he did not make such a comment nor did he respond with any form of feedback" quote-unquote.
The owner also responded saying all items on their 'Turnkey list - Tenant responsibility - Move-out inspection' are necessary items to place the property back on the rental market and be rented out. They also state based on photographic evidence and move-in reports the tenant's comment saying; 'In fact, many of these home improvements needed to be performed before I even moved in' is completely a false statement and supported by the move-in report. Due to working remotely this evidence which is in hard copy at our office has not been verified by Ray White but the truth of the matter has certainly been substantiated by the tenants records within our highly sophisticated software system which records the tenants reported work orders. I confirm the only 2 requests that were received from the tenant at any time throughout the duration of the tenancy were for a leaky faucet and a window above the AC which was replaced.
There were no other requests.
The tenant chose to break the lease for personal reasons and not property reasons. She requested information on the break-lease responsibilities including the fee and agreed to go ahead. The repair costs are completely separate to a break-lease fee and the tenant was present at the move-out inspection and was made aware of what items were required to be addressed in order to return the property back to its original condition of 6 months prior.
The owner commenced the repairs and provided the billing cost to be paid by the tenant.
Whilst we remain empathetic to the tenant, she chose to break the lease.
It is very unreasonable to hold expectations of the owner to foot the bill for the damages caused by a tenant who was there for such a short period.
The owner has been very clear on their position which is backed with sufficient supporting evidence.
It is unfortunate the tenant needed to break the lease, we understand finances may be tight after relocating and a payment plan can be worked out.
We wish no malice and we wish her well for the future.

The following testament may discredit some of the allegations made by the tenant, this is not our intent, but we want to confirm all previous matters at the property where she resides were taken care of at the time they occurred, and these newly reported items are being dealt with now.

The new items were only learned about through this complaint.

We are aware the tenant is disappointed that the add-on room does not have direct ducts but heat is pushing through, this is how the owner initially purchased the property and previous tenants had not complained? The last residents were there for 4 years.
Code enforcement visited the property and said the room was at an acceptable temperature.
Code enforcement also verified that the terms used by the tenant to describe the power/wiring attention she believed was required was not consistent with what the property actually needed, the property did not need rewiring, it was the power switch which was in question and hence why the electrician had also confirmed rewiring was not necessary.
Rodent Pest Control; this requirement was not reported to us, the first we heard of a rodent was through this complaint and it was only after the complaint surfaced that a work order was received. We work inside an automated system that records all documentation, notes, dates and contact and we have verification of the work order for the rodent treatment being received the same day the complaint was lodged with the Revdex.com.
The Property Manager has advised the tenant we must seal the entry points as a part of the rodent eradication treatment, a service which is completely at the owner's expense. The importance of rodent eradication is not just essential but critical to the health and safety of the residents.
Allegations of theft; were made against the independent contractor last year, the contractor investigated internally with his employee. The tenant when asked, said she did not proceed to file a police report?
The dishwasher; which is under a home warranty is being taken care of by the warranty company, unfortunately we have no control over the time they may take to complete this matter.
Tool shed; this issue is the first we have heard and has been forwarded to the Home Warranty company for action.
No refusal; for any work orders has ever been given to the tenant for any maintenance work other than the owner declining to break open the walls in the add-on to rechannel the heat.
All maintenance requests have been taken to the owner in a timely manner for approval and other than declining the break open of the walls in the add-on, all other work has been promptly taken care of per the work order notification dates below;
12/13/18 - Ceiling repainted at tenant's request
12/26/18 - Provided new stove at tenant's request
12/26/18 - New window installed
1/24/19 - Heat out, installed new furnace at tenant request
4/23/19 - Outside spicket replaced
7/17/19 - AC repaired, 3 new light fixtures replaced, ceiling fan repaired, 2 repairs to the shower door
10/5/19 - Toilet seat broken in master
11/19/19 - Reported rodent
11/21/19 - Some smaller maintenance items; secure the crawl space door and an internal hole, replace 2 x plate covers in the bedroom which are missing.
A long list mostly all taken care of, I confirm there are 3 contractors working on the property now attending to;
Eradicating the Rodent and securing any potential access points around the property, dishwasher and replacing 2 x socket covers. There are no further outstanding maintenance requests remaining.
The tenant renewed her lease last month which is usually an indication of happiness and satisfaction with the property and the management across the span of the previous 12 month's and thus wanting to stay for the duration of another 12 month's, which is quite inconsistent with the allegations of 90% of the repairs not being done?
We understand the anxiousness of discovering a rat in the home and guess this frightening experience triggered the complaint. We certainly hope she will remain with us for many years, coming directly to us with any concerns, especially if an unwelcome rodent enters the property.
Our company very much cares for the tenant's in the properties we manage, and we will always provide our best attention to matters raised - especially when a work order request occurs.
Thank you.

Unfortunately, things are not always how they are portrayed, this person chooses to use bad language on social media platforms as an attempt to disgrace a reputable company. The allegations made by this person are inaccurate in both postings on this site - as detailed records and paper trails do demonstrate.
Thank you.

Unfortunately, there is more to this story that hasn't been revealed.
Our company will not publically shame nor will we share the tenant's right privacy but it is unfortunate that social media platforms are used as an attempt to disgrace a company.
This case was handled by the court and is a closed matter.
We wish this person only the very best for the future.

Sorry for the delayed response, I have just returned from overseas and will get straight to this.
Thank you.

As mentioned, there was difficulty in submitting the response and I can see now the full response had been cut off at the bottom, which said;

One thing we reiterate, the move-out process per the contractual agreement of the lease was not followed, the property was not cleaned and requires a full deep professional clean, carpets need to be either cleaned or replaced, damage to walls and kitchen cupboards must be repaired and painted.
These items do not fall under 'fair wear and tear' and is documented with a photo file.
The cost of such will be forfeited from the security deposit.
Additionally, it has been made very clear the damage of the burst pipe will NOT become the responsibility of the tenant and there will not be any charges nor costs or claims made against the tenant with this regard.

The purpose for referencing the insurance claim was to advise it had held up the final closing out and return of the remaining security deposit, which we would prefer to have been completed a few weeks ago but response time from the insurance was not within of our control.
As mentioned, the insurance reduced the amount to be charged back to the tenant and we wanted to be very sure not to overcharge.

Ray White were retained to manage this property on behalf of the owner, a resident of Atlanta himself.
He is a builder and therefore elected to manage all property repairs through his own contractors. The complainant is correct in saying some items required additional follow-up since the responses were not always in the timely manner by the owner, nor as our company preferred to operate. We would then go back to the owner and push to have the repairs completed and quickly. Our company operates with a 24 hour response service and there were times when work exceeded the preferred timings but at all times the tenant was kept informed and we worked very hard to ensure she received exceptional service from our company.
There was a very complicated water leak at the property which required forensic experts to complete and after which there was a huge water bill in the tenants name. The owner had accepted responsibility and has since paid the bill back to a nil balance. Throughout this process he personally conversed directly with the tenant keeping her informed and 2 weeks ago produced the receipts from the Water Shed as evidence, which the now vacated tenant refused to accept. She also received an email from the Water Shed case worker at the request of the owner confirming the bill was back to a nil balance and advised the records would not be updated until the next billing cycle. Our company demonstrated full support at all times and it was made very clear we were loyal and committed to resolving the issue for her even though it was in the owners control. As the property manager we had an obligation to the tenant which we had fulfilled.
In her last call the tenant was not wanting to hear that all was resolved, nor accept the evidence but wanted to use the opportunity to abuse our company.
In short, we were restricted in our maintenance management in this particular case but we remained committed and supportive to the tenant until all was resolved. The tenant has since moved to another state and yet has chosen to circle around and make derogative comments, when we use a fully automated software program which records every point of contact and the content of such. The documentation demonstrates our company's proactive intent with early responses and subsequent follow-up to ensure the completion of work and the tenants full satisfaction.
We are saddened to learn of the tenants feelings and hope in time she will see things as they really were and not as they are being interpreted, but for now we want to wish her well for the future.

The name of the person making the defamation of claims against our company is not known to us. The name we have on file for the past tenant who resided at this property is different however the story is similar so in good faith we have responded.
Tenant had moved into the property on July 13th, it was a newly refurbished home that the owners had spent a substantial amount of money to make very comfortable and appealing. New carpets, blinds, fresh paint throughout. The property was new to our management so there was no prior historical information available.
From the week of move-in the tenant commenced complaining on so many items asking for new replacements from; weather stripping to caulking entire kitchen, to new faucets, to new stove.
Our software system is technologically advanced and records a full and complete paper trail of every work order, text message and email. Earlier work orders were submitted by the tenant on; 7/17, 7/21, 7/26, 7/31, 8/4, 8/8, 8/26, 8/28, 9/6, 10/11, 11/3, 11/28. Our role is to ensure the tenants comfort and attend to work orders as they are submitted and the tenant was requesting attention to items from; reprograming garage door, requests for screen replacements, gutter replacements, trimming of bushes, AC, heat, plumbing and items previously mentioned above.
On Friday 25th August tenant called saying her stove smelled of gas and she had already called the gas company who shut off the gas and had tagged the stove so we assigned an independent contractor who unbeknownst to us failed to attend. We actively sought another contractor on the Saturday, who said the stove could be repaired. The tenant refused the repair and demanded a new stove, which we purchased and installed the same weekend.
Regarding the furnace complaints; contractor was sent and, reported furnace had been repaired and was brought up to code.
The tenant was not happy saying duct work was required but owner said they were not willing to spend more money when the furnace was functioning. There are 2 furnaces in this property and the tenant confirmed the heat upstairs was permanently working throughout the entire duration of the time in residence but downstairs wasn't circulating. She had heat throughout the winter.
We agree there was some delay with the contractor repairing the downstairs furnace whilst communication was being sent back to the owner for approval and there was some back and forth with the contractor's visits to get this right. We agree it took some weeks but certainly not the entire winter period.
Per tenants complaint about sewerage smell; this was not treated lightly and consequently we had 3 different contractors go out to address the plumbing per tenants continued complaints that the issue still persisted to exist.
The 1st contractor could only find a small repair which he fixed, the 2nd said he couldn't find anything to substantiate the tenant's claims so he plunged to make tenant happy but he really couldn't find anything wrong and the 3rd confirmed there was nothing wrong at all. We hold the documented reports submitted separately by independent contractors.
Basically the tenant had 3 main complaints; stove replacement, heat, sewerage smell all of which were addressed along with the many minor requests that we also attended to and with haste.
Ray White at all times acted professionally and with urgency to all situations, showing persistence to help with utmost care and kindness.
PLEASE NOTE; The property is owned by an independent investor to whom we must first seek permission for every repair/change out request. This owner felt the tenant was taking advantage by continuing to find something new, to request. The rapidly mounting work orders were costing the owner a lot of money so they drew the line at what was deemed as cosmetic improvements.
We heard each of the tenant's complaints and acted accordingly, it seemed we were unable to make her happy and in September she gave 3 months' notice, saying she would be gone on or before January 1st. We said we would work with her and offered to immediately release the tenant from the lease and without any penalty, she took until end of March 2018 before she vacated.
The tenant arranged to meet us at the property on April 2nd to hand back the keys and complete the walk through, which is documented.
Tenant passed *** across but did not stay for the inspection.
At the time of entry she was told on first sightings she would be charged for cleaning to which she agreed. The inspection revealed a number of things which required attention; the newly installed stove was loaded with grease and severely stained and, the microwave handle was broken away. Not sure how the tenant could assume super glue could be used to fix this. The carpets were not stained but required cleaning and a full statement of the deductions was provided to the tenant with the check balance of the security deposit.
In short, we are a 3rd party company engaged by the owner of the property. The owner decides what they will replace and what they will repair and this owner was very generous at meeting the tenant's many requests but drew the line on continuing to address functioning items.
We use fair and equitable approaches to all forms of maintenance by engaging the services of approved independent contractors from whom Ray White do not financially benefit.
Whilst in residence the tenant was also given a citation from the HOA and, later on vacate she left a non-moveable vehicle on the driveway, a lawnmower and a grill by the mail box, this was after we requested those items be removed from the garage. We complained to the tenant about leaving the vehicle and 4 days later on the 6th April she had the vehicle towed and the city took away the lawnmower and grill. Additionally the yard was not maintained throughout the tenancy and required a completed overhaul for which she was not charged.
The portion of the deposit retained was used to complete the unattended items requiring repair, replacement or requiring cleaning at the time of vacate.
The charges are backed by photo evidence, were justifiable and the cost could have been reduced if the tenant had attended to these herself. However we were left to engage the services of professional contractors and the invoices were paid from the tenant's security deposit. We can all have opinions of what we think we would like to pay but the reality is; fee for service.
Regarding the claim to having paid an additional month's rent for March is untrue when the keys were not returned until the 2nd April and the final possessions removed on the 6th April. The tenant was not charged for any additional days in April where she continued to use the property.
At all times Ray White personally demonstrated great support to the tenant and tried to make her happy but our intent seems to have been overlooked and it is unfortunate that she chose to use this platform to defame our company where we are named and accused.
We are hoping this boarder insight of the restrictions and requirements within the management of an owner's property will change some of the original attitude towards us.
In short we had frustrated owners and an unhappy tenant and the best resolve was to end the residency.
The tenant is not a bad person she was just unhappy about her experiences and we are grateful she drew our attention to the work required at the property but there are 2 sides to every story.
If she had personally taken care of the final items at vacate, her security deposit may not have attracted deductions.
The amount returned to her was correct.
We wish her well for the future.