SGI Property Management Phoenix

Most of what their response is true.  Except about the 2 months rent up front.  That is only have true.  They failed to mention that they also told me that when I started working, I could bring in a couple of pay stubs to them that showed that I qualified for the property.  But since the job fell thru I could not do that.  And also, it is not like I live in AZ.  I am currently in Wyoming.  So I was not shopping different properties, this was the only place I was looking at.  But since my job up there fell thru, then I do not qualify for the property.  I can't bring in paystubs if I don't have a job that gives me paystubs.  I feel that my money should come back on that premise

This company is horrible. Absolutely the worst Property Management company. They will tell you that you are the first applicant and process and charge you the fees then tell you that another application was approved before mine. What happened to FIRST COME FIRST SERVE! They did not respond to my emails and continued to process another application at the same time charging me for the fees! DO not go through this company. There are lots of other property management companies that actually have ethical standards!

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I finally heard from the business directly. I've conceded that landscaping did need to be done, and also the carpet cleaned. While I believe the prices are high I do not dispute that. I still do dispute the charges of $130 for batteries and lightbulbs. When we left the residence there were no lightbulbs out and the smoke detectors were working and not beeping. I asked for an itemized copy of what lightbulbs and batteries were used that could have possibly been that expensive. I asked for an itemized receipt detailing this information. The representative of Saving Grace sent me the same information I already had, just on different letterhead. All it says is "labor and materials: $130 - light bulbs and batteries", which is what I already knew I was charged. This is NOT an itemized receipt. I've attached a copy to be seen by the Revdex.com. This is an ESTIMATE and does not fully explain the charges. I don't accept this. I am not paying $130 for light bulbs or batteries I don't believe were ever out. There was track lighting throughout the house that we used regularly. Saving Grace and/or the previous tenants left a closet full of lightbulbs that were still there when we left. If a lightbulb had been out we certainly would have changed it. This is unacceptable. It is not the money, it's the principal of $130 for batteries / light bulbs. The worst part is, when I spoke with [redacted] from Saving Grace on April 20th to ask about the charges, she was flat out rude. She was not empathetic, did not listen, and gave nothing but canned answers. I tried to question the charges and she flat out lied. She said the smoke detectors that needed batteries require special batteries. I've changed them before, so know for a fact they were standard 9V batteries. Again, not professional at all to flat out lie to someone who paid your company ~$1500/month for 18 months straight.It is worth noting that when we were looking for new places, we found another property of Saving Grace Investments and called to inquire about the place. We left several messages and never received a call back. This is not a good way to treat anybody, let alone an existing, paying client. I guess I'm just another number to them, that they can try to cheat money out of when all is said and done. 

Regards,

The initial maintenance request for the knobs was placed on 10/14/13 which was one week short of a year in the property. The owner did decline the repair at that time because there was no indication (based off your move in inspection report and maintenance requests) that the knobs had been an issue...

until that point. After being reviewed by our field inspector at your move out, they reported the damages appeared to be due to neglect rather than normal wear and tear. Unfortunately at this time we are unable to provide an additional refund of your security deposit based off of this information and timeline. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.

SGI, operating within the limits set forth within the property management agreement between SGI and the property owner, is waiting on vendor information from the property owner.  The property owner has exercised their right to use a vendor of their choice.  SGI has provided an estimate...

from a third party vendor that SGI has an established relationship with, and the property owner has now chosen to utilize their vendor.  When that information is made available to us, it will expeditiously be made available to the resident.

There doesn't appear to be a path to resolution as the complainant is expressing displeasure and not a suggested remedy.  We have already made an effort to resolve and it wasn't accepted.

Unfortunately SGI is contractually obligated to receive approval from property owners before authorizing non-emergency repairs over a pre-determined limit. Each individual property owner can choose, at their discretion, to authorize repairs. The property owner of this particular...

property had chosen to utilize their own vendors for the majority of repairs at the property. The list of items recommended / requested by the realtor and tenants at the initial walk through was provided to the property owner upon receipt, however, were not all agreed to by the property owner. As a company, SGI will not promise that items will be completed upon move in because of the requirement of owner approval for non-emergency repairs and clean-up. The tenants, upon lease signing, agree to take the property in “as in condition” without the repairs being completed. We can confirm that carpet cleaning was completed as well as all light bulbs being present and functional in the home prior to the tenant move-in in August 2012. We had a property inspection at the property on 8/28/12 at which time photos and a report were completed for the home. At that time there were no safety concerns and the home was move in ready with minor repairs noted which the owner had declined.During the tenant occupancy, all work orders entered by the tenants were addressed and completed as requested. Below is a synopsis of repairs completed along with start dates and completion dates. Please note that all repairs required owner approval which was the cause for delay on a couple of the noted maintenance requests: 1.       Shower head replacement (opened 5/16 completed 6/19)2.       Kitchen sink leak (opened 6/10 completed 6/24)3.       A/C pressure issue (opened 722 completed 7/23)4.       Fallen tree removal from storm (opened 7/1 completed 7/12)Upon tenant move out, tenants are welcome to be present but it is not a requirement. During that inspection, a move out inspection is completed along with photos of the property. We then utilize that move out inspection as well as the tenant move in inspection to determine charges to the tenant security deposit. In this situation, the tenants did not provide a move in inspection report so we were only able to utilize photos prior to their move in along with the move out inspection and photos. The occupants were informed that they can contest the charges to their account if they can supply their property manager with any emails or documentation of prior issues for the charged items and/or a copy of a move out inspection. To date we have not received any information to dispute their charges. In regards to rent increases, those are solely decided upon by the property owner. We make every effort to eliminate increases but it is ultimately the decision of the property owner. We also do not make decisions on the list price of rentals we solely provide comparisons of the neighboring rentals and the owner makes the ultimate decision. SGI would be happy to refund additional deposits for the occupants, however, we do have to have some kind of documentation to show that there were prior issues at move in with the items noted. This can be provided via fax to###-###-#### or email to [redacted].com. Once we have additional documentation to reflect on, we would be more than happy to provide any refund that is due. The deposits are strictly for the owner protection so SGI has no gain in the amount of money deducted from a deposit. If you have any additional questions on what type of information would be needed to dispute the charges, please contact [redacted] at###-###-####.

The dispute will not be resolved until SGI answered my questions in previous complain, let's re-iterate using SGI reply:1) As SGI admitted, in the move out inspecition on 8/10/2015, it clearly indicates: strong smell to be cleaned, remote control missing, and 28 items to be fixed.2) Yet it still refunded $529.62 to the tenant on 8/26/2015. During this 15 days, it had not done any repair, or even estimation, on the listed work.3) Even with repeated request, SGI still refused to provide any information about how it calculated the refund. 4) And SGI only performed the cleaning and interior fix for $525 (listed in inspection ) on 9/8/2015, 10 days after refund.5) The weed removal for $240(also mentioned in inspection ) was requested on 9/16/2015, one month later.6) SGI is missing one invoice of 3 total it claimed.7) As SGI admitted on 10/24/15, it's going to after the garage door remote control or seeking monetary compensation. Though it knew the missing on 8/10/2015. 1) SGI claimed "The only key that SGI had was in the lockbox which the owner removed directly." That is not true, in its own report "two home keys returned by tenant", my husband took one on 10/24/15, SGI took away the other one with lockbox on 10/26/2015. The rep declined my husband's offer to go to SGI office to get it. Ends up we have to replace to lock with our own cost $238.27. 2) From SGI reply to my complain, it knew it should NOT refund $529.62 by totally ignoring the inspection report.as it said "attempting to collect more money from the previous resident based on the items the potential resident requested, as some items were damaged items and that the previous resident should in fact pay for." Still SGI refused to tell us how much it's aftering.As another complain, I'm totally unhappy about the lack of attention to the property, from 8/7/2015 move out to 9/8/2015 the first invoiced work paid by security deposit.

To Whom It May Concern:Please see previous response to owner’s first message.1. Previously addressed. As SGI pointed out, not all items on the report were resident damage and were the owner’s responsibility.2. Previously addressed. As SGI pointed out, not all items on the report were resident damage and were the owner’sresponsibility.3. Previously addressed, “Not all items during a move out can be charged back to a resident, as per the landlord tenant act, only damages from the resident can be charged to the security deposit. Per Arizona law, a landlord has 14 business days to handle the security deposit disbursement. The letter and refund to the resident was sent out on 8/26/2015. The resident was charged for damages/cleaning and the refund totaled $529.62. The owner received the deduction amount of $525 on 9/10/2015. The owner was fully aware of the amount deducted based on the credit she received on her account.”4. Previously addressed, “The cleaning company had to order special chemicals to remove the residue from the walls and the smell from the home.” SGI has no control over the vendor’s schedule or chemicals that were on order.5. The weed removal was not a resident charge as it was not excessive upon move out. The owner was responsible forweeding after move out and did not provide approval until 9/17.6. Previously addressed. All four invoices were sent to owner. SGI has email backup proving all invoices were sent. There was one utility invoice and three repair invoices, which totals four invoices overall.7. Previously addressed. SGI was going to provide a new remote to the owner but the owner refused it.8. (Numbered as second #1 in owner’s message) SGI removed our empty lockbox from the property as the owner removed   the key himself on 10/24/2015, the day after close-out. This was in fact the only key SGI had at the time, however a key was previously mailed to the owner’s home address after resident move-out.9. (Numbered as second #2 in owner’s message) Previously addressed in first response. As SGI pointed out, not all items on the report were resident damage and were the owner’s responsibility.Please see previous response to owner’s first message as all items were addressed. The balance due from the owner was sent to collections due to failure to pay per the contractual agreement. The amount owed to SGI currently is $610.07 for unpaid invoices plus fees for collection. The owner also owes additional monies to separate vendors that were not paid by SGI and must be paid by the owner directly to avoid the vendors taking further action. Payment is due immediately to close this out.PORTION OF PREVIOUS RESPONSE SUBMITTED DECEMBER 11, 2015:Not all items during a move out can be charged back to a resident, as per the landlord tenant act, only damages from the resident  can be charged to the security deposit. Per Arizona law, a landlord has 14 business days to handle the security deposit disbursement. The letter and refund to the resident was sent out on 8/26/2015. The resident was charged for damages/cleaning and the refund totaled $529.62. The owner received the deduction amount of $525 on 9/10/2015. The owner was fully aware of the amount deducted based on the credit she received on her account.Upon taking possession of the home from the resident, there was a very strong marijuana smell in the home. The home could not be listed in that condition and this was discussed in length with the owner. The cleaning company had to order special chemicals to remove the residue from the walls and the smell from the home. It was not in the owner’s best interest to list the home until the cleaning took place.On 9/17/2015, SGI sent a bid from a landscaper in the amount of $240 to remove weeds from the yard. The owner responded on 9/17 stating, “OK, please get it done then, thanks.”SGI provided notice to the owner on 10/23/2015 regarding termination of management due to the condition of the home and lack of payment from all approved repairs. On 10/23/2015 SGI provided the owner with the lockbox code to obtain possession right away. The only key that SGI had was in the lockbox which the owner removed directly. The remotes were never returned from the resident and they were informed that they’d be responsible for the cost of replacement, which they understood. On 10/30/2015, SGI informed the owner that we would send new remotes to them directly to avoid any further delay in retrieving remotes. On 10/30/2015, the owner replied in an email, “That’s alright, I’d rather no replacement, too much work for me, has to go shopping, re program the RC, etc.” Remotes were not sent as the owner did not want them. Full possession was in fact transferred to the owner on 10/23 when the owner retrieved the key from the lockbox. (#3 and #5 from owner are both regarding keys and remotes) The total amount due from the owner for all approved work as well as normal operating expenses (utilities, HOA dues) came to:$1,598.48. SGI contacted the owner on 10/15 for payment. Owner asked for repair bills to be emailed over, which SGI did on 10/15/15. A total of four invoices (one utility bill and three repair invoices) were attached to the email and sent over. All invoices were dated clearly. The owner responded on 10/23/2015 disputing the charges that they had already approved when the potential resident asked for additional items in the home as well as the landscape clean up to avoid HOA fines. All approvals were received in writing from the owner. Per the management contract, the owner is responsible for any and all expenses related to the home for maintenance and repair. SGI never stated that we’d cover any expense on the owner’s behalf.SGI only paid the utility invoice and the one repair invoice which was deducted from the security deposit and credited to the owner. The other invoices were not paid directly from SGI. The amount owed to SGI currently is $610.07 for unpaid invoices plus fees for collection. Per the contract, “All labor and contractors shall be deemed sub-contractors of the owner and not the Broker unless otherwise agreed in writing…” The vendors had a right to contact the owner directly for payment as they are contractors of the owner directly.

y heater unit been out since Friday. I contacted SGI Property Management maintenance department and told them about the situation. I have A4 year old daughter who has a medical condition and I explain to them that she cannot be in the cold like that because of her condition . They had someone come out to do an estimate on the heater unit. I've been without heat since Friday I asked them if they could give me some heater fans until my heating unit is fixed. The maintenance department was going to try to see if I can get some heater fan for the weekend. They was not successfully giving me any heater fans over the weekend. I call SGI Property Management Monday on November 21st. I spoke with a lady named Becky she is the senior manager. She explained to me that the owners have to approve the heater unit first. And that the vendor does not provide any heater fans. She said that I can purchase a heater fan and they will take money off my rent. I explain to Becky that I don't have any money to purchase a heater fan and I will not have any money till Wednesday. She explain to me there was nothing that she could do about the situation. I askedBecky can I speak to someone over her. Becky told me that there is no one over her and no I cannot speak to anyone else. As of today on November 21st 2016 I am still without heat

We decided to hire SGI last year in May 2015 to help us manage our home in AZ. We moved out of state and SGI found a family with five kids and we rented the house to them. Things started out normal but that did not go well too long and the tenants started to open tickets for things that normally didn't break during our 11 years while we were there. They broke the shower head, dishwasher, garbage disposal, stained the driveway with oil. The extent of the damage was not fully released in the six months inspection report the SGI did. After the tenants moved out of the house in July and we received the full report we were shocked at the extent of the damage caused by the tenants. The walls were left dirty with visible holes in them and the carpets were stained beyond repair. We got a few quotes and to repair the damage is in the $6 to $7k. To add insult to injury SGI only wants to give us $870 back and return $590 to the tenants. This is NOT Acceptable at this point and I would NOT Recommend this company based on their lack of management action and follow through. SGI should take steps to be more responsible to the people that entrusted them with their home and try to fix the problem and not ignore it.

The drip pan was replaced. There was no visible mold, per the restoration company who came to inspect the home. The restoration company will perform the necessary work, as they are licensed and certified for this specific work. This work was never in question and was approved by the landlord so additional negotiations for this is unnecessary. The HVAC technician scheduled the appointments based on the resident's work schedule and availability. The landlord will repair the work necessary and if the certified HVAC technician recommends replacement, the landlord will receive that. The landlord is not required to replace an HVAC unit if a resident asks for replacement. SGI also does not have the authorization to simply replace an entire HVAC unit without the owner's approval. The HVAC unit is functioning and the HVAC technicians have been out to the home to repair the issues as they arise. The rent will not be refunded, nor will future rent be waived. The home has not been deemed unlivable from any certified technician sent out.

SGI will offer a $50 credit as good gesture. The property owner was the recipient of the portion of the security deposit withheld for repairs / cleaning and not SGI.

The applicant, Mr. [redacted], submitted an application with SGI on 9/14. Documents were received and confirmed that the applicant did not meet our minimum qualifications in terms of income. The applicant offered to pay the first two months upfront to help the approval of his application and put down...

a hold of $1,000 to secure the home. The owner approved the application on Friday, 9/16. SGI reached out to the applicant same day and advised the applicant that we needed a confirmed move in date to move forward with the lease agreement. The applicant provided a set move in date the following Monday, 9/19. The lease was sent to the applicant on 9/20 for signature. The applicant then stated that he wanted the Arizona sales tax to be paid by the owner rather than on top of the rent. The owner agreed to pay the tax and the lease was resent within a few hours. The applicant advised SGI on 9/21 that his job fell through and he was unable to move to Phoenix. Per the application that the applicant agreed to, the hold fee is refundable only if the application is denied and is non-refundable when the owner approves the application. The owner approved on 9/16 and the applicant backed out on 9/21. The home was off the market for this time-frame due to the hold and other applicants lost out as Mr. [redacted] placed the hold and confirmed he wanted the home. The hold fee will not be refunded.

Hello, As mentioned previously, this resident was approved based upon the documentation he supplied. Per the application language, the hold fee is non-refundable if the application was approved. Since the applicant backed out, and the owner lost out on other viable applicants at the time, the hold will not be refunded. Thank you.

Resident opened a work order regarding an AC leak at 7pm on 7/1/2016. Vendor was sent on 7/2 and arrived within four hours of dispatch. The AC line was clogged and the pan needed to be ordered and replaced. Vendor...

went on 7/3 again to repair and confirmed the unit was functioning. On 7/4, resident sent photos showing small stains on the ceiling and carpet. Informed resident that the ceiling stains would be repaired along with carpet cleaning. Vendor did not recommend replacement as unit was running properly. On 7/5, SGI reached out to resident to ask if the leak was still active. Reached out again to resident on 7/6 asking if the leak was still active. Resident did not respond to either attempt. On 7/8, vendor installed new drip pans. There was no active leak at the time of install and unit was functioning. On 7/15, resident called after-hours stating that there is a mildew smell in the home and confirmed that there was no longer a leak. Resident emailed SGI office on 7/16 stating that there was extensive water damage, however sent no additional information. Resident emailed on 7/17, now stating that AC has starting leaking again. AC vendor and restoration vendor were dispatched on 7/18 to inspect the unit and home. Rent will not be refunded to resident as vendors performed necessary work within short time frames and unit was still cooling the home. SGI followed up with resident several times with no response until this past weekend. Restoration vendor confirmed that damage is not extensive. The ceiling is not wet and no mold was noted. HVAC vendor performed necessary work to ensure the unit is functioning properly. All required repairs per the vendors has been and will continue to be forwarded to the homeowner as necessary.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The first paragraph of SGI's response, they state that, "As a company, SGI will not promise that items will be completed upon move in because of the requirement of owner approval for non-emergency repairs and clean-up. The tenants, upon lease signing, agree to take the property in “as in condition” without the repairs being completed. We can confirm that carpet cleaning was completed as well as all light bulbs being present and functional in the home prior to the tenant move-in in August 2012.We had a property inspection at the property on 8/28/12 at which time photos and a report were completed for the home. At that time there were no safety concerns and the home was move in ready with minor repairs noted which the owner had declined."1.)  We signed a lease agreement on October 7, 2012 and within the lease agreement we asked for the minor repairs to be completed prior to move in on November 1, 2012.  See lease agreement line 265 and 266.  SGI failed to complete this prior to our move in and was in breach of the contract signed.  We did not accept the premises "as in condition" because we signed the lease agreement three weeks prior to moving in and did not discover the issues until after we moved in on November 1, 2012.  We had no way of having knowledge of the issues because keys were not given to us until November 1, 2012.  An email was sent to SGI on November 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm, see attached email, in regards to them not fulfilling the agreement of the contract.  A list of problems were stated in the email, specifically the house not being cleaned and light bulbs missing and not working.  At no time prior to us moving in on November 1, 2012 did SGI inform us that the owner declined the minor repairs, as SGI stated above.  In fact, on October 25, 2012, an email was sent to SGI, see attached email, asking about the status of the minor repairs.  SGI responded that same day and said they would find out about them.  Only after the email that was sent by us, to SGI on November 1, 2012, and after the lease had been signed three weeks prior to moving in, did SGI response about the minor repairs.  In the email response by SGI, see attached, they state "the owner of the home had told us he was taking care of cleaning and such things."  This again shows that SGI as the property manager was in breach of the contract and failed to inform us of the issues.SGI's stated in the paragraph about "tenant move out," that " the tenants did not provide a move in inspection report."  SGI also stated, "The occupants were informed that they can contest the charges to their account if they can supply their property manager with any emails or documentation of prior issues for the charged items and/or a copy of the move out inspection.  To date we have not received any information to dispute their charges."1.)  The move inspection report was provided to SGI on November 4, 2012, see attached email and also inspection report.  SGI has now responded to the Revdex.com with a false statement about the report.2.)  On December 22, 2013, we provided to SGI, upon their request because of the dispute over the security deposit money being withheld, the documentation of the prior issues and minor repairs, see attached email.  The email also contained pictures of the house on the day of move in showing, the house not being cleaned, broke glass left on the counter tops, light bulbs missing and broken blinds.  In fact, the property manager responded back to the email on Monday, December 23, 2013.  Once again, SGI has provided a false statement to the Revdex.com about prior issues not being provided or as SGI said, "to date we have not received any information to dispute their charges."On December 5, 2013, SGI completed a Security Deposit Itemization to the us, see attached Security Deposit Itemization.  There was a total of $640 of the security deposit withheld by SGI for minor repairs that were asked to be done the prior year and before we moved in.  Now SGI is charging us for their failures as a company to manage the property.  We are not asking for the entire deposit back because there are a few items that we didn't complete prior to move out, cleaning the oven, touch up on scraped corner wall.  For SGI to withhold $640 after we had provided them with the documents of the issues on the move in date and then provided them the same documents again in December of 2013, is unethical on their part.  We feel that a split of the $640 is fair between SGI and us.  The $320 is more than enough for SGI to complete the cleaning of the oven, touch up paint, etc.

SGI will offer a $50 credit as good gesture. The property owner was the recipient of the portion of the security deposit withheld and not SGI. --------------------------

Not all items during a move out can be charged back to a resident, as per the landlord tenant act, only damages from the resident can be charged to the security deposit. Per Arizona law, a landlord has 14 business days to handle the security deposit disbursement. The letter and refund to the...

resident was sent out on 8/26/2015. The resident was charged for damages/cleaning and the refund totaled $529.62. The owner received the deduction amount of $525 on 9/10/2015. The owner was fully aware of the amount deducted based on the credit she received on her account. The resident terminated the lease early and paid the full lease

termination fee equal to two times rent in the amount of $2,500.00 which was

paid to the landlord on 8/11/2015. The resident also paid prorated rent from

8/1-8/7/2015 as they terminated as of 8/7/2015. Upon taking possession of the home from the resident, there was a very strong marijuana smell in the home. The home could not be listed in that condition and this was discussed in length with the owner. The cleaning company had to order special chemicals to remove the residue from the walls and the smell from the home. It was not in the owner’s best interest to list the home until the cleaning took place. The marketing ads were made live on 8/28/2015. SGI’s leasing agent

contacted the owner on 8/31/2015 with a list of additional items that she

recommended to get the home rent-ready. On 9/2, SGI had a showing with a

potential resident. The prospect had a list of items that they wanted to gain

approval on for repair prior to submitting an application. Owner received an

estimate from a vendor for these items on 9/16/2015 and owner responded via

email on 9/16 stating, “Go ahead with the work, I know you will send the bill

to tenant. For now, use my account.” On 9/17/2015, SGI sent a bid from a

landscaper in the amount of $240 to remove weeds from the yard. The owner

responded on 9/17 stating, “OK, please get it done then, thanks.” SGI provided notice to the owner on 10/23/2015 regarding termination of management due to the condition of the home and lack of payment from all approved repairs. On 10/23/2015 SGI provided the owner with the lockbox code to obtain possession right away. The only key that SGI had was in the lockbox which the owner removed directly. The remotes were never returned from the resident and they were informed that they’d be responsible for the cost of replacement, which they understood. On 10/30/2015, SGI informed the owner that we would send new remotes to them directly to avoid any further delay in retrieving remotes. On 10/30/2015, the owner replied in an email, “That’s alright, I’d rather no replacement, too much work for me, has to go shopping, re program the RC, etc.” Remotes were not sent as the owner did not want them.  Full possession was in fact transferred to the owner on 10/23 when the owner retrieved the key from the lockbox. (#3 and #5 from owner are both regarding keys and remotes)The total amount due from the owner for all approved work as well as normal operating expenses (utilities, HOA dues) came to: $1,598.48. SGI contacted the owner on 10/15 for payment. Owner asked for repair bills to be emailed over, which SGI did on 10/15/15. A total of four invoices (one utility bill and three repair invoices) were attached to the email and sent over. All invoices were dated clearly. The owner responded on 10/23/2015 disputing the charges that they had already approved when the potential resident asked for additional items in the home as well as the landscape clean up to avoid HOA fines. All approvals were received in writing from the owner. Per the management contract, the owner is responsible for any and all expenses related to the home for maintenance and repair. SGI never stated that we’d cover any expense on the owner’s behalf. SGI only paid the utility invoice and the

one repair invoice which was deducted from the security deposit and credited to

the owner. The other invoices were not paid directly from SGI. The amount owed

to SGI currently is $610.07 for unpaid invoices plus fees for collection. Per

the contract, “All labor and contractors shall be deemed sub-contractors of the

owner and not the Broker unless otherwise agreed in writing…” The vendors had a

right to contact the owner directly for payment as they are contractors of the owner

directly. SGI attempted to collect the balance from

the owner directly on 10/15/15, 10/21/2015, 10/23/2015, 10/26/2015 to avoid any

further action for payment owed. In reference to the owner’s claim stating “SGI

admits its mistake for not holding the security deposit” the owner took an

email from SGI out of context. On 10/26/2015, the owner asked SGI if we had any

success in attempting to collect more money from the previous resident based on

the items the potential resident requested, as some items were damaged items

and that the previous resident should in fact pay for. The owner states in her

email “I am afraid that if I pay this [to you], I will never get paid back for

this.” In response, SGI did agree to attempt to collect further payment from

the resident, however it was a risk of being a landlord that a resident may not

pay. Further action can however be taken for an outstanding balance that is in

fact owed.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,