Simply Residential Property Management

In review this complaint and working with the owner we have refunded ($110) the two Quarterly Furnace filter changes and walk thru that were completed since Owner requested it to be canceled and we have updated our system to reflect Owner does not want this service going forwardThe previous furnace filter changes and visual walk thru were completed over the last year and we will not reimburse the $We are sorry for any confusion so to be clear it is common and per the law for owners to be responsible for wear and tear including cleaningTenants are responsible for excessive wear and tear and we have taken $from the tenants security deposit specifically $for carpet cleaning and $for cleaning appliances and bathroom grimeThe owner was responsible only for cleaning to get the property ready for the next tenantNote: The previous tenant was charged an additional $for repairs and carpentry work deemed as excessive wear and tearI hope this will clear up any confusion and help us move forward

To Whom It May Concern: We, Simply Residential Property Management, pride ourselves on providing top-notch service to our clients and tenantsIn order to ensure we are maintaining these service levels, we consistently survey our clients and tenants so that we know exactly where we standIn fact, YTD the overall satisfaction level of our clients and tenants is 89%With that said, receiving this complaint is not being taken lightly The tenant has opened work orders since May of Each work order has been addressed, all repairs have been made and we have receipts and documentation supporting thisDue to the fact that all reported maintenance issues were addressed within a timely manner, refunding any amount of rent paid is not meritedThe tenants had full enjoyment of the property during the duration of their lease, meaning maintenance did not affect their ability to live in the propertyAt this time, we are unaware of any outstanding maintenance issues and the tenants are planning to move out of the property by 4/30/as their lease ends at that time Please let us know if there is any additional information we can provide Thanks for your time! ~Simply Residential Property Management

Thank you for clarificationConcerning the $Devon was incorrect and does not negate the owners responsibility under state lawwear and tear is the responsibility of each owner not the tenantSorry for the confusionIn reconciling the security deposit we charged the tenants for excessive wear and tear and not wear and tear which keeps the owner with in compliance of state lawThe Quarterly furnace filters where done every three months for over a year and the service was completedExcessive wear and tear on the property was addressed at time of move out and fees taken out of security deposits to remedy the maintenance needsSincerely, Ron [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2015/12/11) */
To Whom It May Concern:
We, Simply Residential Property Management, pride ourselves on providing top-notch service to our clients and tenants. In order to ensure we are maintaining these service levels, we consistently survey our clients and...

tenants so that we know exactly where we stand. In fact, YTD the overall satisfaction level of our clients and tenants is 89%. With that said, receiving this complaint is not being taken lightly.
We received a call from the tenant on 9/10/15 stating that her fridge was not working correctly. Upon receiving this call, we contacted the owner to seek approval and permission to proceed with repairing the appliance. Upon receiving approval from the owner of the property, we assigned the work order to one of our vendors. On 9/11/15, the tenant reported that she had not yet heard from our vendor. We immediately contacted our vendor at which point they made contact with the tenant and booked the repair appointment. When the vendor arrived on 9/14/15, they were unable to take the rear panel off of the fridge as it was covered in ice. The fridge had to be unplugged in order to thaw so that the vendor could assess the damage correctly. As a result of this, the tenants chose to move their food to another location. The vendor arrived on 9/16/15 and reported to us that he was able to repair the fridge.
The tenant reported on 9/29/15 that the fridge was not working again. Our work order was assigned to the vendor on 10/1/15 after we received permission from the owner to proceed with another round of repairs. As the tenant stated, the work order was assigned to the same vendor. Said vendor is a reputable appliance repair vendor in the Twin Cities and since they completed the initial repair, it made sense to send them back to assess the situation the second time around.
On 10/21/15, the tenant emailed our Maintenance Manager to report that the fridge was frozen again. The email was immediately passed onto the same vendor and we were told it would be addressed. The tenant followed up with us on 10/23/15 as she had not yet heard from our vendor. Upon investigating this, we learned that our representative was in the hospital and the work order had not been assigned to another party. Our vendor dispatched a tech out to the property 1.5 hours later. The tech that went to the property that day advised the tenant that he was awaiting a call from Samsung regarding the part that was needed in order to repair the fridge. The fridge was repaired the following week.
Regarding the reimbursement of food, our VP of Operations did speak with the tenant on 9/17/15. In this conversation, our VP advised that the loss of personal property needed to be reported to their insurance agent under their renter's insurance policy. It was not stated that it was against our policy as we do not have a policy in place for this. Additionally, it was not stated that this would be viewed as discrimination. What was stated is that we have to be fair and consistent with all of our tenants when it comes to the loss of personal property.
Throughout the past 2 months, we have been at the mercy of the owner providing us with permission to get the repairs completed and our vendor completing the repairs. We have been diligent about assigning the work orders as soon as we received the maintenance requests from tenant. Upon receiving a maintenance request, we have to send it to the owner for approval. Upon receiving permission to proceed from the owner, we send the work order to our vendor. This process can take anywhere from 1-3 days. Our vendor tried their best to repair the fridge each time they were at the property, but it seems they were having difficulty pinpointing the issue. At this time, we are unaware of any additional issues with the fridge and the problem has been resolved.
In conclusion, we are the property manager and not the owner. With that said, we are not in a position to reimburse the tenant for the loss of personal property. Again, this needs to be reported to their insurance agent. Please let us know if there is any additional information we can provide.
Thanks for your time!
~Simply Residential Property Management

Attached is a copy of the email dated 6/3/16 from the client ([redacted]) where she specifically requested that we arrange for gutter cleaning and a spring clean-up of the yard at her property. The request is listed separately from the city inspection repairs. Also, the email is not...

requesting a bid for this specific work; it asks that we arrange for the work to be completed. To arrange for work means to make plans for said work. I have attached an additional email dated 6/29/16 where I clearly stated that we have not completed any work aside from the gutter cleaning/yard clean-up as we have not received her permission to do so. Our company does not proceed with maintenance on any of our properties unless the owner has provided us with permission in writing. I have also attached pages 6 & 7 of the Management Agreement that has been agreed to by all parties (Simply Residential Property Management & [redacted]). Per section 12D, the owner/landlord expressly grants to the property manager herein the following authority: "to provide for any and all negotiating and contractual arrangement (in the name of the owner/landlord) by the property manager's maintenance division or independent contractors for any and all repair items deemed necessary by the owner/landlord and/or the property manager and to pay the property manager's maintenance division or independent contractors for these services, repairs and improvement from the owner/landlord's funds". We as a company hold a General Contractor's License (license # [redacted]) and all work is subcontracted through us. As a result, we do not provide our client's with our vendor's contact information. This was also communicated in an email dated 7/14/16 (also attached). So that it's understood, Contractors are responsible for supplying the necessary equipment, material, labor, and services to complete a project. We hire specialized subcontractors to perform either a portion or all of the work that is requested of us and all billing is through our license as well. All in all, we have made all efforts to coordinate maintenance on this client's behalf and have only proceeded with work that she has approved. It is our goal to work with our clients at every turn with regards to all maintenance needs at their properties so that their investment remains in good repair. We feel that communication surrounding this particular client's requests was very clear as over 28 emails were sent back and forth regarding maintenance for this client over the months of June and July 2016. If there is any additional information that we can provide, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you.

I am rejecting this response because Simply Residential Property Management proceeded with work on my behalf without informing me of costs that exceeded their own limit of $200. In addition to my original description of the situation, I am responding to the message from the business below. Please find my responses in bold. As stated in my original email, I would like to be reimbursed for the amount that exceeded $200 as I believe this is a fair request and in line with the contract between me and SRPM.
MESSAGE FROM BUSINESS:Attached is a copy of the email dated 6/3/16 from the client ([redacted]) where she specifically requested that we arrange for gutter cleaning and a spring clean-up of the yard at her property. The request is listed separately from the city inspection repairs. Also, the email is not requesting a bid for this specific work; it asks that we arrange for the work to be completed. To arrange for work means to make plans for said work. I have attached an additional email dated 6/29/16 where I clearly stated that we have not completed any work aside from the gutter cleaning/yard clean-up as we have not received her permission to do so. Our company does not proceed with maintenance on any of our properties unless the owner has provided us with permission in writing.My original email did not include the gutter cleaning, yard clean up and tree trimming. When I did not receive a response from SRPM to my original email, I sent another email asking if it had been received, and added the need for this additional work. The gutter cleaning, yard clean up and tree trimming was "in addition to" the original items; thus, the request for cost information was in my email. More than this, in a phone conversation with Ron [redacted], I was explicitly told that no work would ever be done on my house without first providing me with cost/pricing information. This conversation was had following a similar incident where SRPM proceeded with plumbing work that exceeded the $200 limit set by SRPM without informing me first.The additional email from 6/29 is misleading as I had provided in writing (in an email) permission to proceed on a very specific list of items. This email was overlooked by SRPM. I have another email from SRPM acknowledging that they did receive my permission for some of the items and were remiss in not proceeding with the work. SRPM never sought permission from me before proceeding with the gutter cleaning, yard clean up and tree trimming. I am aware that SRPM believes they had my permission as I asked them to procure a vendor for this, as well as other, work. Again, according to the management agreement, I should have been informed of any costs that exceed $200 so that I would have an opportunity to proceed or decline, allowing me to get other bids on my own or not have the work completed at all. In the way that SRPM is presenting things, I gave a blanket authorization for any dollar amount. I certainly would never enter into an agreement that permits this.I have also attached pages 6 & 7 of the Management Agreement that has been agreed to by all parties (Simply Residential Property Management & [redacted]). Per section 12D, the owner/landlord expressly grants to the property manager herein the following authority: "to provide for any and all negotiating and contractual arrangement (in the name of the owner/landlord) by the property manager's maintenance division or independent contractors for any and all repair items deemed necessary by the owner/landlord and/or the property manager and to pay the property manager's maintenance division or independent contractors for these services, repairs and improvement from the owner/landlord's funds".The agreement also includes language regarding informing the owner/client of work that exceeds $200. This acknowledges that SRPM does not have blanket authorization to incur any amount of charges on my behalf. We as a company hold a General Contractor's License (license # [redacted]) and all work is subcontracted through us. As a result, we do not provide our client's with our vendor's contact information. This was also communicated in an email dated 7/14/16 (also attached). So that it's understood, Contractors are responsible for supplying the necessary equipment, material, labor, and services to complete a project. We hire specialized subcontractors to perform either a portion or all of the work that is requested of us and all billing is through our license as well.This has not been the case in the past. I was given vendor contact information for RotoRooter who did work on my house, which was coordinated by SRPM. I was even given contact information and spoke directly with the man who did the work so that I could get information directly from him regarding the work that was performed and recommendations he had for me. Moreover, I was told by SRPM that they would be getting several bids for the work I requested rather than just providing me with one general bid.All in all, we have made all efforts to coordinate maintenance on this client's behalf and have only proceeded with work that she has approved. It is our goal to work with our clients at every turn with regards to all maintenance needs at their properties so that their investment remains in good repair. We feel that communication surrounding this particular client's requests was very clear as over 28 emails were sent back and forth regarding maintenance for this client over the months of June and July 2016.I would be happy to provide Revdex.com with the entire email communication. I was told by SRPM that they would not talk to me over the phone and that all communication had to be done by email. If there is any additional information that we can provide, please don't hesitate to ask.Thank you.

In review this complaint and working with the owner we have refunded ($110)  the two Quarterly Furnace filter changes and walk thru that were completed since Owner requested it to be canceled and we have updated our system to reflect Owner does not want this service going forward. The previous...

furnace filter changes and visual walk thru were completed over the last year and we will not reimburse the $220.00. We are sorry for any confusion so to be clear it is common and per the law for owners to be responsible for normal wear and tear including cleaning. Tenants are responsible for excessive wear and tear and we have taken $1199 from the tenants security deposit specifically $329 for carpet cleaning and $115 for cleaning appliances and bathroom grime. The owner was responsible only for cleaning to get the property ready for the next tenant. Note: The previous tenant was charged an additional $755 for repairs and carpentry work deemed as excessive wear and tear. I hope this will clear up any confusion and help us move forward.

I am rejecting this response because:I flew in from Dallas to get the house ready for the new tenants and to clean the gutters and was REPEATEDLY told NOT to clean the inside of the house, via email, phone and in-person, as it was the tenant's responsibility.  Devon [redacted] of SRPM told me to focus on the other items on the punch list (minor repairs, paint, gutters, etc.) that I, as owner, was responsible for because the tenants were FULLY responsible for the cleaning of the house.The argument the SRPM is making in it's defense does not make any sense whatsoever and I believe is purposely trying to paint me in a bad light and that this is somehow something I've tried to do before.  The response includes a NOTE that the previous tenant was charged $755 for repairs and carpentry work deemed as excessive wear and tear.  THERE WERE NO PREVIOUS TENANTS!!! They were the first tenants in the house as we had lived there ourselves for eight years until six weeks prior to renting it out.I am including two emails from the SRPM person in charge of maintenance at the time, Devon [redacted].   I have used a snipping tool in order to get them to conform to this software's parameters.  However, I am more than happy to email the full (and quite lengthy) email history to you if possible.As for the rejection of the $220, I am willing to split the difference and settle for $110 as they did only one half (filter change) of what I paid them to do.  There is absolutely no way they did the other half (lease violation inspection) as the violations were rampant and obvious.Thank you,[redacted]

Thank you for clarification. Concerning the $165 Devon was incorrect and does not negate the owners responsibility under state law. Normal wear and tear is the responsibility of each owner not the tenant. Sorry for the confusion. In reconciling the security deposit we charged the tenants for excessive wear and tear and not normal wear and tear which keeps the owner with in compliance of state law. The Quarterly furnace filters where done every three months for over a year and the service was completed. Excessive wear and tear on the property was addressed at time of move out and fees taken out of security deposits to remedy the maintenance needs. Sincerely, Ron [redacted]

To Whom It May Concern: We, Simply Residential Property Management, pride ourselves on providing top-notch service to our clients and tenants. In order to ensure we are maintaining these service levels, we consistently survey our clients and tenants so that we know exactly where we stand. In fact,...

YTD the overall satisfaction level of our clients and tenants is 89%. With that said, receiving this complaint is not being taken lightly.    The tenant has opened 13 work orders since May of 2014. Each work order has been addressed, all repairs have been made and we have receipts and documentation supporting this. Due to the fact that all reported maintenance issues were addressed within a timely manner, refunding any amount of rent paid is not merited. The tenants had full enjoyment of the property during the duration of their lease, meaning maintenance did not affect their ability to live in the property. At this time, we are unaware of any outstanding maintenance issues and the tenants are planning to move out of the property by 4/30/16 as their lease ends at that time.   Please let us know if there is any additional information we can provide.   Thanks for your time! ~Simply Residential Property Management