Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/12/19) */ Ms [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com Broadway, Suite Oakland, CA XXXXX Ms [redacted] Thank you for sending Ms***' complaintI have attached our response from October of this year regarding the same issues raised by Ms [redacted] and which has been closed as resolved (Case XXXXXXXX)Please let us know if you need anything else from usWe are third-party fee managers, we do not own the properties we manage, and as such we take our role as fiduciaries of our clients funds very seriouslyWe have treated Ms [redacted] fairly and the deductions made from her security deposit were justified Thank you once again for your involvement and should you need anything else from us please do not hesitate to reach out to me Sincerely, [redacted] Vice President Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (4200, 12, 2016/01/05) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Lapham is not addressing the issues of my complaintI'll start at the beginningThey say, "As discussed, we did not charge for all items that we could have charged for and attempted to be conservative in assessing damages." This is a not trueWe left the house in BETTER condition than we found it which makes this extra maddeningLapham tried to accuse us of leaving fixtures in the house that were not there when we moved in, but of course could not prove that they weren't there, because they absolutely wereAre these the "damages" they were conservative in assessing? This is a completely fantastical claim and they know it, which is why they didn't pursue it We painted the front of kitchen cabinets, which we did not denyWhy would we? It is not a blatant violation of the lease, given that the lease states that painting damages cannot be assessed if the tenant is on the property for more than two years, which we wereHowever, we did not fight this and accepted that they would charge us for repaintingLapham charged us for repainting the insides and outsides of all cabinets, which was not our responsibilityWe painted the faces of the cabinetsThe interior of cabinets comprises more surface space than exteriormaking it more expensiveIt was NOT our responsibility to pay for repainting the interiors of cabinets which we didn't touch, only to bring the cabinets back to the color they were priorBut, they decided to change the color of the cabinets, which required the interiors to be painted as well, and charged us for this whole jobThis is an exploitation of our security depositIt is NOT our responsibility to fund their desired improvements to this propertyWe should have been charged only for the labor and materials of bringing the cabinets back to the color (primer white) that they were before we painted them, not a refresh and upgrade of the colorThe reality is, they are trying to get hundreds more in rent than what we paid when we moved in, so they sought ways to cover their upgrade costsAlso, if we hadn't painted the cabinets, they would have had to repaint them along with the whole house before renting it out again, so while this was work they would have been doing anyway, they were able to charge us for some since we did paint the faces of the cabinetsHowever, our deposit should have been used only to repaint what we painted, not to apply a whole new color to the insides and outside of the cabinets As far as the cleaning goes: this really is the most ridiculous claim and I've been advised that I can take them to court to recover the cleaning deposit they claim was my responsibilityThis Revdex.com case is my attempt to resolve this out of courtNot only did I have the house professionally cleaned, but during the walkthrough, they brought up only one of the issues that they claim warranted another full house cleaning ( I will get to that)According to the rental laws in Oakland, If they are going to make claims to my security deposit, they must raise all issues that would warrant such claims during the walkthrough so that the exiting tenant has time to address themThe first time all but one of these issues was raised, was by email after we had vacated the premise and they had already assessed the charges against my security depositThis is not the lawful process for claims against security deposits in Oakland, CAI have through emails that clearly show this timeline Back to the issues they raisedThey brought up three issues as warranting a full house cleaning, and keep in mind, these are all supposed to meet the "beyond wear and tear" standard, otherwise they do not warrant charging the tenant: 1) grease and dust on top of the fridge 2) soap residue and dust in and around the washing machine 3) grease laden stovetopThis is taken from an email from Velina on 11/24/Neither of the first two issues were raised during the walkthrough or in subsequent emails on 10/30/15, and do not meet the "beyond wear and tear" standardAnd the third issue, the stove, was brought up in the walkthrough, which I then scrubbed down, and sent a picture of the clean stove on 11/25/I have clear photographic evidence that I have shared with Lapham, but they continue to assert their claimIt's crazy making Regarding the claim "the professional cleaner left the premises was well below the condition the tenant received the unit" I have long email threads dating back to when we first moved into the unit to Velina, our assigned property manager, that detail out the state of the unit when we moved inWe had to get the place professionally cleaned after moving in, and I have EVIDENCE of thisYet again, Lapham ignores this and continues to assert their cleaning claim on my security depositNot only was the place dusty and dirty when we moved in, there were over two dozen issues in the unit that we dealt with, coordinate being home to have repairs made, etcSome of these were inconveniences such as doors not shutting and windows not being covered; some were downright dangerous conditions such as the old dryer catching fire, a gas leak, and the water heater pilot needing repairThis place was inarguably neglected when we moved in, and we invested money, time and love into it, only to be taken advantage of upon moving out Menna claims that they could have assessed more damagesWhat this really means is, they could have taken advantage of us more than they didI'm supposed to be grateful that they didn't charge me for curtain rods that were already in the unit when we moved in claimed they weren't, or a lawn chair that Velina imagined was there and of course has no proof ofWe are straight up people, and would never take anything that wasn't ours, or leave anything behind that was oursNever mind the $ceiling fan we paid for to replace the one that was dripping oilBut I made upgrades such as this on my own accord and am responsible for those decisionsIt does however make the claims all the more unwarrantedThis situation is an unfortunate waste of time, and all we want is to not feel taken advantage of, which we clearly wereI have air tight evidence to prove everything Lapham is claiming is untrueThis response is absolutely not sufficient, and I will continue pursuing this until it is righted

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/12/16) */ Ms [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com Broadway, Suite Oakland, CA XXXXX Ms [redacted] Thank you for sending forwarding along Ms***'s complaintWe have had the opportunity to review the complaint, her file, and also discuss possible resolution options internallyThough the file is clear that a rent increase notice was sent to Ms [redacted] on January 22, with an effective rent increase date of March 1, (see attached), we do note that Ms [redacted] started paying the subject rent increase in August of The resulting small balance of $is a result of the aforementioned rent increase of $17.58/month not being paid for the months of March, April, May, June, and July (x $= $87.90) Ms***'s assertion is that she never got a copy of the rent increase noticeOur records clearly indicate that the rent increase notice went out and that Oakland's Rent Adjustment Program was also sent an executed proof of service by mailMs [redacted] also asserts that she sent several letters to one of our employees that went unansweredOur file does include several letters from our accounting department to Ms [redacted] confirming the small balance owing All of this said and in spite of our strong belief that there was clear communication to Ms [redacted] that the $CPI based rent increase was/is legitimate, we will, in the interests of good will, provide a one-time rent credit to Ms***'s tenant ledger in the amount of $This one-time rent credit will leave Ms [redacted] with a zero balance as of the writing of this letter As always, we appreciate the involvement of the Revdex.comYou have proven to be objective and fair and we hope that you have found us to be the sameShould you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at [redacted] Sincerely, [redacted] Vice President Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2015/12/19) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Thank you for forgiving the small balance due on my accountThe snooty tone in your message isn't called forI have no reason to lie about receiving the rent notice several months lateIf I had received it on time I would have started paying the new rent rate on time, just like I did when I finally received the notice in June (not August)It is disconcerting that you have also completely failed to in any way acknowledge the very point of this complaint, which was that I tried, FOR MONTHS, to get ahold of [redacted] and received no responseIn fact, I had to open a case with the Revdex.com to resolve the issueThat is not good communication

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/19) */
Ms. [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist
Revdex.com
1000 Broadway, Suite 625
Oakland, CA XXXXX
Ms. [redacted]
Thank you for sending Ms. [redacted]' complaint. I have attached our response from October of this year...

regarding the same issues raised by Ms. [redacted] and which has been closed as resolved (Case XXXXXXXX). Please let us know if you need anything else from us. We are third-party fee managers, we do not own the properties we manage, and as such we take our role as fiduciaries of our clients funds very seriously. We have treated Ms. [redacted] fairly and the deductions made from her security deposit were justified.
Thank you once again for your involvement and should you need anything else from us please do not hesitate to reach out to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Vice President
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (4200, 12, 2016/01/05) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Lapham is not addressing the issues of my complaint. I'll start at the beginning. They say, "As discussed, we did not charge for all items that we could have charged for and attempted to be conservative in assessing damages." This is a not true. We left the house in BETTER condition than we found it which makes this extra maddening. Lapham tried to accuse us of leaving fixtures in the house that were not there when we moved in, but of course could not prove that they weren't there, because they absolutely were. Are these the "damages" they were conservative in assessing? This is a completely fantastical claim and they know it, which is why they didn't pursue it.
We painted the front of kitchen cabinets, which we did not deny. Why would we? It is not a blatant violation of the lease, given that the lease states that painting damages cannot be assessed if the tenant is on the property for more than two years, which we were. However, we did not fight this and accepted that they would charge us for repainting. Lapham charged us for repainting the insides and outsides of all cabinets, which was not our responsibility. We painted the faces of the cabinets. The interior of cabinets comprises more surface space than exterior. making it more expensive. It was NOT our responsibility to pay for repainting the interiors of cabinets which we didn't touch, only to bring the cabinets back to the color they were prior. But, they decided to change the color of the cabinets, which required the interiors to be painted as well, and charged us for this whole job. This is an exploitation of our security deposit. It is NOT our responsibility to fund their desired improvements to this property. We should have been charged only for the labor and materials of bringing the cabinets back to the color (primer white) that they were before we painted them, not a refresh and upgrade of the color. The reality is, they are trying to get hundreds more in rent than what we paid when we moved in, so they sought ways to cover their upgrade costs. Also, if we hadn't painted the cabinets, they would have had to repaint them along with the whole house before renting it out again, so while this was work they would have been doing anyway, they were able to charge us for some since we did paint the faces of the cabinets. However, our deposit should have been used only to repaint what we painted, not to apply a whole new color to the insides and outside of the cabinets.
As far as the cleaning goes: this really is the most ridiculous claim and I've been advised that I can take them to court to recover the cleaning deposit they claim was my responsibility. This Revdex.com case is my attempt to resolve this out of court. Not only did I have the house professionally cleaned, but during the walkthrough, they brought up only one of the issues that they claim warranted another full house cleaning ( I will get to that). According to the rental laws in Oakland, If they are going to make claims to my security deposit, they must raise all issues that would warrant such claims during the walkthrough so that the exiting tenant has time to address them. The first time all but one of these issues was raised, was by email after we had vacated the premise and they had already assessed the charges against my security deposit. This is not the lawful process for claims against security deposits in Oakland, CA. I have through emails that clearly show this timeline.
Back to the issues they raised. They brought up three issues as warranting a full house cleaning, and keep in mind, these are all supposed to meet the "beyond wear and tear" standard, otherwise they do not warrant charging the tenant: 1) grease and dust on top of the fridge 2) soap residue and dust in and around the washing machine 3) grease laden stovetop. This is taken from an email from Velina on 11/24/15. Neither of the first two issues were raised during the walkthrough or in subsequent emails on 10/30/15, and do not meet the "beyond wear and tear" standard. And the third issue, the stove, was brought up in the walkthrough, which I then scrubbed down, and sent a picture of the clean stove on 11/25/15. I have clear photographic evidence that I have shared with Lapham, but they continue to assert their claim. It's crazy making.
Regarding the claim "the professional cleaner left the premises was well below the condition the tenant received the unit" I have long email threads dating back to when we first moved into the unit to Velina, our assigned property manager, that detail out the state of the unit when we moved in. We had to get the place professionally cleaned after moving in, and I have EVIDENCE of this. Yet again, Lapham ignores this and continues to assert their cleaning claim on my security deposit. Not only was the place dusty and dirty when we moved in, there were over two dozen issues in the unit that we dealt with, coordinate being home to have repairs made, etc. Some of these were inconveniences such as doors not shutting and windows not being covered; some were downright dangerous conditions such as the old dryer catching fire, a gas leak, and the water heater pilot needing repair. This place was inarguably neglected when we moved in, and we invested money, time and love into it, only to be taken advantage of upon moving out.
Menna claims that they could have assessed more damages. What this really means is, they could have taken advantage of us more than they did. I'm supposed to be grateful that they didn't charge me for curtain rods that were already in the unit when we moved in claimed they weren't, or a lawn chair that Velina imagined was there and of course has no proof of. We are straight up people, and would never take anything that wasn't ours, or leave anything behind that was ours. Never mind the $300 ceiling fan we paid for to replace the one that was dripping oil. But I made upgrades such as this on my own accord and am responsible for those decisions. It does however make the claims all the more unwarranted. This situation is an unfortunate waste of time, and all we want is to not feel taken advantage of, which we clearly were. I have air tight evidence to prove everything Lapham is claiming is untrue. This response is absolutely not sufficient, and I will continue pursuing this until it is righted.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/16) */
Ms. [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist
Revdex.com
1000 Broadway, Suite 625
Oakland, CA XXXXX
Ms. [redacted]
Thank you for sending forwarding along Ms. [redacted]'s complaint. We have had the opportunity to review...

the complaint, her file, and also discuss possible resolution options internally. Though the file is clear that a rent increase notice was sent to Ms. [redacted] on January 22, 2015 with an effective rent increase date of March 1, 2015 (see attached), we do note that Ms. [redacted] started paying the subject rent increase in August of 2015. The resulting small balance of $87.90 is a result of the aforementioned rent increase of $17.58/month not being paid for the months of March, April, May, June, and July (5 x $17.58 = $87.90).
Ms. [redacted]'s assertion is that she never got a copy of the rent increase notice. Our records clearly indicate that the rent increase notice went out and that Oakland's Rent Adjustment Program was also sent an executed proof of service by mail. Ms. [redacted] also asserts that she sent several letters to one of our employees that went unanswered. Our file does include several letters from our accounting department to Ms. [redacted] confirming the small balance owing.
All of this said and in spite of our strong belief that there was clear communication to Ms. [redacted] that the $17.58 CPI based rent increase was/is legitimate, we will, in the interests of good will, provide a one-time rent credit to Ms. [redacted]'s tenant ledger in the amount of $87.90. This one-time rent credit will leave Ms. [redacted] with a zero balance as of the writing of this letter.
As always, we appreciate the involvement of the Revdex.com. You have proven to be objective and fair and we hope that you have found us to be the same. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at [redacted].
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Vice President
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/12/19) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Thank you for forgiving the small balance due on my account. The snooty tone in your message isn't called for. I have no reason to lie about receiving the rent notice several months late. If I had received it on time I would have started paying the new rent rate on time, just like I did when I finally received the notice in June (not August). It is disconcerting that you have also completely failed to in any way acknowledge the very point of this complaint, which was that I tried, FOR MONTHS, to get ahold of [redacted] and received no response. In fact, I had to open a case with the Revdex.com to resolve the issue. That is not good communication.