BBB Accredited Business since

Associated Property Management Inc

Phone: (503) 648-2150 Fax: (503) 640-9569 408 SE Baseline St, Hillsboro, OR 97123 http://www.associatedmgmt.com


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Description

This company offers real estate and property management for mostly single family homes.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Associated Property Management Inc meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Associated Property Management Inc include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 2 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

2 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 2
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 0
Total Closed Complaints 2

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Associated Property Management Inc
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: November 01, 1999 Business started: 02/01/1989 in OR Business started locally: 02/01/1989 Business incorporated 12/13/1988 in OR
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Oregon Real Estate Agency
1177 Center St NE, Salem OR 97301
http://www.oregon.gov/REA
Phone Number: (503) 378-4170
orea.info@state.or.us

Oregon Secretary of State Corporations Division
255 Capitol St NE Ste 151, Salem OR 97310
http://www.sos.state.or.us
Phone Number: (503) 986-2200
corporation.division@state.or.us

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Ms. Elisabeth Reiland, President
Contact Information
Principal: Ms. Elisabeth Reiland, President
Business Category

Property Management Real Estate Rental Service Real Estate


Additional Locations

  • 408 SE Baseline St

    Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503) 648-2150

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

6/12/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We lived in a property managed by Associated Property Management for over 3 years (February 1 2012 through March 31, 2015). We were charged an additional Security Deposit at move in when we were deemed “high-risk” tenants. The management group claimed this was in order “to protect the homeowner from unpaid rent or late fees.” We paid rent on time every month, had zero late fees or NSF checks, and broke none of the contract requirements. Leaving the house clean upon move-out, we expected to be charged for basic cleaning and a professional carpet cleaner. We were shocked when their final accounting charged us a total of $3,243.50 for work done to the property. The charges were attributed to a variety of excessive purchases, including repainting of the entire home, re-carpeting the entire upstairs, and replacing an entire set of vertical blinds––operational components included––for over $1,000. None of these items were warranted to restore the home to its original renting condition, as we had done no more damage than “ordinary wear and tear” over the course of three years. We tried for several weeks to resolve this issue with the property management company, but staff refused to give us any real justification for the charges and stated the homeowner was not open to negotiation. The work charged to us at move out was unjustified and at inordinate cost. We worry that the company charged us an additional Security Deposit with the intent of exploiting this at move out and never intended to pay any refund on the deposits charged. Poor upkeep of the property during the course of our tenancy, including serious structural problems and extermination issues, are further causes of concern. We failed to receive good service or treatment from this company at any point as tenants and would warn people against renting from them.

Desired Settlement: We would like to negotiate a mutually-acceptable amount to be returned to us from our original Security Deposit of $3,250 in order to settle this matter. Efforts to this end thus far have failed, however.

Business Response:  

Please see below in response to the complaint ID ******** in
regards to ****** and **** ***** at **** ** ******* ****** in Hillsboro and the
dispute regarding the charges to their security deposit statement. 

The tenancy with the ******* began on February 1, 2012.  As they indicated, a larger security deposit
was required at move in.  According to
our rental criteria, an application that does not fully meet the criteria may
be considered with an additional security deposit.  The ******* agreed to pay $2650 in security
deposit and an additional $600 in deposit for their 2 dogs totaling $3250 in
refundable security deposit. 

Throughout the course of the tenancy, there were not any
issues that came up that would be considered abnormal.  There were minor maintenance issues that were
resolved.  The exterior of the home was
painted during the tenancy which included some replacement of trim boards
around the windows.  The tenants also
complained of ants at one point during the tenancy which were also treated.

The move out process is when we discovered some substantial problems
in the home due to the tenants’ misuse and negligence. 

1)     
The home was not left clean to our
standards.  While an attempt had been
made to clean, a more thorough cleaning of the appliances were needed inside
and out.  The drawers and cabinets needed
to be wiped clean.  The tenants were
charged $200.00 for this work to be completed.

2)     
There was a vertical wood blind present on the
sliding door to the backyard.  The
majority of the blind slats needed to be replaced as it appears their dogs
scratched and nipped at them causing damage. 
The price to replace the damaged blind slats was more expensive than replacing
the entire blind.  The cost to replace
the existing window treatment with a like blind was $982.21 plus one hour of
labor ($60) to install for a total of $1042.21 charged to the tenant.

3)     
The damage to the walls at move out was beyond
normal wear and tear.  The tenant had a
large number of wall hangings, filling holes with excessive spackle at move
out.  There was a large hole in the wall
under the breakfast bar that had been badly patched over by the tenant and one
wall that had more than 30 spackled over holes. 
In order to repair this damage, our painter has to remove the bad
spackle and retexture prior to even painting the home.  Had the tenants properly filled the holes or
even left them as is, we would have probably been able to touch up some of the
walls rather than requiring a full repaint. 
But due to the extensive damage, the repaint was necessary.    The total cost to repaint the walls was
$1542.00.  The tenants were charged a
pro-rated amount based on the life the paint and the length of their tenancy
which amounted to $833.77.

4)     
Finally, the tenants were charged a portion of
the carpet replacement bill.  The carpet
in the home had excessive staining at move out as a result of urine from their
dogs.  It was not possible to remove the
stains or odor from the carpet.  The
total bill for replacing the carpet was $2505.68 which the tenants were charged
$1127.52.  Again, the charge was calculated
based on the age of the carpet and the length of the ******* tenancy.

 

The tenants’ security deposit was issued to them on May 1,
2015 as required by Law with a full accounting of the charges.  We received a dispute letter from the *******
on May 5, 2015 to which we responded. 
They asked for an explanation of charges and refund of their
deposit.  They were issued an explanation
letter on May 8th, 2015. 
While the initial charges were fair and legitimate, the Owner made an effort
to resolve the dispute by reducing their total charges by $425.00 resulting in
a net refund to the tenants of $431.50. 
Based on the amount of damage in the home created by these tenants and
the expense it took to restore the property to move in condition, aside from
normal wear and tear, the Owner was extremely fair in trying to reach an
agreement.  However, the tenants were not
satisfied and issued another letter to our office requesting an additional
refund of $893.50.  At this time, the
Owner is unwilling to negotiate any further as the tenants should be held
accountable for the damage they caused in the home. 

I would also like to mention that the tenants submitted a
letter when they returned keys to the home as quoted.  “We understand that the security deposit can
be applied to any damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.  We expect the carpets to be cleaned/replaced
as need and the walls to be patched and painted.”  This letter from the tenants, along with
photos the damage to the home, are available for review by request.


 





Consumer Response: In direct response to their numbered claims:

1) The only appliances in the home were a range, a dishwasher, and a broken microwave.  Their own maintenance technician told us months before our tenancy ended that the microwave was unusable as the ceiling repeatedly fell down, exposing metal parts and compromising the safety of its use.  Although he told the Property Management this, the matter was never  resolved and the microwave was never replaced.

In contrast to what was stated by the Property Management in their response, their final accounting charged us $240.00 for 12 hours of cleaning, which was not believable or reasonable given the condition of the property at move out.  Cleaning 2 appliances and wiping down cabinets does not account for that amount of labor.

2) The small amount of damage done to a few slats of the vertical blinds did not require complete replacement.  The Property Managers have failed to prove, “The price to replace the damaged blind slats was more expensive than replacing the entire blind” to our satisfaction.  Stating so does not, in fact, make it true.

If they had replaced the few slats that were damaged, they could have easily found available replacement wood blind slats at a much more reasonable price, as we did (well below the >$1,000 for total replacement).  We do not believe the minimal damage justified replacement of the entire assembly, but most importantly, we are certainly not responsible for paying for it.

3 & 4) The “very fair” method of accounting employed by the Property Management team involved charging us for the “remaining life” of both the paint and the carpet throughout the home.  This was figured by dividing the total amount paid by the number of years “remaining in the life” of painting and carpeting that had been applied and installed years before our tenancy began.  This is anything but a “fair” method of accounting.  We as tenants are not responsible for restoring the home to new condition, but to the condition at move in (which was far from new).  Much of the paint was peeling and revealed previous paint colors.  They had also failed to use the appropriate type of paint for bathrooms and kitchen areas that would repel water, resulting in paint damage beyond our control.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the Property Management ignored gross inadequacies in the quality of the home despite our repeated attempts to inform them of severe
water damage and dry rot to the exterior.  This eventually allowed water to enter the walls of the home––visible in the form of RUST on the screws securing curtains in the bedrooms––and endangering the health of our family.  We know both the Property Management and homeowner knew of the damage due to a lawsuit involving every home in the neighborhood, which revealed inadequate water sealing work done by the builder during construction.  The homeowner received a monetary settlement for this issue, but decided to simply paint over the growing damage in the walls of the home rather than addressing the root issue, as many other neighbors did during this time.

We have been renters for over a decade and never experienced a living situation or tenant-landlord relationship as negative as this one.  We would strongly discourage anyone from
doing business with this company in the future.  Their motives and incentives were made exceedingly clear to us through our repeated interactions in an attempt to resolve this protracted dispute.  We offered to settle for an amount much lower than what was warranted given the situation, but have been rebuffed.  Unfortunately, the company is unwilling to reach any reasonable settlement outside of seeking legal recourse.

Business Response:

In response to the tenants’ claims:



1)     
The tenant is correct about the appliances
supplied for the tenancy.  However, we
were unaware of any problems with their microwave.  Vendors used for repairs in our properties
are independent, rather than employees of our office.  I’m not sure which vendor they communicated
the problem with but the tenant is responsible for communicating repair issues
in writing to our office, which was not done.

2)     
The vertical blind on the slider that was
damaged was a custom, special order wood blind. 
More than half of the slats were damaged by the tenants’ dogs.  The blind did indeed need to be replaced as
the damage was not minimal as the tenant claims.  The new blind was purchased from the same
manufacturer as the blind that was damaged in order to closely match the amenities
in the home that were present when the tenant took possession.  There are certainly less costly window
treatments on the market.  However, the
Owner is not required to accept a substandard solution simply because the
tenants do not want to pay.

3 & 4)  The total cost to replace the carpet and paint
the home’s interior was $4047.68 of which the tenants were charged
$1536.29.  If the tenants were charged to
restore the home to new as they claim, they would have been charged
$4047.68.  Instead, a formula was used in
order to calculate the life that should have been left in the carpet and paint
at the end of their tenancy.  The Owner
should not have to pay the entire cost of carpet replacement to repair damage
caused by the tenants’ pets.

5) 
The tenant claims that the Owner received a monetary settlement from the
Builder for “gross inadequacies” in the home. 
This is simply untrue.  There were
townhomes in the neighborhood that were part of litigation with the Builder but
the DETACHED single family homes such as this were not included.  We are now only hearing of “rust” inside the
home so that could not have been addressed during the tenancy.  As I mentioned in a previous response, the
home was in need of exterior paint, which was completed during the
tenancy.  Some of the window trim on the
home had evidence of dry rot which was removed and replaced during the paint
job by a licensed, bonded contractor. 
Had the contractor uncovered any issues during the project that were
beyond the scope of his expertise, he would have contacted our office to take
additional steps in resolving the problem. 




The tenants’ security deposit
statement was issued along with a refund check of $6.50.  The tenants disputed these charges upon
receipt and asked for their file to be reviewed.  This was done and after consulting with the
property owner, they were refunded an additional $425.00 in an effort to
resolve this issue.  The tenants were
unsatisfied with this refund and requested another $893.50 for a total refund
of $1325.00.  Withholding $1925 to go
towards over $5300 in necessary repairs at move out as they proposed hardly seems
reasonable.  Although the Owner has already
shown good faith in trying to reach a resolution, we will certainly consider a
reasonable settlement, should the tenants propose one.

Attached you will find supporting
documents to include:

1)     
Copies of the initial charges to the tenants
account

2)     
The tenants’ initial dispute letter and APM’s
response and reduction in charges

3)     
The tenants’ 2nd dispute letter

4)     
The exterior paint invoice showing the repair to
the dry rot

5)     
29 of our 193 move out photos to show an example
of how the home was turned over to us substantiating the charges to their
account.  This has been sent in a separate email due to size.

***SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY BBB***

Consumer Response: I feel it is inconsequential at this point to argue about the failures of the Property Management staff to properly manage the property at this point.  According to the company’s claims, the licensed contractors sent to the home by the Property Management were telling them an entirely different set of facts than were communicated to us, the tenants.  I’m not convinced this was the case, but again, it is not worth arguing over now.

The crux of the matter is that we were unfairly charged for work in excess of what was necessary to repair the alleged “damage” to the property.  When we attempted to reach a reasonable settlement, as was suggested by the Property Management, their reply was that the Owner was no longer willing to negotiate.

This is how we got to where we are now. We suggested a settlement based on the stated claims of the Property Management at time of move in.  This was that the additional security deposit was in place to protect the homeowner against unpaid rent, late fees, NSF checks, etc.  None of these instances occurred during our tenancy.  Therefore, we proposed having just the amount of the additional security deposit charged to us at move in be returned.  This is when we were told they were no longer willing to negotiate.

Further efforts to reach a settlement would be welcomed if the Property Management has now changed their mind regarding these statements.  Otherwise, this process has been unsuccessful in bringing us to a resolution.

1/3/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I lived at one of the town houses managed by Assosiated property management company. from May 2012 to august 2013. the address of the property is *** ** **** ***** hillsboro oregon 97123. this property was broken into on June 2013 a police report was filed and the individual who kicked our door in was arrested and charged. I called the following day after this incident had occured to the property management so I could have someone come and fix our door since it would not close after it was kicked in. the receptionist lady I spoke was very clear about how we would not be charged for them coming out to fix our door since it was a criminal act and we had proof it and it was not us causing the damage to the property. a few days later a letter was sent out to inform us our leased would not be renewed and we were asked to vacate the property. I never received the letter sent by the management property and the way I found out about the property being put up for rent again was by one of my coworker who was looking to rent one of the town houses were we lived. she went on craiglist and it was up for rent. at first I thought it was a mistake and I immediately called the property management to ask about this matter. they sent the letter was sent out in June and from what the manager said they were not giving me reasons as to why we would not have the option to renew our lease. since this decision was made only a few days after our town house was broken into I figured that was the reason. when I asked her she said I don have to give you a reason. they were extremely rude to use. I feel we were discriminated against since we were victims of a crime. once we moved out we awaited for our deposit refund. since we spent days cleaning and making sure we left it the property like it was given to us when first moved in. I must admit the only thing we were unable to due was clean the carpet downstairs so we expected to be charged with that. but when I received the calculations for what our deposit amount was spent on I was outraged. the charges were the following total deposit was 1890.00 : move out cleaning 120.00 carpet cleaning 137.00- non returned mail key 40.00- partial carpet replacement charge 608.34 - door repairs 424.00- move out repairs 60.00. I did not agree with the cleanins fee (120.00), the move out repairs fees (60.00) and the door repair fees(424.00). the cleaning fee seem like too much since we spent days detailing that place we even took picture of everything so we could have proof of how the property was returned to the property management. the repair fees were things like changing batteries on fire alarms when they all seemed to be working properly when we were living there. also they charged us so changing the locks on the place. but my main conser out of all was the door repair fee of $424.00 we were charged for them fixing our door after it was broken into. I filed a dispute for this charged also sent in police report and received a response letter that said owner is not responsible for damage caused by an individual within your control. and they recommended seeking reimbursement from small business claims. I called the property maangement immediately after reading this letter the lady I spoke to said ***************** (property manager) was out of the office and she was on vacation so I asked if her boss was around **** then got on the phone after I explained the situation she said I am not getting in the middle of this you will have to talk to ********** after asking her multiple times when ********* would be back she finally said she would be back monday 10/21/2013. I called on 10/21/2013 and was told she was busy and I would receive a call back. so far I have not received a call. I am pretty frustrated at this point. it doesn seem right I was charged for the damages after being told I would not be. I was to get my money reimbursed (424.00).

Desired Settlement: i would like to be reimbursed for the door damages they deducted from my deposit $424.00

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2013/10/31) */ To Whom it May Concern: We are in receipt of the above referenced complaint letter through the Better Business Bureau. The timeline of events regarding this claim are as follows: 6/6/ & 6/7/13 Repair made by vendor requested by Associated Property Management, Inc. for damage to the front door and frame from being kicked in 6/13/13 Notice of Termination sent to tenant to vacate the property on 8/15/13 - this notice was not returned in the mail to our office 6/14/13 Confirmation of Notice Termination sent to tenant with instructions and pro-rated rent amount - this notice was not returned in the mail to our office 7/10/13 Letter sent to tenant with charge of $424.00 for the repair of the front door 8/15/13 Property vacated by tenant and keys returned to Associated Property Management, Inc. office 9/13/13 Security Deposit statement prepared and sent to tenant with a refund check of $500.66. 9/30/13 Letter from tenant disputing the Security Deposit statement charges. Letter from tenant disputing the charges for the repair of the door 10/11/13 Reply letter from Associated Property Management, Inc. with and adjustment of $40.00 on the Security Deposit statement along with a check in the amount of $40.00 to the tenant. The tenant was charged for the repair of the door because: Section 3-f of their Lease Agreement states - "Articles, fixtures or equipment furnished for the Tenant's use that are missing, broken or damaged shall be charged to the Tenant along with damage to the building or furnishings other than normal wear and tear". Tenant was advised in our letter of October 11, 2013 to seek reimbursement for the charges of the door from *** ***** who was charged with the Criminal Trespass. The damage to the property should have been part of the Criminal Trespass filed against *** ***** and our office should have been notified of a pending criminal proceeding relating to a crime on our property. There is no record in our office of a call from ******** ********* to ********* ******* on October 21, 2013. If we had known that she felt the issue was not resolved, we would definitely have spoken to her and dealt with the situation and come to a compromise. Even though our position is that the charge to repair the door is not the responsibility of the Owner, we are willing to settle this issue promptly for all parties involved. Upon written notification that the past tenants, ******** ******* & ******** ********* release Associated Property Management, Inc. and the Owner of the property from any further demands, we are willing to send them a check in the amount of $424.00 to the address of *** ** ******* **** Hillsboro, OR 97124. Thank you for the opportunity to resolve this issue. Sincerely, **** ** *******, RMP Principal Broker/Owner Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2013/11/20) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) to whom it may concern, the response wasn really a response you sent a copy of the check you sent to me for $40.00 back in October which was not part of the door damages you need to refund me. I want to have my $424.00 refunded to me. if you are not willing to admit the fact that the $120.00 cleaning fee is money I should have not been charged for the cleaning fee since the place was left like it was given to us except for the carpet. which you told us you would charge us for cleaning wether we cleaned it or not. I want my $424.00. I want you to send me a check to my forwarding address I have given you. Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2013/11/27) */ RE: ****************** – Case #******** To Whom it May Concern: In response to the letter from ****************** dated 11/20/13, Associated Property Management, Inc. has already agreed in two response letters dated October 31, 2013 and November 11, 2013 to send $424.00 to close this case when **************** & ****************** state that they release Associated Property Managmeent, Inc. from any further demands. Also as was previously stated, the check will be mailed to ******************, Hillsboro, OR 97124. As soon as we receive the release statement, the check will be sent immediately. Business Response /* (1010, 22, 2014/01/03) */ ***please see attached document***