Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Chicagoland Leasing and Management, Inc.

Phone: (866) 702-3838 Fax: (630) 839-1908 300 N La Salle Dr Ste 4925, Chicago, IL 60654

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Chicagoland Leasing and 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 Chicagoland Leasing and Management, Inc. include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 3 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

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

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Chicagoland Leasing and 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: March 11, 2011 Business started: 06/26/2009 Business started locally: 06/26/2009 Business incorporated 06/26/2009 in IL
Type of Entity


Business Management
Ms. Nora Bohanon, Managing Broker
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Ms. Nora Bohanon, Managing Broker
Business Category

Property Management Apartments Condominiums Leasing Service Residential Property Managers (NAICS: 531311)

Additional Locations

  • 300 N La Salle Dr Ste 4925

    Chicago, IL 60654


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.

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)

8/13/2015 Problems with Product/Service
10/21/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Dear BBB, We are currently customers of Chicagoland Property Management and have been since about August of 2011, meaning CLPM has earned multiple thousands in fees from managing our property in Chicago. In June of 2011 (immediately prior to our sign-up with CLPM) ****** ****** of CLPM advised us that CLPM would conduct three inspections per year as part of its responsibilities in keeping an eye on the property we pay it to manage. This would encompass move-in and move-out inspections along with a mid-lease inspection. Despite this pre-contractual promise and the fact that we are on our third tenant, we have received a grand total of ONE inspection report. CLPM's failure to inspect means that it is likely that items that should have been deducted from the security deposit are being put back on to us as the owners, or are being left (to the detriment of the new tenant) and will later have to be rectified by us as the owners. Most recently **** of CLPM advised that smoke detectors were missing. Now we know that there were smoke detectors at the time we moved out in 2011 because we had the place painted before being let, and CLPM advised (we had already left Illinois at that time) that they would arrange for their handyman to reinstall the detectors that the painter had taken down. CLPM has billed us for materials and labour in installing new smoke detectors under the guise that this is "normal wear and tear". We do not see how the theft of smoke detectors by a tenant qualifies as wear and tear. The items are gone, no longer visible, they are not worn and torn; they are completely missing. Had CLPM conducted its inspections as it was supposed to, it would have identified which tenants had removed the smoke detectors and it would have deducted the replacement costs from their security deposit. Instead, because no inspections were done, security deposits have been released and we have been charged for the missing smoke detectors. Raising the issue of the missing inspection reports was responded to by **** by essentially threatening to reject us as customers. She failed to answer what are reasonable questions in terms of the reasonable responsibilities of CLPM when they are being paid to provide a service. Her attitude was, "if you don't like it go somewhere else". We refuse to be intimidated and if this is CLPM's attitude they should be made aware that we are vocal consumers, we are well connected in the Evanston area (having previously obtained CLPM the business of a friend of ours) and we will not hesitate to publicly express our disappointment at CLPM's performance and handling of our issue. Another issue is that the monthly statements and annual financial statements we are supposed to be provided as part of the service we are paying for are very sporadic. Sometimes we get them, frequently we do not. Sometimes we see a deduction and we have to ask what it is for as we did not receive a monthly statement explaining deductions. IN terms of annual financial statements that we need for tax purposes, CLPM never provide these proactively, we have to chase them each and every year for our copy.

Desired Settlement: In terms of resolving this issue, we suggest the following: 1. CLPM commit to providing us with (as a minimum requirement) a written move-in/out inspection report (with photographs) and a written mid-lease (i.e. at 6 months) inspection report. 2. CLPM commit to providing a written monthly statement each and every month, showing the rental income and any deductions. 3. CLPM credit us back the cost of the labour and materials for the replacement of the stolen smoke detectors. 4. Commit to not taking any adverse action against us as a result of our raising of this issue with the BBB. If CLPM insist on taking the cowards way out and rejecting us as customers simply because we seek to hold them to the provision of services they are obligated to provide in return for the thousands of dollars of fees we have paid to them over the years then CLPM need to do the following: 1. Provide for our review, with three quotes from alternative property management companies that are no more expensive in terms of their fee structure (inclusive of start-up/ management/renewal/advertising fees) than CLPM. 2. Ensure that each proposed alternative contain services that are no less than those promised (albeit not always delivered) by CLPM. 3. Ensure that each proposed alternative is a BBB accredited business. 4. Absorb any transfer or labour costs and administrative tasks that would be associated with any change of management company.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/15) */ Contact Name and Title: **** ******* Property Mgr Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX Contact Email: **** The owners emailed and seemed to have multiple issues with our services and my email to them was letting them know we do not require clients who are not happy with our services to stay with us. We spend a lot of time and energy having to explain and justify our actions to owners which isn't conducive to doing our jobs well. We have done multiple property reviews and photos have been emailed. In addition, we have a handyman go twice a year to install/remove the window A/C units who lets us know if anything is amiss. No where in our contract does it state that we will provide written reports with photos to owners every six months so even though at the very minimum we do three property reviews a year (by a property manager or handyman) we don't provide reports owners. Regarding charging owners for the smoke detectors, they were at the property but had fallen down and the handyman installed new ones since the ones they had seemed old (when we took over the property they were already there so we did not know their exact age). This was one of 7 items he fixed at the property so the cost was minimal ($30?) with the bulk of repairs being other items that were listed on their invoice. I would like to point out: - They have not had a single day of vacancy in the almost 3 years we've managed the property. In between tenants, on average there is a two week vacancy period so this has saved them approx $1875 as we've had three sets of tenants. - They have paid $500 in leasing fees total to us and one agent commission to another brokerage of $625 since we leased the property initially. Normally leasing to three tenants would cost them approx $2625 in leasing fees and agent commissions over the past 3 years, so this way we have saved them approx $1500. Although they seem aggravated about paying for management services which is what we have earned, we have saved them thousands in other ways and by having happy tenants back-to-back and they choose to focus on smoke detectors that literally cost $30 to replace, are required by law, and affect the safety of their tenants and habitability of their home. If someone doesn't trust us to do our jobs then they shouldn't be doing business with us. We're looking out for their best interests and saving them money but every time they have a question about a $30 charge takes time away from us to be able to do our job which is manage properties. We will not be providing estimates for other companies as that is an unrealistic expectation and not part of our job. They don't have to go with a different company but they have to trust us to do what they hired us to do which is what my email was to them. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/08/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Core issues have not been addressed and no reasonable resolution offered in light of the facts. Please refer to the attached document providing a response to CLPM, including new discussion points they have rasied. As mentioned in our response, the supporting documentation can be provided on request as we are only able to upload one document at this time. Final Business Response /* (1001, 18, 2014/10/10) */ Response: The service they are paying us for is to be on call 24/7 and for our knowledge and expertise. Things do not happen every single month but when they do the management fee rarely covers our time and energy to handle it. Ten percent of our properties every month generate ninety percent of our work and there is no way to know if an appliance is going to fail, your tenant is going to break their lease/move in an unauthorized pet or person, or your bathtub is going to start leaking into the unit below. We are available at all times to handle any of these things (among many others) for our owners. We did our job according to what we were contracted to do for the price we were contracted to do it. Paying a set management fee every month does NOT entitle clients to "several quotes for work to be performed". We use trusted vendors who charge reasonable rates. Trying to get "several estimates" would ruin our reputation with vendors as only one of the contractors will end up with the job. After going out to give an estimate ten times and not getting the work, most vendors would not continue to work with us. It also doesn't make sense to get multiple estimates for small repair jobs when most reputable vendors will charge a minimum trip ($75-$100) fee for their time to come and give an estimate. Only disreputable vendors do "free" estimates since they build the cost into their estimate. For example, Roto-Rooter gives free estimates and doesn't charge for nights and weekends. Sounds good, right? Not so much when they quote you $1300 to do a repair that another company charges $400 for. We know this because we handle a lot of repairs every month so why would we bother to get a "free" estimate from this vendor when we know it will be high and we're not going to pick them? I cannot explain and justify everything we do to every client. It's time consuming and not necessary. Obviously the tenants have been happy which is why they refer their friends to rent when they move. Having to explain the useful life of smoke detectors to owners is not our job. Some last 10 years and others only 5 (I assume these ones were on the cheaper end). The tenants probably took them down because they were beeping and dying. It doesn't make sense that the tenants would steal them. Comparing a tenant being responsible for stealing an appliance to their potential responsibility for "stealing" the smoke detectors is silly since smoke detectors are mandatory by law and for the safety of the occupants which is what the owners should be concerned with. An appliance is nice to have but not necessary. Again, we're talking about a $30 expense total which we could have given the owners as a credit but frankly our job is not to pay to make our client's properties safe and habitable. They get the rent as they are the landlords so it is their responsibility. If they want to risk a good relationship with tenants by charging them $30 and accusing them of theft for not having working smoke detectors then that's up to them but I don't feel comfortable doing that and even if the tenants did steal the smoke detectors it would make more sense to keep them as happy tenants and pay $30 and have them hopefully renew instead of accuse them of being thieves. We used our best judgment in this scenario which resulted in a 3 page Better Business Bureau complaint. Some owners want to manage the property how they see fit with an agent/property manager as a "frontman". This isn't something we're willing to be. We are the experts in this field and it's our job to enforce the lease in a manner that keeps the owners and tenants happy. These owners wouldn't allow us to do this. If we're managing a property for a client then it's a safe assumption that we have more knowledge and expertise in landlord/tenant law as well as tenant relations. We would prefer owners to not be as involved since it becomes more of a liability and makes our job more time consuming and difficult. We want clients who appreciate our hard work and who trust us to do what is in their best interest in regards to managing their property and not have to explain and justify everything we do. The management contract has been month-to-month for some time and can be canceled by either party with a 30 day notice. At this point it seems like there are too many issues and trying to work together as we have since Nov 2011 would be fruitless. Going our separate ways would behoove both our company as well as the owner. Based on the owner's last response, it's pretty clear that they need to acquire the services of a company that allows them to be more involved in the day to day decision making. Having a good business relationship when it comes to property management is largely based on trust and it seems as though the owners don't trust us to do what's best for their property and the future satisfaction of the tenants. Please confirm you received. Thanks.

3/21/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: The agent refused to attend a walk-through with the contractor who would have verified the stove was rendered unusable due to negligence, not normal wear & tear - she was "too busy". She found the unit vacated, yet failed to notify me & did not verify the heat & electricity were still being paid. She did not notice on her walk-through that the tenants had jammed a 2 year old garbage disposer with a large metal object. When I brought this to her attention, she claimed that disposers only last 8-10 years, even though I was clear to tell her it was installed 2 years ago. The contractor was able to remove the jam, so I'm not asking for compensation, but it is clear that this agency takes the management fees, but refuses to withhold legitimate security deposits because they "don't want to be sued." When I asked for a superior to review these decisions, I was told there was no such process available. Additionally, I requested the unit key be returned to me once the unit was vacated as I needed to turn it over to the buyers, I have yet to receive said key.

Desired Settlement: I would like $350 dollars refunded to me from fees collected as this represents the amount I am out as a credit to buyers for a stove that could not be repaired due to tenants negligence.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/20) */ Contact Name and Title: **** ******** Manager Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX Contact Email: **** The owner initially requested us to meet multiple contractors to walk through the property when it went under contract for sale. We told her we would do one walk through to document the condition of the property and if her contractors found something that we considered damage then they could let us know and make deductions from the security deposit if warranted. Meeting multiple contractors to assist with her sale was not our responsibility as she had a sales agent for that. The walk through we do with the tenant is for cosmetic defects only and is not a home inspection. We told her we could charge the tenant's deposit for the metal jam in the garbage disposal IF it was a utensil or something that the tenant put down the disposal. She was informed that if the garbage disposal broke through normal use and the piece of metal wasn't a foreign object, we couldn't charge the tenants for that. At the time of the walk through, we verified with the tenant that the utilities were being kept on with the heat at a reasonable temperature. There was no indication that anything would happen due to negligence by the tenants and nothing did happen, they were exemplary tenants. We offered to turn over the entire security deposit to the owner in order for her to make deductions that she saw fit. We didn't feel that charging them for the cost of the dirty oven burners was justifiable as it didn't fall outside the realm of normal use/wear and tear. We made it very clear to the owner that she could have taken the deposit, made the deductions and then returned the remainder of the deposit to the tenants. The owner responded and said that she was meeting her contractor at the property and would respond after that. She responded a week later and gave us permission to release the entire security deposit to the tenants which we did. Since the owner elected not to have the deposit transferred to her and authorized us to release the full deposit to the tenant, we should not be held responsible for any repairs at the property. She had the opportunity to make any deductions that she saw fit by having us transfer it to her which she elected not to do. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2014/03/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on Chicagoland Leasing and Management, Inc.
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)