Sign up for our monthly consumer newsletter!

BBB Business Review

What is a BBB Business Review?

Consumer Complaints

BBB Accredited Business since 03/10/2008

Tradewind Properties, LLC

Phone: (763) 657-1957Fax: (188) 884-2070 ext 1

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

Customer Complaints Summary

6 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues1
Billing / Collection Issues3
Problems with Product / Service2
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints6

Complaint Breakdown by Resolution

Complaint Resolution Log (6)BBB Closure Definitions
09/10/2013Advertising / Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
SCAM SCAM SCAM!!!They use application fees so subsidize income. We had an accepted offer and they took other applications even after they had check.
We had an accepted offer with them. We gave notice to our current landlord. I was out of town when they needed the deposit and my wife gave them a postdated check. I spoke with ******* and he said they couldn't hold it but not to worry it was very unlikely it would rent and he would take care of it. They gave it to someone else. Kept our application money. I believe they use the application fees as a way to make money.

Desired Settlement
I want my application fees refunded

Business' Initial Response
Unfortunately the complaint submitted by the complainant is false and derived from Anger. I will submit evidence that shows this complaint is false. In addition, I had a conversation with the complainant on August 16th in which he verbally acknowledge during a phone conversation he understood that they failed to pay a pre lease deposit but he was angered by our decision. He even went as far as to say that he knows "how to ruin a company by submitting complaints to the BBB and Angies List". He also told me that "Karma was going to get me".

Despite his own acknowledgement of the facts and our conversation on the 16th, we find it unfortunate the complainant is submitting a complaint simply to hurt our business by hopefully seeing our rating go down.

The facts are as follows:

On August 5th at 5:10pm the complainant submitted his online application. Because the application came in after business hours, his application was run and processed on August 6th. On August 7th at 1:01 PM, the complainant was issued an approval (See TWP Exhibit A). The approval further explains that a Pre Lease Deposit is due within 2 days/48 hours. At the time of the showing all individuals are given our Rental Application Criteria Sheet (See TWP Exhibit F) This criteria sheet on page 2, clearly states that a pre lease deposit is due within 2 days/48 hours of an application be approved and if not received then the property may be placed back on the rental market. This document is also on our website, located on the same page as our rental application. Lastly, before an individual can submit their application on our website, they must acknowledge that they have read the Rental Application Criteria Sheet (See Exhibit G).

The pre lease deposit was due on August 9th. August 9th came and went without a pre lease deposit. It was not until Monday August 12th that the complainant called our office indicating he did not have the funds to pay the deposit and that he could have his wife drop off a post dated check. We told the complainant that the property is back on the rental market, open for anyone else to apply. On August 13th, the complainants wife came into the office and dropped off a post dated check, dated August 16th for the pre lease deposit (See TWP Exhibit B). Again, the property was put back on the market for showings, etc. On August 15th, we received an application for the property and since we still did not have a pre lease deposit as the check was dated for August 16th, we accepted the application. The complainant was notified of this on August 16th.

The complainant falsely claims we are in the business of taking several applications and application fees as a source of income. That is simply not true and furthermore it is illegal. Our third party reporting agency print out clearly shows that we received an application from the individuals that are renting the home on August 15th (See TWP Exhibit E, Pages 1-3: irrelevant personal information of those individuals not related to this complaint have been blacked out).

Very simply, the complainant made application for a rental property, was approved but failed to pay the pre lease deposit in the pre disclosed amount of time and thus as a result, we proceeded with another rental application for the same property. The application fees from the complainant are not refundable due to the complainant not moving forward with the property. The refundability of the application fees are written out on page 2 of the Rental Application Criteria Sheet (TWP Exhibit F).

We will not be refunding the complainant his application fees. It is disturbing to know the complainant is simply looking to "ruin a company" as he stated in his own words. We wish the complainant luck in his rental quest however as a company, we wish to have nothing further to do with the complainant.

06/11/2013Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
I believe that Tradewinds Property charged me excessively for normal wear and tear to my former apartment.
I moved from a property being managed by Tradewinds Properties on 03/31/13 after living in the property for 2 years. It is stated in the lease that the carpets have to be professionally cleaned, and I did that. I was told by the Stanley Steamer representative that the carpets looked to be in good condition with minimum wear and tear. I produced the receipt for the cleaning of the carpets and was still charged for the vacuuming of the carpets and having to clean hair out of the bathroom, which is wrong yet again, I was told that garbage was piled up on the curb when no one was there to walk though the apartment at the end of the lease so who knows what was left. I got charged for them repainting when I asked if I should repaint or not, I was told if it was in good standing no. There were some points were the couch got too close but the walls weren't painted nor were any of the holes filled when I moved in from the previous tenants. Besides some pieces to a vinyl wall applique and flour in a cabinet, and the bottom of the stove being dirty in the bottom drawer That apartment was in good standing and I feel that the so called cleaning of the apartment was unfounded for the amount of so called work that was done. I was told that they had to replace locks because my key didn't work,(when I asked to have the door fixed when I first moved in it was only given a weather strip.It was the same key I used to open the door the last day of tenancy.
I will note also that this company pays tenants that are behind in rent to write "honest" reviews I was given $150 off late fees that I had. So being able to check reviews isn't going to help anyone doing research on this company
They will say that I didn't pay rent on time and thatis a fact but my balnace was at zero weeks before checking out. I feel I was unfairly targeted due to the fact that I was interrupted on my job in regards to my neighbors private matters, I was asked to make arrangements for work to be done on the house as a hole nothing to do with my own personal space,I was misquoted on monies owed on my account and just a ton of mess and The agents change up duties so there's never any consistency with whom you work with.

Desired Settlement
If I can't get back the majority of my money I at least want my money for having the carpets professionally cleaned back $150. The carpet was old and had burn marks before I moved in and I feel it was a waste of my time and money to have it professionally cleaned if they knew that they would overcharge for the apartment being professionally cleaned.

It seems that most people give up but I won't until its heard, like I said I was always late in paying my rent, but never was I messy in my house keeping. I have all communication in emails if anyone ever needs information of the workings of this company.

Business' Initial Response
Good afternoon. I received the following complaint from your office however this person is not a customer or client of ours. Our contracted client is the property owner and their extremely satisfied with our fiduciary representation over the past 4 years. This is an issue we've discussed and resolved before, I've attached a previous email explaining the same issue.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Best Regards,

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I want to see the pictures that this company has so that I can prove in court that this apartment was fine and I wouldn't rent from this company again, that's a smug comment if I have ever gotten one. I went in asking to fix up the apartment they chose to use there staff to clean so they wouldn't have to pay back the security deposit. There were holes in the walls from anchors that were never filled. I went into the apartment cleaning and its unfortunate that I didn't take pictures. Like it was said in the above statement I was asked to clean the carpets and I did, if I was leaving anything undone it would have been spending money on a used carpet. So since there are pictures it will show that the apartment wasn't left in any bad condition. Most of the things that were signed off on the walk through were there in the beginning and like I said before there was a small amount of garbage left. The was one light bulb out in my bedroom however I left 3 packs of light bulbs there.
And thanks for using the email that I wrote because your proving that there wasn't a mess left, since your agreeing with me.

Business' Final Response
Tradewind Properties represents the Owner of the leased property and the owner of the leased property has not relinquished their legal rights.

We understand the complainant made a complaint against Tradewind Properties as we service our client. The complainant is asking for money back despite leaving the property in poor condition. The tenant is required to leave the property in the same condition they acquired it, less normal wear and tear. Per the signed legally binding lease agreement the tenant was required to have the carpets professionally shampooed and did so. At this time, the Owner respectfully declines paying the tenant for professional carpet cleaning.

The tenant was charged for trash removal and in an email dated April 19th she is quoted as agreeing with this charge by saying, "I understand the trash of a tv, rug and small table being left on the side but that was me cleaning off the porch and the some more things".
In addition, there were charges for replacing light bulbs, filter and removing an unauthorized door lock. There was also a nominal charge of $150 to repair/repaint the wall from large scuff marks resembling that of a couch. Lastly, the tenant was charged for general cleaning. Again, it is required for a tenant to return the property to the same condition they acquired it, less normal wear and tear. In good faith, the Owner has agreed to release a sampling of pictures (emailed to the BBB) however they are reserving their legal rights and will not release all the proprietary information unless necessary during the discovery phase.

We are hopeful the complainant will understand the property was not left in move-in ready condition as she certainly would not have been happy if she moved into this property in this condition. Although we are unable to give the complainant money back for work performed to bring the property back to its original condition, less normal wear and tear - the complainant is free to reapply for any of our available listings.

11/26/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
There were several charges and repairs made outside of normal wear and tear that were excessive, unfair, and unwarranted.
For the benefit of anyone considering working with or leasing from TWP. You have been warned.

On 6/30/2014 we moved out of the property at Arden Hills, MN 55112. We received our itemized list of deductions from the security deposit. We acknowledge that there are some deductions to the security deposit that are due and fair. However, we can provide evidence that supports why we believe that some of the charges were exorbitant, unnecessary, or unfair.

Charges:
$161 for repairs were items that were not "damaged" but had simply aged or for removal of items that belonged to the home owner. E.g. sliding glass doors not opening smoothly, removal of decorative lights the owner left on the porch, fixing plumbing issues.

$171 for turn key cleaning to clean the entire house for a few "crumbs" found in the kitchen. We have affidavits testifying to the cleanliness of the home after we left to show that there was no warrant to the charges.

$200 to remove and dispose of trash in the garbage bin in the garage instead of allowing the trash company to collect it.

$800 to repaint the entire house and "fill in holes" even after we had hired a professional painter to come in to repair the holes. They painted 4 bedrooms even though there were damages from the door in 2 of them. They also painted the stairs, hallway up and down, living room, and family room all at our expense. In total there were 9 areas that were painted even though there were only damages to 2 rooms were the doors has left marks in the wall.

$18 late charge for a water bill plus that they never sent us until after an "intent to sue" letter was emailed to us 6 months later. The city of Arden Hills sends the bills to the home owner/property manager and not to tenants. They were responsible for forwarding the bill to us if they wanted it paid on time.

After sending a detailed letter along with the affidavit from our painter the response we got from TWP was that we are free to take legal action against the "home owner" if we wish but that they would not be refunding any of our security deposit. On top of that they also charged us beyond the security deposit for the excessive charges already mentioned. We ended up paying the entire amount because (1) we didn't want the headache of having to take them to court and (2) we didn't feel it would be fair to sue the homeowners for the terrible practices of TWP.

Desired Settlement
Please stop harassing us. You got your money. Just leave us alone!

Business Response
The complaint has been received and comes to our office as a bit of a shock given the issues they are referring to have been resolved and the complainant has paid their bill regarding the invoice due which was in excess of their security deposit. The last written correspondence was via email on August 6th to the complainant (email copy to follow) and following that email the complainant paid the outstanding balance of $103.22 via check. From August 6th until yesterday, November 18th, there has been no contact with the complainant. The claim that we are harassing the complainant is unfounded and frankly unjustified. The irrational reaction to file a complaint is stemming from the fact that our office was made aware from the city of Arden Hills yesterday that the complainant still has not paid his final water bill. The city has verified that this bill was sent to the complainant at the leased address and no forwarding address was ever provided to them despite it being the complainants responsibility to call in and cancel service. A copy of the bill will be emailed as well which clearly shows the leased address of which the complainant denies receiving.
The resolution of the complainant is really that of frustration. The resolution we are asked to come to is to leave them alone however we have done nothing outside of our management services that a reasonable person would or could infer as harassing. As stated to the complainant they are responsible for their delinquent final water bill and we will check for payment on 11/24/14 - they have also been advised to contact the city themselves to verify all this information. In addition, our office has sent them a copy of their past due delinquent final water bill as of today.
As far as we are concerned there is no service issue given all matters have been resolved except for the complainant's bill.

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I found it remarkable that TWP is now trying to play the part of the victim in saying that they are "suprised" that we would file a claim against them. Yes we were planning on leaving things alone however none of our actions have been "irrational" or unprovoked.

First, to clarify, the matter was never settled. As noted in our letter dated 8/4/2014:

"Tradewind continues to use the damage in a few rooms as an excuse to paint nearly the entirety of the home including areas that had absolutely zero damage or marks and to subsequently charge us for it."

Later in the letter we made clear that the matter was not settled and that we reserved the right to file complaints against the company or seek legal action in the future should we so desire.

"Also, we reserve the right to make this information available to the general public, by whatever means we see fit and at any time, for the benefit of any person who would attempt to do business with Tradewind Properties in the future and to warn them of their unethical behavior. This may include but is not limited to online postings, online reviews, comments, emails and letters to existing customers, emails and letters to existing tenants, emails and letters to local news media, and so forth."

In response to our original letter TWP said that we were free to take legal action not against TWP but against the HOME OWNER! Not wanting to involve an innocent party we sent the letter, mentioned above, to TWP to inform them that we would not be taking legal action against the HOME OWNER.

"The unethical behavior and actions are not the responsibility of the owners and therefore we have no plans to press any charges against them. Especially considering the fact that the decision to make repairs, charge fees, and retain the security deposit rests on Tradewind Properties LLC and not on the homeowner. Any decision made by the home owner would have been made in good faith based on the recommendation Tradewind."

Second, the notice from TWP on Monday 11/17/2014 was not to forward the bill but was a notice to "take action" and sue for collection if the bill was not paid immediately. There was no previous notice about the issue. Also as shown in our conversation the City does not allow for accounts to be put into the name of the renters. The city does allow for a copy to be sent to the service address as an "interested party". I also called the city today and they confirmed these facts. During the 2 year time period TWP had always forwarded us a copy of the bill after they had received it. In this case they received a copy of the bill but never forwarded it to us making the account delinquent. It was not until we asked TWP several times for a copy of the invoice form that city that we actually were emailed one. This show that they had in fact kept my mail and not forwarded it on.

In addition, we sent a response yesterday agreeing to work with the City and TWP to remove the $18 fee. The city called us and said they were more then willing to remove the fee considering the situation however TWP has continue to threaten to sue for the $18 even if the city were to remove the late fee.

Such actions are not the actions of an innocent company. In my opinion such comments and actions show more of an "irrational" and "frustrated" attitude on part of TWP then it does on the tenant.

I will admit that I don't believe that there is anything that TWP will do at this point to resolve this issue on their own that is why we have filed a complaint with the BBB so that all the facts of this account can be made public and hopefully TWP will learn how to work cooperatively with the tenants and owners in the future. I do believe a refund of our security deposit or even the $18 would be nice but I don't see that ever happening.


Final Business Response
In regard to the complainant's complaint on the security deposit, as mentioned prior this has been settled and paid in full with no further correspondence from the owner, owner's agent or the complainant. Please note that Tradewind Properties does not own the property and we are merely a managing agent for the owner who is responsible for the return of the deposit. At this time, the owner is not waiving their legal right and does not see this as a customer service issue involving Tradewind Properties.

Regarding the complainant's water bill issue, this again was going to be applied to the owner's property taxes if not paid in full. It was not up to Tradewind Properties to waive the tenant's late fee. This decision was entirely up to the city and in no way was the owner or Tradewind Properties involved in that decision. The owner has checked on the complainant's delinquent water bill and it has been paid in full. It is unfortunate that the complainant files a complaint and clearly states what they want the remedy to be as: "Please stop harassing us. You got your money. Just leave us alone!". A reminder to pay their delinquent bill is far from harassing. A clear outcome of what will happen if they do not pay is also far from harassing.

Again, the security deposit issue involves the owner of the home and the owner will not waive their legal right. The complainant is also asking for a refund of the $18 however this was not paid to us thus we are unsure what we would be refunding. In addition, upon the owner checking on the complainant's delinquent water bill it appears that it has been paid in full. Should they desire a refund of the $18 that would be a decision made by the city of Arden Hills.

Have a safe & happy Thanksgiving,

06/30/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
Company has not reimbursed client for damages done to property and items missing from household.
Tradewind Properties was the property managment company for my home from October 2009 to April 1, 2014. Tradwind has not fulfulled their obligation to refund me for damages done to my property. I have photographic evidence of the damages and missing items; ************** agreed by phone to reimburse me for these damages but has not yet done so. He has not returned phone calls and emails, all communication with me as stopped.

Desired Settlement
************** agreed by phone on April 29, 2014 to reimburse for damages done by tenants to my property in Minneaplis, MN. Tradewind Properties agreed to reimburse $100 for damages to bathroom counter and $55.86 for missing items removed from the property by tenants. *******/Tradewind has ceased communication and will not answer phone calls or emails regarding these reimbursements. I find it reprehensible that Tradewind will not refund these costs considering it is not a lot of money. This is the most unprofessional company I have ever worked with.

Business Response
June 16th, 2014
In response to the complaint and complainant, there are many facts that have unfortunately been left out of the description. After thorough review of the file our response is as follows:
The complainant has been a client of ours since September 19th, 2009 (copy of client contract available if requested). The home was rented from October 2009 until March 2014 by 2 different sets of tenants at which point after the first tenants left, the complainant wanted to use our professional services again due to the level of service and professionalism that was received from the first tenant placement.
In addition, during this 5 year span the owner has scheduled several inspections/walk through appointments of the home without indication of a major issue.
There are 3 issues that the complainant was upset about after the last tenants moved out on March 31st, 2014. They are as follows: 1) missing wood decorative/storage baskets from upstairs bathroom; 2) bathroom wood counter had marks; and 3) missing curtains for one of the bedrooms.
A Tradewind Properties representative performed a move out inspection on April 1st and noted the missing curtains, which the complainant was reimbursed $40 from the tenants security deposit. The other two issues were explained to the complainant in detail that withholding money from the tenant's security deposit would be illegal based on current MN statute for issue #2 and that in the signed contract with Tradewind Properties, the complainant acknowledged that personal property (such as 4 small decorative/wood storage baskets) would not be warranted and would be removed if personal property was left by the owner (except appliances).
To avoid issues with miscellaneous personal property items, the signed contract in 2012 with the complainant reads as follows: Personal Property: Management Company assumes no responsibility or management of personal property left by Owners at premises. Management Company advises Owner to remove all personal belongings (except major appliances) from the premises prior to the property being leased. The signed contract in 2009 with the complainant reads as follows: Owner agrees to have property professionally cleaned, carpets professionally shampooed and all personal belongings removed prior to the first Tenant moving in. Owner authorizes Management Company to coordinate cleaning, shampooing and personal property removal if these items have not been completed at least one week prior to the first tenant moving into the property.
Regarding the bathroom countertop, it was explained to the complainant that the bathroom counter is wood and it is inevitable with reasonable use that water will appear especially since the sink is there and that the Owner has a duty to maintain and repair the property if due to normal wear and tear. At no point, did the complainant advise that she would like the bathroom counter finished to prevent water spots, water infiltration etc. Below is a copy of what the counter looked like after the tenants had moved out in March 2014. If brought upon housing court, the complainant would have no basis for withholding security deposits funds as excessive damage does not exist.
________________

________________

As you can tell, the wood discoloration is not due to malicious use, etc and simply from normal every day use. The counter needed the Owner to perform regular maintenance much like an owner would apply stain to a wood deck, etc.
Unfortunately the claims that there would be reimbursement for the above are not true. It was agreed and a check sent for the missing curtains. We understand the emotional attachment an Owner of a rental property may experience yet the explanation provided, despite being based on law and facts, did not seem to satisfy the complainant. The tenants have been sent back their deposit per state guidelines and no additional funds will be given to the owner for decorative storage baskets and a wood countertop.
We certainly valued the relationship with the client/complainant over the 5 year span and congratulate the complainant on the successful sale of the home which took less than 30 days to sell.
We take our work very seriously and when dealing with a tenant's security deposit we operate only within the legal parameters set by the state of MN, despite what a client may request. Based on the complaint, we understand the complainant feels as though we failed her despite the successful 5 year relationship and for that we apologize.

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
In response to the claims that I "wanted to use Tradewind Properties again due to the level of service and professionalism that was received from the first tenant placement" - I will first clarify that I was NOT happy with the first tenant placement and only used Tradewind again because I was living in Africa and was not in a position to search for a new propertiy manager in MN from the other side of the world. I understand this was my decision to make and cannot fault Tradewind for my own error, but I was certainly not happy with Tradewind's services from the beginning and will note for the record why:
1. Tradewind permitted the tenants to move in to my property several weeks early and did not provide pro-rated rent to me for the additional time that the tenants were occupying the house outside of the lease terms.
2. The tenants Tradewind found were very irresponsible and consistently refused to pay their utility bills. I received disconnect notices from the energy company every month for one year, which Tradewind was aware of and did nothing about.
3. During a walk-through I conducted in preparation for listing the property - it became very clear that more than three people were living in the house and I'm quite certain Tradewind knew of the lease violation and turned a 'blind eye'. I voiced this concern and Tradewind disregarded it.

These issues did not result in my 'satisfication and desire to use their professional services again'. Had I been in a position to personally meet with other companies and work with a more professional agency, I certainly would have done so.
Please also let me be clear that Tradewind DID NOT tell me that the sink DAMAGE (not "marks") would not be reimbursed. This is a completely false claim and I'm disappointed that Tradewind would blatantly misrepresent the truth. The last discussion I had with ******* ****** left me with the assurance that he would propose a "50/50 split" with the tenant for the cost of the repairs. He asked if I would be happy with $100 and I said I would. He promised to follow-up with me and to give me an update later that week and I never heard from him again. He refused to accept my phone calls and did not respond to my emails. Having an honest discussion is all that was needed to resolve these concerns. ******* could have respectfully explained the missing item clause in the contract and he could have told me definitively that the sink damage could not be covered and I would have accepted that. Ignoring clients and refusing to communicate is no way to run a business.
I do not care to continue this dispute. I do not expect Tradewind to do the right thing, as they have clearly demonstrated they are unethical and unprofessional. I see that they are very poorly reviewed on several consumer websites - I suspect the free market will determine their success in the end.

Final Business Response
We have reviewed and read the complainant's response and vehemently stand by our original response which depicts a truthful and accurate account of the situation. We understand that clearly the past client is unhappy and unfortunately we are just now hearing about the complainant's unhappiness from 2-3 years ago which was never brought to our attention to resolve. The complainant has clearly indicated that she does "not care to continue to dispute" which we understand and at the same time we are more than willing to continue to explore options to remedy the situation as all parties understand we cannot go back and perform preventative maintenance on a property that is no longer even owned by the complainant. We acted very ethically in not allowing the complainant to illegally take from the tenant's security deposit.
We have taken the feedback and realize every company has room to improve and perhaps the lesson here was to be less personable and more formal in blunt in conveying right and wrong in real estate law. Regards,

12/16/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
Tradewind's not appearing on day of my tenant's eviction (their charge: $814) meant 21 day delay to re-rent due to MN law tenant storage requirements.
My letter to ******* ******, Tradewind Properties, terminating our arrangement for him to manage my single family rental residence:

October 28, 2013

*******--

I still haven't heard back from you today, and since I need to communicate with you, I will have to do it with this letter.

Several things have happened with the eviction at my house at ******************* that have been made even worse under your care. For instance:

1) Even though it was critical that you be there last Monday, October 21st, when the evicted tenant was to vacate by 5PM, you never appeared until 7PM. While you later told me you were tending to a broken water main all day, you nevertheless took no time out to call to apprise me of the situation. Consequently, the tenant left a houseful of furniture and belongings. Since you were not present to obtain written permission from him for us to dispose of these belongings, it is now my responsibility to pay for the moving and storage of these items for three weeks.

2) You promised me that you would change the locks last Monday after I told you how many unauthorized people had keys to that house, and they there was a good chance they would try to enter after Monday. However, you did not. Tuesday, you kept my neighbors waiting over two hours for your handyman to show up. An unauthorized individual with an old key did try to enter soon thereafter. Had we not kept on you about these locks, he would have entered.
3) Despite telling me that you would be inspecting the property regularly, I have received three separate notices from the City of Minneapolis concerning garbage in the back of the house. I never received any such letter when I was managing properties on that block.

4) You said you would change the utilities into my name, but that did not happen.
In sum, this property needs more attention than I believe you have the resources to provide. I am disappointed, as I was looking a long tenure with you as property manager.

This is my notice that I am dissolving my relationship with Tradewind. You've been well-paid so far, both for the eviction and for your set-up fee. I will not ask for any refund of these fees, nor for compensation for the moving/storage costs that are a result of not tending to the eviction. I further agree not to post any complaint with the BBB, on-line, or on social media. In exchange for this, you agree to dissolve our contract immediately, and not to bill or charge for the locksets you had your handyman install. You also agree to remove the lockbox as soon as possible, and to destroy the credit card number I gave you.

Sincerely,
**** *******

******* did not respond until Nov 11, when he emailed me a $160 invoice for changing the locks. It wasn't clear that he had even read the termination letter. I asked simply if he had, and he wrote:

****,
Yes, your responsible for the locks that were changed. They were replaced and new keys provided - this is not a free service.

Let me know how you wish to proceed, if you wish to discuss the issue's further we can however every item in your termination letter expect the lock change schedule was due to the adverse situation you had with your tenants. Besides the account set-up fee and fee to file and carry out your eviction for you we've not charged a dime for all the property visits and coordination hours up until this point. The lock change coordination was another example of our office scheduling and working for you without any compensation as the property you had was completely in disarray due to improper management over the past year.

Please let me know how you wish to pay the handyman's charge for changing your locks otherwise we'll refer it to collections.

Desired Settlement
To his points in the email quoted above, since I paid the account set-up and eviction fees, why would I pay more? Further, the numbered items in my termination letter cite specific conversations where ******* promised me he would take care of an issue but didn't. This is what led to the disarray, and why I had to terminate.

Here, however, is the core issue:
When ******* accepted my $814 payment to handle the eviction (and also the $249 set-up fee agreeing to manage the property), he accepted responsibility to do just that. His obligation included not just showing up court, but following the eviction process through it's conclusion. More than at any other time and for any other reason, it was critical that his repeated promises to be there when the tenant was to be out by 5PM be kept. Because he did not, he did not obtain a signed statement from the tenant allowing us to dispose of personal possessions that now fill the house. Because of his nonperformance, 21 days must pass by law before I can even begin to dispose, clean, and re-lease.

I agree that his installing new locks "is not a free service," as he said. But the cost associated with his nonperformance is a real and and immediate cost to me, and is not free either. Specifically, 21 days pro-rated rent at $1325/month is $915, for which he is responsible. After his $160 locksmith bill, the net he owes is $755.

Given all this, I thought the terms I proposed in my termination were very generous, and frankly am surprised that ******* apparently does not.

I would appreciate your intervention in this matter, and am grateful for your assistance.

************
********@gmail.com

Business Response

In response to the complaint filed on 11/15/2013, Tradewind Properties (TWP) and the complainant entered into a Leasing & Management Agreement on 8/19/2013 with an expiration date of 10/31/14. (See Exhibit A). This agreement clearly outlines the duties of both the management company, TWP and the Owner, the complainant. To state further, the Leasing & Management Agreement, does not go into legal representation requirements of TWP upon an eviction as there is a disclaimer in the signed agreement, Area s Of Expertise, which states real estate agents are trained in the field of real estate but not in legal advice and should the complainant desire legal advice they should consult an appropriate professional.
Upon signing the Leasing & Management Agreement, TWP, for a disclosed fee took over management of tenants already in place under the previous management of the complainant on a lease dated 5/18/12. Previous issues with the tenant and complainant as well as unpaid rent were pre-existing upon TWP taking over the account.
Under the direction of the complainant (Power of Authority in Eviction Action - see Exhibit B) and terms of the signed Leasing & Management Agreement, TWP initiated an unlawful detainer against the tenants in Hennepin County Court as they were in arrears in rent for several months. On the day of the court hearing, the tenant/defendant was represented by an attorney whereas the complainant was not and per the Power of Attorney and Leasing & Management Agreement, TWP was appointed as the complainants representative/agent to appear on behalf of the Owner/Plaintiff/complainant.
Under the Eviction Action - Findings of Fact dated 9/30/13 (See Exhibit C), it is also noted that the complainant was not represented by counsel, rather he was represented by Agent. Following a recommended mediation session by the judge, all parties made an agreement for the tenants to vacate ON OR BEFORE 5:00pm on October 21st, 2013. As stated, the tenants had legal possession of the home until October 21st unless they made claim to TWP or to their attorney who would then make claim to TWP that they vacated early but they are under no legal obligation to do so.
During the course of time from 9/31/2013 and on, TWP continued to manage the property by monitoring the home and cooperating with the city of Minneapolis police department for numerous police calls. Upon multiple conversations with the city of Minneapolis police department, TWP and the city tried to find a legal right or way to have the tenants removed earlier than the October 21st deadline however no legal remedy was available despite claims from neighbors that the tenant had vacated as the house was occupied and numerous individuals were seen entering and leaving. The complainant was reminded on several occasions that there was a legal process that must be followed and despite regularly monitoring the home and working very closely with the policy department does not prevent an individual that has not paid rent in months, facing a move out date by eviction to automatically stop their outrageous behavior.
On October 21st, a representative from Tradewind Properties after the 5pm hour went to the home with flashlight in hand to determine if the tenants had vacated per the Findings of Fact on the Eviction Action. It was noted, that several personal property items remained throughout the home and the locks were ordered to be changed out and this was done on 10/22/13 by a third party vendor (See Exhibit D). This was done per the complainant's request, in addition this is stated very clearly in the signed Leasing & Management Agreement that all locksets will be changed upon a tenant turnover at the financial responsibility of the Owner.
Unfortunately the complainant was disgruntled with the fact that the evicted tenants had left personal property and has falsely determined that this was a result and somehow the responsibility of TWP. This is simply not the case. Those in the industry and most people in general understand this is a likely outcome given the highly volatile situation of an eviction.
The complainant states TWP was not present to obtain written permission to dispose of the tenant's personal belongings and this is a true statement however TWP and the complainant never made an agreement that TWP would be signing any legal documents regarding his Eviction case for the issue of personal property. Furthermore, the tenant could have moved out on 10/1 or 10/15 or 10/21 - the point being the tenants were unresponsive however it was noted, as previously stated, that there were individuals entering and leaving the home.
On 10/28/13 TWP received a written notice of cancellation with threats of writing a complaint to the BBB as well as on social media sites if we did not immediately cancel the agreement, in addition the complainant then refused to pay his invoice for having the locks changed which was done at his request and also agreed to in writing by the Leasing & Management Agreement. Despite the Leasing & Management Agreement having a notice period for cancellation, TWP agreed to cancel the agreement immediately however the cost of the lock change remains the complainants responsibility. The complainant has even acknowledged this however has blatantly stated he will not pay. Unfortunately the threat of filing a complaint does not keep TWP from doing what is right in the situation as we are looking to ensure our third party vendor gets paid for the job/work completed. It is unfortunate that under people's own frustration they disregard agreements and financial responsibilities and again, the threats of slandering our name still does not prevent us from making sure the situation is handled in a professional and ethical manner.
The complainant is unfortunately attempting to charge TWP for lost rent due to storage fees associated with his tenant and eviction. Under MN Statute 504B.271, the owner is responsible for holding abandoned property for 28 days (not 21 days) either at the home or at a storage facility, etc. The law provided the complainant the ability to physical remove and store the belongings at an outside location to prepare the turnover work for make ready repairs and maintenance necessary to re-market the home however the complainant made a decision to keep the items in the home. By signing the Leasing & Management Agreement TWP did not take responsibility for a tenants personal belongings or lost rent due to an eviction situation that was initiated by the complainant.
The facts are as follows, TWP followed the terms of the agreement and received compensation only as outlined in the agreement for taking over a new account and filing an eviction on behalf of the owner with association court costs. TWP did not receive any compensation for management as there was no rent received and TWP without compensation managed the eviction process and oversaw the performance of a lock/handle change per the owner and agreement. TWP is not responsible for lost rent due to the evicted tenant, who clearly had issues previously with the owner which is why TWP was hired as the complainant's management company.
The complainant reached out to TWP on 11/18/13 after filing this complaint still refusing to pay the invoice for work ordered and in response, TWP will pay the invoice to ensure our third party vendors are not taken advantage of and will pursue the reimbursement cost with the complainant.
TWP wishes the complainant the best of luck in re-renting his property and hopes he can secure a better fit allowing him to avoid issues with poorly managed tenants in the future. With that said, there remains a balance that remains unpaid and personal communication between the complainant and TWP are in place to rectify the delinquent account.


Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Response to statements made by the proprietor of Tradewind Properties in his most recent response:
-----
TWP states: "TWP without compensation managed the eviction process." If this was true, and TWP was not compensated for managing the eviction process, I would not have grounds and I would not have filed this complaint. But TWP was paid $814 to manage the eviction process, and so bears responsibility for nonperformance. TWP stated that from this $814, court costs comprised $350, and process serving fees totaled $150. I can produce the canceled check for that amount, as well as another check for the $249 property management setup fee.
-----
TWP states: "The complainant was reminded on several occasions that there was a legal process that must be followed." There was never any question but that we needed to follow the legal process.
-----
TWP states: "On 10/28/13 TWP received a written notice of cancellation with threats of writing a complaint to the BBB as well as on social media sites if we did not immediately cancel the agreement." I heard nothing from TWP until November 11th. TWP did not mention the termination letter, nor did TWP acknowledge my termination terms. Given the numerous problems and expenses associated with TWP's nonperformance, I believed my terms were very generous. While TWP apparently does not agree, it is a stretch to characterize them as threats. The termination letter in question is included in the initial complaint, and can be reviewed to assess this claim.
-----
TWP states: "...the threats of slandering our name still does not prevent us from making sure the situation is handled in a professional and ethical manner." Slander is defined as making false statements damaging to a person's reputation. I have said nothing nor indicated I would say anything that fits this definition.
-----
TWP states: "The complainant states TWP was not present to obtain written permission to dispose of the tenant's personal belongings and this is a true statement however TWP and the complainant never made an agreement that TWP would be signing any legal documents regarding his Eviction case for the issue of personal property." TWP believed that the tenant was packing up and would likely be gone by the date set by the housing court. I passed on to TWP reports from neighbors that nothing was being cleared out. For that reason, we had discussions about how important it was that TWP be there, and he agreed. Simply by being there, he would have seen the tenant vacate with only a few boxes before 5PM on his last day, and leave the house full of furniture and belongings. Since MN law requires these possessions be stored, all he had to do was obtain a signed statement from the tenant authorizing their disposal. Obtaining this statement is clearly something an agent would have known to acquire. It is not clear from his response now or in his previous emails to me why he believes he is not responsible, since he was paid to handle the eviction, and, by accepting a separate $249 set-up fee, was paid to actively manage the property.
-----
TWP states: "Unfortunately the complainant was disgruntled with the fact that the evicted tenants had left personal property and has falsely determined that this was a result and somehow the responsibility of TWP. This is simply not the case. Those in the industry and most people in general understand this is a likely outcome given the highly volatile situation of an eviction." If TWP understood this was a likely outcome (which is not the outcome he told me he expected), then this underscores my position that he should have been at the property to supervise the tenant's departure.
-----
TWP states: "The complainant reached out to TWP on 11/18/13 after filing this complaint..." I did not reach out to TWP after filing the complaint, but responded to an email he sent after the complaint was filed. It contained partial text from this complaint.
-----
TWP states: "The law provided the complainant the ability to physical remove and store the belongings at an outside location to prepare the turnover work for make ready repairs and maintenance necessary to re-market the home however the complainant made a decision to keep the items in the home." If TWP would like to compensate on the basis of moving and storing tenant's belongings, rather than on monthly rent, I am open to this discussion.
-----
TWP states: "TWP ... hopes he can secure a better fit allowing him to avoid issues with poorly managed tenants in the future." It is true that the tenants were poorly managed. Both prior to and throughout the eviction process, TWP was the property manager. Because of this mismanagement and consistent failure to follow-through on the promises detailed in my termination letter, it was necessary to dissolve the relationship with TWP.
-----
TWP concludes: "With that said, there remains a balance that remains unpaid and personal communication between the complainant and TWP are in place to rectify the delinquent account." This last sentence is appropriate, not because it is true (it should be clear to all parties that no meaningful communication between us is happening), but because I am hopeful the BBB can assist in reaching a fair and reasonable resolution.


Final Business Response
We appreciate the time taken from the complainant to write a response to the response we submitted however no new information has been provided. We firmly stand by our response and actions. To hold a property management company responsible for lost rent or storage fees is unreasonable given the scope of the management agreement and services performed. There was email correspondence between the complainant and Tradewind Properties after the complain was filed which is what we were referring to in attempting to rectify the complainants delinquent account with Tradewind Properties.

Again, there was never an agreement or a "promise" to sit and wait at the complainants investment property to catch the residents vacating to have a document signed regarding their personal belongings. This is the reason eviction situations are volatile and require court orders and proper management from the onset of tenancy. Again, we had a representative at the home on the day of eviction order and met his neighbors at the home to walk-through it and they can verify they were not sure who was living there as there were multiple people coming and going at all hours of the day and night. This is also represented in police reports. There was not an agreement to meet the complainants tenants at a specific time as they were only ordered to have vacated BY a certain date and time.

We would further ask that the complainant stop making false statements regarding the situation. We are open to alternative remedies in dealing with the facts only. It appears that reasonable efforts have been made and Tradewind Properties will not be providing loss rent or storage payment to the complainant. The complainant chose to cancel the management agreement however no wrong doing, legal or ethical, or breach of contract existed.

06/19/2012Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
On Wednesday May 24th I submitted a $90 application fee to Tradewind properties. They would not accept my income verification and refused to refund me
On Wednesday May 24th I contacted tradewind properties with the intent of renting a property located on ***************** in saint paul.

After touring the property I spoke with the leasing agent and explained that my husband was self employed and his 2011 taxes reflected a much lower income than he is currently making. I asked if I could submit a letter from the owner of the Barber shop where my husband works and he said that would be sufficient. I then called the leasing office and spoke to a woman who claimed to be the owner of the company. She also confirmed that a letter from the owner of the barber shop would be sufficient. I then went online using my chase visa card and paid the $90 application fee and submitted the application along with the necessary paperwork. Approximately 20 minutes after submission I received a phone call from the same woman who said that they were not going to accept the letter from my husbands employer. I explained to her that initially she agreed that this would be sufficient, she then told me that she deemed the letter to be unprofessional and she was not going to accept it. She then asked for my husbands 2011 income and said that based on those figures (we needed to show that we made approximately $2850 or three times rent which was $950) we were $100 short of the income requirement for renting the property. I reminded her of the fact that we had spoken earlier and she had already agreed that a letter would be sufficient and she just kept repeating that I was not going to get a refund of my application fee because I did not meet the criteria. I again explained to her that I did meet the criteria, she just decided not to accept the proof that I submitted. She spoke to me in a very demeaning manor and I asked to speak to her superior, I was then informed that she is the owner of Tradewind properties. At that point I told her that she was deceptive by telling me she would accept a letter for income verification and that I was entitled to a refund.

Desired Settlement
Since they did not have my "complete application" and would not accept my income verification, my application should have never been processed. I think that keeping my $90 application fee is wrong. She refused to accept my documentation which is her right, but she should not be entitled to keep my $90 application fee.

Business' Initial Response
On May 23rd the complainant called into our office inquiring about a property in St. Paul and ultimately scheduling a showing for that same day at 5pm. The property was again viewed the morning of May 24th with the complainant and her husband later filling out an online rental application at approximately 9:58am on May 24th.

The showing agent that showed the property to the complainant has verified that the complainant never explained that her husband was self-employed and simply asked if a letter from his work/employer verifying income information was sufficient for income documentation. Again, the complainant did not say that her husband was self-employed and as an office policy our leasing agents are advised to not speak specifically about financial information unless so desired by the inquiring party. Not knowing the complainant was self-employed the leasing agent acknowledged that a letter from an EMPLOYER verifying income/pay was sufficient for income documentation based on our pre-determined, in writing criteria. On May 23rd, the complainant was handed the written, pre-determined rental criteria as well as the refund policy on application fees. The leasing agent further explained this document to her. On our online rental application, an applicant cannot hit the submit button without checking that they have "read the provided Application Information document which includes specific pre-determined rental criteria" - and this document is again found in pdf form on the actual application page. (https://tradewindproperties.net/tenant-services/rental-application).

After submitting an online rental application, which was done by the complainant and her husband on May 24th, applicants are taken to a payment page and on this page it goes over the refund policy regarding application fees again.

It was only after the complainant submitted her rental application did we know that her husband was "self-employed" as this was indicated on the rental application. The complainant did submit a document stating weekly income however this document was not on company letterhead, did not state who the verifying person was and did not contain a signature. After receiving this document the complainant was advised this document was not sufficient for proof of income and had we had known prior to her submitting the application it never would have been advised that a letter from an employer would work. Our staff reasonably assumed that when the complainant stated her husband had a "letter from his employer" that her husband was an 'employee' and not an independent contractor. The complainant is contradictory by stating her husband is self-employed and yet has an employer to verify income. The only person able to verify income on a self employed applicant would be the self employed person. A self-employed individual as defined by the IRS is a independent contractor. Our office asked for documentation necessary to process an application for a self-employed individual (and again a list of what is acceptable is listed on the written, pre-determined information and criteria document which was given to the complainant on May 23d and also posted on our website). The complainant stated he did not claim all his income for 2011 and therefore his tax returns did not accurately depict the total income, however this information was necessary and the complainant agreed to send tax documentation.

Later in the day on May 24th, we received a call from the complainant who sounded upset and the first thing out of the complainants mouth was "I withdraw our application". The person that took this call was not the same person who showed the property nor was it the same person that collected the application documents. With those words the application was stopped and based on our refund policy, which the complainant was made aware of, the application fees were not refundable. The document clearly states that the application fee is non-refundable, however if and applicant is denied housing NOT based on the criteria then the application is refundable. Instances where an applicant withdraws an application or refuses to submit proper documentation or does not meet the pre-determined criteria does not make the application fee refundable. When it was explained to the complainant that the application fees would not be refunded, the complainant hung up on me despite my attempts to calmly explain the situation to her.

We treat all applicants in accordance with the law and you will find that we put everything in writing so there are no surprises regarding the process. Unfortunately the complainants demand for a refund of her application fee after withdrawing her application is respectfully denied. We would be happy to waive the application fee for the next 30 days (from June 11, 2012) should the complainant and her husband find another property they wish to apply for however with the understanding that proper income documentation will be necessary for a self-employed applicant as defined in the written pre-determined criteria document.


Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not agree with the summary of our conversation. I made it very clear from the very beginning that my husband was self employed. I also made sure that I spoke to the same person from the time that I submitted my application to the last conversation I had with Tradewind properties. Also tradewind properties never spoke to my husband, all the conversations were directly with me. I would also like to point out that I NEVER said that we did not claim all of his income for 2011, I stated that as of 2012 his income has greatly increased. I understand that there is little the BBB can do because there are no written proofs of our conversation, but I have never been treated so disrespectfully by any business i've ever dealt with. The woman I spoke with identified herself as the owner of Tradewind properties every time we spoke and she was far from calm. I feel like the honorable thing to do would be to refund my money since from the beginning I informed her in detail of my husbands employment. I would also like to make it clear that I would NEVER enter into any kind of agreement with a company that deals with their perspective tenants in such a disrepectful and dishonest manner.

Business' Final Response
On May 23rd the complainant called into our office inquiring about a property in St. Paul and ultimately scheduling a showing for that same day at 5pm. The property was again viewed the morning of May 24th with the complainant and her husband later filling out an online rental application at approximately 9:58am on May 24th.

The showing agent that showed the property to the complainant has verified that the complainant never explained that her husband was self-employed and simply asked if a letter from his work/employer verifying income information was sufficient for income documentation. Again, the complainant did not say that her husband was self-employed and as an office policy our leasing agents are advised to not speak specifically about financial information unless so desired by the inquiring party. Not knowing the complainant was self-employed the leasing agent acknowledged that a letter from an EMPLOYER verifying income/pay was sufficient for income documentation based on our pre-determined, in writing criteria. On May 23rd, the complainant was handed the written, pre-determined rental criteria as well as the refund policy on application fees. The leasing agent further explained this document to her. On our online rental application, an applicant cannot hit the submit button without checking that they have "read the provided Application Information document which includes specific pre-determined rental criteria" - and this document is again found in pdf form on the actual application page. (https://tradewindproperties.net/tenant-services/rental-application).

After submitting an online rental application, which was done by the complainant and her husband on May 24th, applicants are taken to a payment page and on this page it goes over the refund policy regarding application fees again.

It was only after the complainant submitted her rental application did we know that her husband was "self-employed" as this was indicated on the rental application. The complainant did submit a document stating weekly income however this document was not on company letterhead, did not state who the verifying person was and did not contain a signature. After receiving this document the complainant was advised this document was not sufficient for proof of income and had we had known prior to her submitting the application it never would have been advised that a letter from an employer would work. Our staff reasonably assumed that when the complainant stated her husband had a "letter from his employer" that her husband was an 'employee' and not an independent contractor. The complainant is contradictory by stating her husband is self-employed and yet has an employer to verify income. The only person able to verify income on a self employed applicant would be the self employed person. A self-employed individual as defined by the IRS is a independent contractor. Our office asked for documentation necessary to process an application for a self-employed individual (and again a list of what is acceptable is listed on the written, pre-determined information and criteria document which was given to the complainant on May 23d and also posted on our website). The complainant stated he did not claim all his income for 2011 and therefore his tax returns did not accurately depict the total income, however this information was necessary and the complainant agreed to send tax documentation.

Later in the day on May 24th, we received a call from the complainant who sounded upset and the first thing out of the complainants mouth was "I withdraw our application". The person that took this call was not the same person who showed the property nor was it the same person that collected the application documents. With those words the application was stopped and based on our refund policy, which the complainant was made aware of, the application fees were not refundable. The document clearly states that the application fee is non-refundable, however if and applicant is denied housing NOT based on the criteria then the application is refundable. Instances where an applicant withdraws an application or refuses to submit proper documentation or does not meet the pre-determined criteria does not make the application fee refundable. When it was explained to the complainant that the application fees would not be refunded, the complainant hung up on me despite my attempts to calmly explain the situation to her.

We treat all applicants in accordance with the law and you will find that we put everything in writing so there are no surprises regarding the process. Unfortunately the complainants demand for a refund of her application fee after withdrawing her application is respectfully denied. We would be happy to waive the application fee for the next 30 days (from June 11, 2012) should the complainant and her husband find another property they wish to apply for however with the understanding that proper income documentation will be necessary for a self-employed applicant as defined in the written pre-determined criteria document.

Industry Comparison| Chart

Real Estate, Property Management, Real Estate Consultants, Real Estate Agents

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.

X

What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.

X

BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.