BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
Northeast California
Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are You the Business Owner of Bruce Mills Realtor, Inc.?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Bruce Mills Realtor, 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 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that lowered the rating for Bruce Mills Realtor, Inc. include:

  • 7 complaints filed against business

Factors that raised the rating for Bruce Mills Realtor, Inc. include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Response to 7 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
  • BBB has sufficient background information on this business.


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

7 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 3 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 6
Total Closed Complaints 7

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Bruce Mills Realtor, Inc.
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

top
BBB file opened: January 22, 1990 Business started: 01/01/1980 Business started locally: 01/01/1980 Business incorporated: 01/04/1990 in CA
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:

CA Bureau of Real Estate
1651 Exposition Blvd., Sacramento CA 95815
http://www.dre.ca.gov/
Phone Number: (877) 373-4542
Fax Number: (916) 263-8943
The number is 00546481.

CA Bureau of Real Estate
1651 Exposition Blvd., Sacramento CA 95815
http://www.dre.ca.gov/
Phone Number: (877) 373-4542
Fax Number: (916) 263-8943
The number is 01100901.

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Bruce Mills, President
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Bruce Mills, President
Business Category

Property Management

Alternate Business Names
M & M Property Services & Management
Products & Services

Bruce Mills Realtor specializes in property management services.


Additional Locations

  • 1401 El Camino Ave Ste 200

    Sacramento, CA 95815 (916) 922-1525

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

About BBB Business Review Content & Services:

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content & services in BBB Business Reviews.
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.

Professional AffiliationsX
X

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.

X

BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the business within two business days. The business will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the business's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.

X

What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.

X

What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known significant government actions involving business' marketplace conduct.

X

Thank you for your feedback!

Help us improve by taking our survey.

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.

X

Additional Phone Numbers

  • (916) 922-1525(Phone)
Find a LocationX

  Change Location
Show Only Accredited Locations


Complaint Detail(s)

7/21/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Violation of my Right to quiet enjoyment. PLUS Non receipt of sufficient deposit deposit also illegally charged for damages not incurred not properly given a a itemized walked through of during walk out inspection of damages. Illegally charged for carpet cleaning. After I ( the tenant submitted proof of cleaning the carpets)

Desired Settlement: Back rent - due to violations of quiet enjoyment.Reinburstment mentioned for Carpet Cleaning-$ 400 Damages &PG&E C/O Leak -$362

Business Response:

Dear BBB:
RE: ID ********
This complaint lists 3 items of dispute. 
First, Ms. ***** states that her "Right to Quiet Enjoyment" was violated.  Ms. ***** had scheduled to end the lease on May 8, 2014.  She then let us know that she would be vacating prior to this date and demanded that she not have to pay for the remaining days left on the lease. After several phone calls and emails, we came to a mutual agreement that we were going to attempt to locate a new tenant to move in prior to the termination of her lease to potentially remove some of her debt obligation.  She insisted that we immediately start marketing the property to do so.  We discussed exactly what this would look like.  We had a sign installed in the front lawn listing the property For Rent, placed the property on several internet sites to market the property for rent, and began attempting to schedule appointments for potential applicants to view the property at a time that was agreeable to Ms. *****.  Ms ***** stated to me that we could show the property whenever we wanted to.  We countered that offer by letting her know thatweI would give her a days notice at the minimum. We had begun setting up appointments on a Monday for a late morning showing the Friday of that same week.  We called ****** on Tuesday to discuss this appointment.  She declined to allow us access during that time and asked that we postpone the appointment until the following Monday.  We had asked the persons scheduled to see the property to call us 1 hour prior to the appointment to confirm since we had not yet confirmed with Ms. *****.  None of the applicants did so.  Allegedly, a couple of persons showed up at her door for the appointment and were turned away.
 
Over that weekend, Ms. ***** emailed stating that she did not want to allow us access to the property for the purpose of leasing the property until May 8th and that she wanted the advertising to be halted.  We removed the advertising over the weekend and sent a work order to The Sign Post to have the sign removed, which was completed on Tuesday of that week.  Ms. *****'s right to quiet enjoyment was not violated.  Every single action was a direct result of trying to accommodate her desire to remove her financial obligation.
 
Second,Ms. ***** claims that we illegally charged for damages and did not complete a walk through with her.  We had scheduled an appointment to completed an initial walk through with her on April 30th with a Final inspection to be scheduled for May 2nd.  Ms ***** called on April 29th stating that she would not be ready for the inspection the next day and canceled it.  We attempted to schedule the Final walk through for May 2nd.  She declined to set a specific time and said that would get back to us.
 
We received an email overnight on May 1 stating that she vacated the property and left the keys and remotes with a third party.  This third party dropped the keys and remotes at our office that day.  We never were given the opportunity to provide Ms. ***** a walk though.  An estimated Disposition of Security Deposit was sent to Ms. ***** via the P.O. Box address she provided us within the allotted time allowed by law.  The final Disposition of Security Deposit was sent shortly after that, once we received the final billing.  Charges that were placed against the deposit include rent for the 8 days not paid, billing for unnecessary work orders, cleaning, and carpet cleaning.
 
Ms. ***** alleges that she paid an outside company to have the carpets cleaned.  She provided a receipt for this charge. Upon receiving possession of the property, *** **** and **** ***** inspected the property.  We did not see any signs that the carpets had been cleaned..  We called the company listed on the invoice to discuss having them come back to warranty the work allegedly completed as it was not up to standard.  The company claims that they did not service the property.  Upon receiving this information, a licensed and insured carpet cleaning company was hired to perform this service and the billing was charged against the security deposit as allowed for by California law.
 
 
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance regarding this matter.
 
***** *****

Consumer Response: I am rejecting the response of the Business because my right to quiet enjoyment was in fact violated the agent Mr. *** **** did in fact send an email apologizing for my right to quiet enjoyment being violated on April 25 2014  which in fact does prove that the company itself does practice in telling lies. For the simple is all you have to do is examine their previous statement. I have submitted documents to support my claims such as receipts, and emails written by the respondents themselves. Now I ask you? What more proof ,is it that I need?. 

 
****** *****    

Business Response:

To BBB:

 This issue was already addressed in the previous complaint.  All actions initiated by this office were a direct result of Ms. ***** demanding that we immediately begin marketing the property to perform our due diligence to locate a new tenant, thus potentially alleviate rent burden from the tenant during the time it was to be unoccupied.  At no time after Ms. ***** informed our office that she no longer would allow access to the property did we attempt to gain access to the property.  She had full use and quiet enjoyment to the property.  An apology for her feelings of disturbance was offered and accepted.

 Attached is the receipt for carpet cleaning as it was presented to our office by Ms. *****.  As stated in the previous answer, this company was contacted due to poor quality to the job allegedly completed.  The owner of the company stated that he never performed this work.  Thus, we had the carpets professionally cleaned and billed against the security deposit as allowed for by law.

 Ms. ***** is attempting to bully her way into not being held accountable for her responsibilities.  This should clear up any further discussion with regards to complaints against our company by this person. We have also attached photos of the condition of property at the time we received the keys. We are only allowed a certain number of photos to upload.  Please let me know if you need the other photos.

 ***** *****

Consumer Response: I am rejecting this response because: I was photos of the condition of the property at time of move in as well as video of the time of move out which have been reviewed by the BBB member ****** *****. I also have submitted every communication from M & M PROPERTIES agent *** **** as well communications of that from Mr. ***** for review. It is never my intention to bully nor be bullied in the matter, I only seek that the truth as well as the law be upheld. I followed the letter of law without any malice or Ill will. It would appear to me that this is a matter that the M & M PROPERTIES would not like to treat honestly. I have attached original , dated photos of unit @time of move in and have the video of conditions of the unit at time of vacate. 

My right to quiet enjoyment was violated as admitted to by M & M PROPERTIES and while I was in the midst of vacating the unit several times. I would say it was deliberate on the part of M & M PROPERTIES as they felt my homes was clearly  well kept, in fact so much that they wanted to show the unit while I still occupied it. As The Emails reflect, At Which *** **** , agent request to show the property with prior notification. 
To meet everyone's standard of what perfection would be is impossible. I looked for a carpet cleaner that advertised , I found one, I hired him , he did the work, I paid,  received a receipt and did everything that the law requires a Tennant do to. I complied with the law.
I have attached photos of the condition of the unit @time of move in. I have many more move in problematic photos of items that were never addressed or re paired during my stay. 
I contend, that it is M & M PROPERTIES who are the bullies in this matter,  where as I as the tenant did and am doing all that I can to try and resolve the matter. 

2/21/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Extreme delinquency returning remaining $500 deposit; refusal to refund $97;refusal to return property removed from the rental unit, mismanagement. This company under Bruce Mills Realtors is doing business as M&M Property Management which is not listed separately with BBB. However their addresses, phone numbers and listed personnel are identical. We had a contract with M&M dated Sept 2012. We specifically hired **** ************** under his broker, Bruce Mills, to manage a residential property located in a nice middle class suburban neighborhood in west Roseville, CA. They were paid monthly to manage the property. Under their mismanagement the property incurred severe damage and neglect which will cost us (by their own estimate) $6500 to repair. Their failure to adhere to their own declared protocols and refusal to communicate has additionally cost us over three months of lost rent. The tenant they rented to in Sept 2012 abandoned the property in Sept 2013. We are left cleaning up not only from his tenancy, but also from the damage and neglect caused by our manager, Mr.**************. We hold M&M wholly responsible. M&M leased our rental home to a known drug user with a history of payment delinquency and domestic violence. This is verified in papers left at the home by the tenant. M&M rarely checked on or remedied issues we observed at the property and brought to their attention (documented in written emails and text messages). M&M did nothing about problems that developed at the home under their watch including a dying landscape, two squatters residing at the property, and the presence of an unleased dog which destroyed nice Berber carpeting throughout the entire 2000 sq ft home (Service King Inc, Nov 2013) and caused other damage. M&M used unlicensed and uninsured vendors for our property, then upcharged and/or charged us for work that was never actually done. For example, in Feb 2013 we were charged $190 for a roof patch. When we questioned the cost and necessity of the work, we were told it was because the roof needed an immediate patch. We told Mr. ************** to meet us at the property so we could inspect the roof for ourselves. It was only when we physically went up on the roof and brought pictures down to him showing no work had been done did Mr.************** agree to not charge us. M&M has characterized this action as "micromanaging". M&M has not returned $500 from the security deposit that was promised in a letter from Mr. ************** dated Nov 4, 2013. M&M charged us $97 for unauthorized change of door hardware, replacing them with unneeded and unacceptable hardware. M&M were authorized to re-key existing locks only. We asked M&M to return our hardware, remove theirs and give us a refund. M&M agreed to return the hardware (phone conversation with Bruce Mills on approx Nov 7), but to date we have only received a few items. Calls and emails to resolve the issues with Mr. Mills have gone unanswered. The time has past where we can document the damaged condition of both the interior of the home and of the yard. This is because Mr. ************** told us in an email of Oct 23 that he had taken "lots of photos" for that specific purpose. But that was really not the case. To date we have received a total of 12 poor quality and unlabeled photos, obtained only after many requests to Mr. ************** and Mr. Mills. Again, although we were told landscape photos had been taken, that was untrue and Mr. ************** only took those in our presence on Oct 31. Mr. Mills and M&M agents have been unresponsive to us. We've sent many emails and texts, and left numerous voice mail messages asking for our money back and our hardware returned. They are fully aware that in a rent or lease situation timeliness is critical; it took several weeks before M&M partially responded with our requested information and documentation but which M&M had agreed to provide on numerous occasions (records available). Included with the papers we received was a resignation letter, apparently giving M&M impunity to ignore their responsibilities and avoid resolution.

Desired Settlement: The settlement we seek is as follows. We request the immediate return of the remainder of our $500 deposit money; removal of M&M Properties' door hardware and return and installation of our original door hardware; and the refund of the $97 of our money they used without authorization or permission to purchase the aforementioned door hardware. In addition we seek the cost of replacement carpet ($2300); landscape restoration ($1500), restitution of three months lost rent ($5085), and refund of management fees from June to Oct 2013 ($475) which are all directly do to their mismanagement and inferior service.

Business Response: 1. The Management contract we executed with our clients was signed June 20, 2012, not September.

2. The $500 owner operating capital referred to by the owner as a deposit was disbursed 12/11/2013 via EFT to the owners account. This was a clerical error in closing the account. Other funds (eg:release of tenants deposit) were disbursed in a timely manner. We are sorry about this delay and happy to resolve the matter. We feel that the charge of "extreme delinquency" is exaggerated.

3. Refund $97: This amount was cost of 3 re-keyable Kwikset brand locksets installed to secure abandoned property. This was done to ensure that parties which the tenant may have given keys could not return to take possession. We considered this action to be an emergency situation which is covered in the management agreement under repairs and maintenance, section 3. The locksets were the same brand and quality of the original hardware at the property.

4. Return of Property: The original deadbolt locksets were mailed to the clients on November 12, 2013 at their request. The package included a letter dated November 8, 2013 and a cd containing photos taken of the property. We leased the property to a party September 3, 2012, at that time there was no suggestion or indication that he was involved in drugs - our first indication of drug use was when we entered the property for a welfare check a year later in October 2013. Our research of his application showed that his current landlord was satisfied with his tenancy as well as that of his roommates. The landlord reported prompt rent payments, no complaints about behavior and their housekeeping was satisfactory. They stated that they would re-rent to the applicant. Previous landlord did not report complaints, and stated that they would re-rent to him.
When we placed the tenant, we discussed the application with the owner. The owner agreed with our suggestion to increase the tenant deposit based on the application's merit and unusual circumstances.
In October 2013, we conducted a welfare check of the tenant who at the end of September contacted the property manager to provide his new phone number and state that he had been hospitalized with pneumonia. This took place a few days after posting a notice of abandonment October 8, 2013.
When we entered the property, we saw inconclusive evidence that there may have been unauthorized occupants at the property, hearsay conversations with the neighbors suggested that there may have been other persons occupying the property who were not overnight guests. It was at that time that we saw in plain view in the kitchen, drug paraphernalia; pipes and screens and such. While some items were left behind, it was clear that people had not been living at the house for at least a week. This is when we determined that it was prudent to change the locks immediately in case the tenant had provided keys to unauthorized persons.
Owner describes the carpet as "nice berber carpet" The carpet was left in poor condition in the summer of 2012 by the previous tenant before we took over management. A carpet restoration company tried to remove deep stains that penetrated the carpet to the pad. A few days later the company returned to remove spots that came up. They did an additional cleaning for spots that were returning at the time that the tenant was placed. In October of 2013 there was evidence of substantial pet damage to the carpet. The tenant was not authorized to have a pet. We did not have reason to believe that the tenant had a pet.
The figure of $6500 for repairs stated by our client is actually a figure from a estimated disposition of deposit form mailed to the tenant covering $3390 past due rent, and estimates for damage repair and cleaning. We did not find deliberate damage caused by the tenant beyond the pet damage to the carpet, landscape neglect in the yard and a missing staircase banister.
We wish to point out that the landscaping was not in good condition when the tenant moved in. There documentation that the landscaping was maintained poorly by the previous tenant. In preparation for the new move-in, Our client had the irrigation repaired and the dry and dead plants removed and cleaned up. The landscaping is a low-maintenance design and it was the expectation that it should grow back with proper water. We contacted the tenant from time to time to remind him to remove weeds in front which we could see from a drive-by inspection.
We discussed each landlord complaint with the tenant. There are issues about invasion of privacy when the landlord is asking to address the tenant on the contents of his trash can and requests that may come from neighbor's hearsay about the tenant.
Civil Code 1953 and 1954 restricts unescorted inspections without the permission of the tenant. We were not granted permission by the tenant to enter the property without the tenant present.
On occasions where the tenant invited us into the home - the owners were present on one of those occasions, and noted that the property was maintained in a clean and orderly manner. At that time there was no indication of drug use or the presence of pets or other unauthorized tenants. Vendors who made repairs did not report any unusual conditions to us. We believe that the behavior of the tenant and the apparent unauthorized tenants and pets were a development the last few months of the tenancy.

5. M&M Property management does not add any charge to an invoice from a vendor nor do we receive any kind of compensation for using a vendor. All of our vendors present appropriate licenses, liability insurance as well as workman's comp insurance and any EPA, lead, asbestos or other specialized certifications they may have.
We will provide the BBB with documentation covering all vendors dispatched by M&M Property Services and Management to the client's rental property.

6. At the end of November and beginning of December 21012 there was a particularly severe rainstorm and the tenant called to report a significant leak in the living room area. We sent a roofing contractor to evaluate the condition of the roof and make an emergency repair to try to stop or slow the leak. They presented us with an inspection report and stated that they had installed a temporary patch which they would not guarantee and stated that it would not stop the leak completely and would not last for any length of time. Their evaluation of the roof indicated that it was in need of immediate and complete replacement. The client chose a different company and had the roof replaced the next year after a second storm again caused water intrusion.
The client climbed on the roof and examined it and concluded that there was no doubt that it had to be replaced. It was also his opinion that a temporary patch was not placed on the roof. He asked me to discuss the matter with the roofing contractor we had sent, stating that he refused to pay for the invoice they presented.
The invoice from the roofing contractor was for evaluation and for temporary repair. When I brought the client's concerns to the company, they elected to waive the fee as a matter of good will.
The property manager is not qualified to evaluate roofing nor insured to climb a roof for such an inspection - we rely on the opinion of qualified, licensed people for inspections. We believe that while the owner may be familiar with his property, he does not have a contractor's license and is not otherwise qualified to evaluate the condition of the roof or work performed on the roof.

7. Consumer's Desired Resolution: We have returned the $500 owner capital as mentioned above and we apologize for the delay. We have returned the original locksets which were replaced and provided the photographs on a cd in the same package that they acknowledge that they have received. The lockset between the garage and the house was broken and would not latch the original was discarded and replaced with a locking set as appropriate for a door leading to a garage. We reject the balance of the client's desired resolution. Recourse for repairs and damages to the home beyond normal wear and tear caused by the tenant is gained through the tenant. Part of those damages have been recovered through the deposit of $2100 which was forfeited by the tenant and paid to the owner.

M&M Property Management's Desired Resolution:
As a company with 34 years of experience currently managing over a billion dollars worth of property we are insulted by this client's unfounded and wrongful public accusations regarding our handling of vendors. We expect an apology.
At no time was an unlicensed or uninsured vendor used. We did not mark-up invoices and we did not receive compensation from our vendors.
We expect the client to retract the wrongful lies in this public accusation and avoid legal action from us for the attempt to damage our re

Business Response: 1. The Management contract we executed with our clients was signed June 20, 2012, not September.

2. The $500 owner operating capital referred to by the owner as a deposit was disbursed 12/11/2013 via EFT to the owners account. This was a clerical error in closing the account. Other funds (eg:release of tenants deposit) were disbursed in a timely manner. We are sorry about this delay and happy to resolve the matter. We feel that the charge of "extreme delinquency" is exaggerated.

3. Refund $97: This amount was cost of 3 re-keyable Kwikset brand locksets installed to secure abandoned property. This was done to ensure that parties which the tenant may have given keys could not return to take possession. We considered this action to be an emergency situation which is covered in the management agreement under repairs and maintenance, section 3. The locksets were the same brand and quality of the original hardware at the property.

4. Return of Property: The original deadbolt locksets were mailed to the clients on November 12, 2013 at their request. The package included a letter dated November 8, 2013 and a cd containing photos taken of the property. We leased the property to a party September 3, 2012, at that time there was no suggestion or indication that he was involved in drugs - our first indication of drug use was when we entered the property for a welfare check a year later in October 2013. Our research of his application showed that his current landlord was satisfied with his tenancy as well as that of his roommates. The landlord reported prompt rent payments, no complaints about behavior and their housekeeping was satisfactory. They stated that they would re-rent to the applicant. Previous landlord did not report complaints, and stated that they would re-rent to him.
When we placed the tenant, we discussed the application with the owner. The owner agreed with our suggestion to increase the tenant deposit based on the application's merit and unusual circumstances.
In October 2013, we conducted a welfare check of the tenant who at the end of September contacted the property manager to provide his new phone number and state that he had been hospitalized with pneumonia. This took place a few days after posting a notice of abandonment October 8, 2013.
When we entered the property, we saw inconclusive evidence that there may have been unauthorized occupants at the property, hearsay conversations with the neighbors suggested that there may have been other persons occupying the property who were not overnight guests. It was at that time that we saw in plain view in the kitchen, drug paraphernalia; pipes and screens and such. While some items were left behind, it was clear that people had not been living at the house for at least a week. This is when we determined that it was prudent to change the locks immediately in case the tenant had provided keys to unauthorized persons.
Owner describes the carpet as "nice berber carpet" The carpet was left in poor condition in the summer of 2012 by the previous tenant before we took over management. A carpet restoration company tried to remove deep stains that penetrated the carpet to the pad. A few days later the company returned to remove spots that came up. They did an additional cleaning for spots that were returning at the time that the tenant was placed. In October of 2013 there was evidence of substantial pet damage to the carpet. The tenant was not authorized to have a pet. We did not have reason to believe that the tenant had a pet.
The figure of $6500 for repairs stated by our client is actually a figure from a estimated disposition of deposit form mailed to the tenant covering $3390 past due rent, and estimates for damage repair and cleaning. We did not find deliberate damage caused by the tenant beyond the pet damage to the carpet, landscape neglect in the yard and a missing staircase banister.
We wish to point out that the landscaping was not in good condition when the tenant moved in. There documentation that the landscaping was maintained poorly by the previous tenant. In preparation for the new move-in, Our client had the irrigation repaired and the dry and dead plants removed and cleaned up. The landscaping is a low-maintenance design and it was the expectation that it should grow back with proper water. We contacted the tenant from time to time to remind him to remove weeds in front which we could see from a drive-by inspection.
We discussed each landlord complaint with the tenant. There are issues about invasion of privacy when the landlord is asking to address the tenant on the contents of his trash can and requests that may come from neighbor's hearsay about the tenant.
Civil Code 1953 and 1954 restricts unescorted inspections without the permission of the tenant. We were not granted permission by the tenant to enter the property without the tenant present.
On occasions where the tenant invited us into the home - the owners were present on one of those occasions, and noted that the property was maintained in a clean and orderly manner. At that time there was no indication of drug use or the presence of pets or other unauthorized tenants. Vendors who made repairs did not report any unusual conditions to us. We believe that the behavior of the tenant and the apparent unauthorized tenants and pets were a development the last few months of the tenancy.

5. M&M Property management does not add any charge to an invoice from a vendor nor do we receive any kind of compensation for using a vendor. All of our vendors present appropriate licenses, liability insurance as well as workman's comp insurance and any EPA, lead, asbestos or other specialized certifications they may have.
We will provide the BBB with documentation covering all vendors dispatched by M&M Property Services and Management to the client's rental property.

6. At the end of November and beginning of December 21012 there was a particularly severe rainstorm and the tenant called to report a significant leak in the living room area. We sent a roofing contractor to evaluate the condition of the roof and make an emergency repair to try to stop or slow the leak. They presented us with an inspection report and stated that they had installed a temporary patch which they would not guarantee and stated that it would not stop the leak completely and would not last for any length of time. Their evaluation of the roof indicated that it was in need of immediate and complete replacement. The client chose a different company and had the roof replaced the next year after a second storm again caused water intrusion.
The client climbed on the roof and examined it and concluded that there was no doubt that it had to be replaced. It was also his opinion that a temporary patch was not placed on the roof. He asked me to discuss the matter with the roofing contractor we had sent, stating that he refused to pay for the invoice they presented.
The invoice from the roofing contractor was for evaluation and for temporary repair. When I brought the client's concerns to the company, they elected to waive the fee as a matter of good will.
The property manager is not qualified to evaluate roofing nor insured to climb a roof for such an inspection - we rely on the opinion of qualified, licensed people for inspections. We believe that while the owner may be familiar with his property, he does not have a contractor's license and is not otherwise qualified to evaluate the condition of the roof or work performed on the roof.

7. Consumer's Desired Resolution: We have returned the $500 owner capital as mentioned above and we apologize for the delay. We have returned the original locksets which were replaced and provided the photographs on a cd in the same package that they acknowledge that they have received. The lockset between the garage and the house was broken and would not latch the original was discarded and replaced with a locking set as appropriate for a door leading to a garage. We reject the balance of the client's desired resolution. Recourse for repairs and damages to the home beyond normal wear and tear caused by the tenant is gained through the tenant. Part of those damages have been recovered through the deposit of $2100 which was forfeited by the tenant and paid to the owner.

M&M Property Management's Desired Resolution:
As a company with 34 years of experience currently managing over a billion dollars worth of property we are insulted by this client's unfounded and wrongful public accusations regarding our handling of vendors. We expect an apology.
At no time was an unlicensed or uninsured vendor used. We did not mark-up invoices and we did not receive compensation from our vendors.
We expect the client to retract the wrongful lies in this public accusation and avoid legal action from us for the attempt to damage our re

Consumer Response:  
Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:
Our responses are in red.

1. The Management contract we executed with our clients was signed June 20, 2012, not September. 

The contract in the complaint refers to the lease agreement made on Sept 8, 2012 by **** ************* which states “by and between ***** * *** **** ***** Owner whose address and phone numbers are: c/o: M&M Property”.

 

2. The $500 owner operating capital referred to by the owner as a deposit was disbursed 12/11/2013 via EFT to the owners account. This was a clerical error in closing the account. Other funds (eg:release of tenants deposit) were disbursed in a timely manner. We are sorry about this delay and happy to resolve the matter. We feel that the charge of "extreme delinquency" is exaggerated. 

M&M has admitted to withholding $500 deposit for over 30 days, returning the funds only when confronted with the BBB complaint.  We feel that holding the deposit for greater than 30 days after their terminated our management agreement is extremely delinquent. In response to M&M’s threatened legal action we reviewed the billing and found that M&M billing records charged us twice (2 x $95) for the “month” of November (billing statement available upon request).  Funds of $95 were taken from our account for management of the property for two days, although M&M terminated the agreement in a letter dated November 2, cleverly billing for another month.  They still have us as an owner on their website and still owe us an owner’s statement for 2013 taxes.  We want all monies returned and billing correcting.

 

3. Refund $97: This amount was cost of 3 re-keyable Kwikset brand locksets installed to secure abandoned property. This was done to ensure that parties which the tenant may have given keys could not return to take possession. We considered this action to be an emergency situation which is covered in the management agreement under repairs and maintenance, section 3. The locksets were the same brand and quality of the original hardware at the property.

We propose returning the new locksets to M&M and they refund our $97 that was charged for the purchase of the unauthorized locksets.  As a property management company they can likely find use for these locksets.  We have no use for them.  M&M was only authorized to re-key existing lock sets – including dead bolts and door knobs -- in October 2013, not to replace them. Instead they purchased and billed us for new locksets with the excuse of securing the property in an emergency situation. However, the security of the property been imperative they would have changed all deadbolts and doorknobs. They changed the doorknob to the laundry room accessed from the garage, but they did not change the lock on the doorknob to the front door. Had they truly been concerned with the property, they also would have been diligent in with checking both the exterior and interior of the property when they learned of potential tenant issues at the house in Summer 2013.  

 

 

4. Return of Property: The original deadbolt locksets were mailed to the clients on November 12, 2013 at their request.

M&M claims to have returned the original locksets that were taken from our property.  In fact only part of the lock sets were returned. They only returned deadbolts. Some doorknobs are still missing. We would prefer to have all original deadbolts and doorknobs returned.  However, we are willing to settle for $100 to purchase new knobs to match the style used throughout house. 

 

The package included a letter dated November 8, 2013 and a cd containing photos taken of the property. We leased the property to a party September 3, 2012, at that time there was no suggestion or indication that he was involved in drugs - our first indication of drug use was when we entered the property for a welfare check a year later in October 2013.

There is documentation left at our property by the tenant which includes evidence that drug use, domestic violence and legal problems occurred with the tenant well before and during the time M&M chose to lease to him. If M&M had done their due diligence with any type of background check of the tenant these issues would have been readily apparent and this entire situation with him avoided. 

 

Our research of his application showed that his current landlord was satisfied with his tenancy as well as that of his roommates. The landlord reported prompt rent payments, no complaints about behavior and their housekeeping was satisfactory. They stated that they would re-rent to the applicant. Previous landlord did not report complaints, and stated that they would re-rent to him. 

We asked many times for what information they received prior to leasing to the tenant, Kyle Parenti, and all they provided for their “research” into his acceptability is a statement from a prior landlord that they would re-rent to him with a qualified application and a credit check.  Yet even with all the known or suspected problems including months of unpaid rent (beginning Jan 2013-- to the point where M&M would only accept a cashier’s check), reports from neighbors of drug use and other people living at the property, as well as yard maintenance issues, **** ************** still wrote a reference for Kyle ******* to another potential residence.  In that reference M&M used the exact same language, stating  they would re-rent to Kyle ******* with a qualified application (******* referral and application to Slate Creek apartments available upon request.). In Oct 2013 M&M was aware that Kyle ******* was a very unreliable tenant at minimum.  We feel M&M failed to do due diligence in vetting Kyle ******* and did not communicate the red flags to us when recommending him as a tenant (******* documentation for rental from M&M available upon request).

 

 

When we placed the tenant, we discussed the application with the owner.

This is untrue. They did not discuss his application – in fact we didn’t even see the tenant’s application until we found it in the papers the tenant left behind, although we had requested any and all materials related to the tenant’s application from **** ************** many times. All we were told was he thought the tenant was going to be good because he was a veteran, going to school on the GI bill and received over $5000 per month in an insurance settlement.  **** ************** said his manager agreed with him.  Because of this, we assumed M&M had fully vetted this prospective tenant. However, M&M had not done so and failed to find the issues described in this complaint.

 

The owner agreed with our suggestion to increase the tenant deposit based on the application's merit and unusual circumstances.

The deposit was less than that we had received from the previous tenant.

 

In October 2013, we conducted a welfare check of the tenant who at the end of September contacted the property manager to provide his new phone number and state that he had been hospitalized with pneumonia. This took place a few days after posting a notice of abandonment October 8, 2013. 

The lease had expired on September 30 and Mr. ******* had received a 3-day notice served on September 1, 2013. It is not clear why it took over a week after expiration of the lease for M&M to check on the condition of the property or to perform the “welfare check”.  The “welfare” check was done only after our repeated prompting through phone calls, texts and emails.  We feel that failure of the property manager to do a walk-through of the property before expiration of the lease is poor management practice and resulted in unnecessary damage to the property.  M&M never completed a final walk through checklist as specified in the management agreement.

 

 

When we entered the property, we saw inconclusive evidence that there may have been unauthorized occupants at the property, hearsay conversations with the neighbors suggested that there may have been other persons occupying the property who were not overnight guests.

Again had M&M done their job, they would have noticed unleased occupants and an unleased dog as early as the beginning of 2013.  In fact, the tenant was delinquent in rent in Jan 2013, and a 3 day notice was placed at the house (documentation available upon request).  Documents which were removed by **** ************** and taken to his private residence indicated additional unleased persons living at the house.  It was only after our insistence that he return those documents to us (email exchange available upon request). The lease agreement requires notification to M&M and the owners if additional persons are living at the property.

 

 

It was at that time that we saw in plain view in the kitchen, drug paraphernalia; pipes and screens and such. While some items were left behind, it was clear that people had not been living at the house for at least a week. This is when we determined that it was prudent to change the locks immediately in case the tenant had provided keys to unauthorized persons.

M&M chose to change out the deadbolts and locking door knob rather than re-key existing hardware as authorized.  It was prudent to re-key the existing locks as **** was asked to do, but NOT to go buy new locks. And they left the main entry to the house (doorknob lock) unchanged.

 

Owner describes the carpet as "nice berber carpet" The carpet was left in poor condition in the summer of 2012 by the previous tenant before we took over management. A carpet restoration company tried to remove deep stains that penetrated the carpet to the pad. A few days later the company returned to remove spots that came up. They did an additional cleaning for spots that were returning at the time that the tenant was placed.

It is true there was some wear on the carpet but it was not stained nor was it torn. Whatever previous soiling or damage had been done to the carpet was fixed and restored by M&M’s own carpet restoration vendor, in summer of 2012. When it was repaired it was restored to a very good condition. (Photos available). It was a nice Berber carpet until the dirty diapers and pet damage from the tenant M&M chose and did not manage.

 

 In October of 2013 there was evidence of substantial pet damage to the carpet. The tenant was not authorized to have a pet. We did not have reason to believe that the tenant had a pet.

The figure of $6500 for repairs stated by our client is actually a figure from a estimated disposition of deposit form mailed to the tenant covering $3390 past due rent, and estimates for damage repair and cleaning. We did not find deliberate damage caused by the tenant beyond the pet damage to the carpet, landscape neglect in the yard and a missing staircase banister. 

Somehow M&M is not accounting for wall damage including a fist sized hole in a wall  in a bedroom and a series of approximately ½” sized holes in a kitchen wall, damage to the control panels of the stainless stove and dishwasher (purchased 2008), as well as to the microwave (photos are available upon request). This was noted by the carpet cleaning vendor hired by M&M to clean the interior of the property -- although they actually did not clean the carpet because **** ************** told them not to(phone conversation with **** ********* Nov 2013).  M&M’s response does not dispute severe damages to the interior of the house that occurred on their watch.  The fact is that M&M did not check on the interior of the house until our insistence both by phone and email and after severe damages had been incurred. 

 

 

We wish to point out that the landscaping was not in good condition when the tenant moved in. There documentation that the landscaping was maintained poorly by the previous tenant. In preparation for the new move-in, Our client had the irrigation repaired and the dry and dead plants removed and cleaned up. Move in photos speak for themselves (available upon request.) The interior of the house was in very good condition as was the yard. We had much work done on both the house and yard. New sod had been installed and a new irrigation timer installed, which seems the tenant never used and was found unplugged by the landscaper we hired in Nov 2013 to repair the landscape damage caused by M&M’s negligence.

 

The landscaping is a low-maintenance design and it was the expectation that it should grow back with proper water. We contacted the tenant from time to time to remind him to remove weeds in front which we could see from a drive-by inspection. 

Low maintenance does not mean NO maintenance. M&M’s response does not dispute the severe damage to the landscape that occurred on their watch.  The problem was in plain view from June to October.  It was a requirement of the tenant to take care of the yard by the lease agreement. **** ************** knew in July that the back yard “still needs attention” (email available upon request). We even asked **** ************** several times to address the issue that the tenant was not taking care of the yard.  We had several discussions about hiring a landscaping company to take care of the yard but **** ************** was negligent and never followed through.

 

We discussed each landlord complaint with the tenant. There are issues about invasion of privacy when the landlord is asking to address the tenant on the contents of his trash can and requests that may come from neighbor's hearsay about the tenant.

Civil Code 1953 and 1954 restricts unescorted inspections without the permission of the tenant. We were not granted permission by the tenant to enter the property without the tenant present.

M&M did not go into the property after we entered in Feb 2013.  By their own admission, there were rumors from the neighbors of problems at the property but did nothing to investigate or to intervene. From our understanding it is possible given 24 hours notice for management to enter a property, especially given safety issues with smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. There were a full 6 months when M&M did not check on the property.

 

On occasions where the tenant invited us into the home - the owners were present on one of those occasions, and noted that the property was maintained in a clean and orderly manner. At that time there was no indication of drug use or the presence of pets or other unauthorized tenants. Vendors who made repairs did not report any unusual conditions to us. We believe that the behavior of the tenant and the apparent unauthorized tenants and pets were a development the last few months of the tenancy.  Regardless of what M&M believes, the facts speak for themselves. There was evidence back in March 2013 of unauthorized tenants and pets.  We have no knowledge of vendors being in the home from Feb 2013 until July 2013.

 

5. M&M Property management does not add any charge to an invoice from a vendor nor do we receive any kind of compensation for using a vendor. All of our vendors present appropriate licenses, liability insurance as well as workman's comp insurance and any EPA, lead, asbestos or other specialized certifications they may have.

We will provide the BBB with documentation covering all vendors dispatched by M&M Property Services and Management to the client's rental property. 

There are bills we received from M&M which have no information about the vendor or what the bills were for. One we received from **** ************** simply asks us to pay him personally $97.10. (Copy of bill and email exchanges requesting details from **** ************** available upon request.)

 

6. At the end of November and beginning of December 21012 there was a particularly severe rainstorm and the tenant called to report a significant leak in the living room area. We sent a roofing contractor to evaluate the condition of the roof and make an emergency repair to try to stop or slow the leak. They presented us with an inspection report and stated that they had installed a temporary patch which they would not guarantee and stated that it would not stop the leak completely and would not last for any length of time. Their evaluation of the roof indicated that it was in need of immediate and complete replacement. The client chose a different company and had the roof replaced the next year after a second storm again caused water intrusion.

The client climbed on the roof and examined it and concluded that there was no doubt that it had to be replaced. It was also his opinion that a temporary patch was not placed on the roof. He asked me to discuss the matter with the roofing contractor we had sent, stating that he refused to pay for the invoice they presented.

The invoice from the roofing contractor was for evaluation and for temporary repair. When I brought the client's concerns to the company, they elected to waive the fee as a matter of good will.

It is not good will to rescind a fraudulent charge. We refused to pay for work (roof patch) that was never done.  There is another BBB complaint against M&M that refers to charges to owners by an M&M contractor for work not done.

 

The property manager is not qualified to evaluate roofing nor insured to climb a roof for such an inspection - we rely on the opinion of qualified, licensed people for inspections. We believe that while the owner may be familiar with his property, he does not have a contractor's license and is not otherwise qualified to evaluate the condition of the roof or work performed on the roof.

M&M does not know our qualifications and are not in a position to comment on them. The fact is no roof patch was installed. This was stated by the roofing company we hired to replace the roof, as well as being easily observed and documented by photographs. The roof was replaced immediately after we were informed of the problem.  The new roof was completed in Feb 2013, not the next year as erroneously stated.

 

7. Consumer's Desired Resolution: We have returned the $500 owner capital as mentioned above and we apologize for the delay. We have returned the original locksets which were replaced and provided the photographs on a cd in the same package that they acknowledge that they have received. The lockset between the garage and the house was broken and would not latch the original was discarded and replaced with a locking set as appropriate for a door leading to a garage. We reject the balance of the client's desired resolution. Recourse for repairs and damages to the home beyond normal wear and tear caused by the tenant is gained through the tenant. Part of those damages have been recovered through the deposit of $2100 which was forfeited by the tenant and paid to the owner.

Photos were not provided until our insistence. They were few and of poor quality. **** ************** said he placed them in a file we had access to which he admitted later he actually had not done. He also did not take photos of the yard until we asked for them as part of the documentation and he only took them in our presence. This contrasts sharply with the many well documented and higher quality move in photos that **** ************** took prior to his leasing our property to Kyle ******* in Sept 2013. 

 

M&M Property Management's Desired Resolution:

 

As a company with 34 years of experience currently managing over a billion dollars worth of property we are insulted by this client's unfounded and wrongful public accusations regarding our handling of vendors.

We are glad to see license information provided. We tried to obtain license information for some of the questionable vendors, but no licensing information was available. In addition, at a minimum one of the vendors (plumbing contractor) contacted by M&M to provide a quote to replace the water heater was not licensed in Roseville.  When we spoke with John, he admitted his contractor did not know either local and city code requirements or inspection requirements. Had we used the M&M contractor, we would have experienced trouble with the city of Rosevillle for improper installation of an uninstpected water heater.

 

We expect an apology.

At no time was an unlicensed or uninsured vendor used. We did not mark-up invoices and we did not receive compensation from our vendors.

We expect the client to retract the wrongful lies in this public accusation and avoid legal action from us for the attempt to damage our re

 

We stand by our original complaint. M&M’s proposed resolution is an arrogant response.  Threatening legal action for a legitimate complaint is harassment.  This comes from a management company with “34 years experience”, but who doesn’t seem to have a handle on their managers nor their billing.  We suffered over $6000 of losses and property damages as a consequence of doing business with M&M.  Anyone reading the M&M response should ask themselves whether they want to do business with M&M when their response is to make threats of punitive legal action.  Such an action by a member of BBB should be an embarrassment to all legitimate businesses in the Sacramento area and elsewhere. 

 

We request the return of the remainder of our “locksets” they have not returned, or $100 to replace with a kind that matches the rest of our house. We seek return of the $97 charged for purchase of new locksets that M&M was not authorized to purchase or install and that do not match the style used in the house.  We seek $1500 for landscape restoration.  We also seek refund of $475 of the management fees collected for June to October 2013 due to mismanagement and the fees for November 2013 ($95)

charged when M&M terminated the management agreement on November 2. We seek $2300 in restitution for damages to the property and loss of rent.

 

 


Sincerely,

Sue Sheya

Consumer Response:  
Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:
Our responses are in red.

1. The Management contract we executed with our clients was signed June 20, 2012, not September. 

The contract in the complaint refers to the lease agreement made on Sept 8, 2012 by **** ************* which states “by and between ***** * *** **** ***** Owner whose address and phone numbers are: c/o: M&M Property”.

 

2. The $500 owner operating capital referred to by the owner as a deposit was disbursed 12/11/2013 via EFT to the owners account. This was a clerical error in closing the account. Other funds (eg:release of tenants deposit) were disbursed in a timely manner. We are sorry about this delay and happy to resolve the matter. We feel that the charge of "extreme delinquency" is exaggerated. 

M&M has admitted to withholding $500 deposit for over 30 days, returning the funds only when confronted with the BBB complaint.  We feel that holding the deposit for greater than 30 days after their terminated our management agreement is extremely delinquent. In response to M&M’s threatened legal action we reviewed the billing and found that M&M billing records charged us twice (2 x $95) for the “month” of November (billing statement available upon request).  Funds of $95 were taken from our account for management of the property for two days, although M&M terminated the agreement in a letter dated November 2, cleverly billing for another month.  They still have us as an owner on their website and still owe us an owner’s statement for 2013 taxes.  We want all monies returned and billing correcting.

 

3. Refund $97: This amount was cost of 3 re-keyable Kwikset brand locksets installed to secure abandoned property. This was done to ensure that parties which the tenant may have given keys could not return to take possession. We considered this action to be an emergency situation which is covered in the management agreement under repairs and maintenance, section 3. The locksets were the same brand and quality of the original hardware at the property.

We propose returning the new locksets to M&M and they refund our $97 that was charged for the purchase of the unauthorized locksets.  As a property management company they can likely find use for these locksets.  We have no use for them.  M&M was only authorized to re-key existing lock sets – including dead bolts and door knobs -- in October 2013, not to replace them. Instead they purchased and billed us for new locksets with the excuse of securing the property in an emergency situation. However, the security of the property been imperative they would have changed all deadbolts and doorknobs. They changed the doorknob to the laundry room accessed from the garage, but they did not change the lock on the doorknob to the front door. Had they truly been concerned with the property, they also would have been diligent in with checking both the exterior and interior of the property when they learned of potential tenant issues at the house in Summer 2013.  

 

 

4. Return of Property: The original deadbolt locksets were mailed to the clients on November 12, 2013 at their request.

M&M claims to have returned the original locksets that were taken from our property.  In fact only part of the lock sets were returned. They only returned deadbolts. Some doorknobs are still missing. We would prefer to have all original deadbolts and doorknobs returned.  However, we are willing to settle for $100 to purchase new knobs to match the style used throughout house. 

 

The package included a letter dated November 8, 2013 and a cd containing photos taken of the property. We leased the property to a party September 3, 2012, at that time there was no suggestion or indication that he was involved in drugs - our first indication of drug use was when we entered the property for a welfare check a year later in October 2013.

There is documentation left at our property by the tenant which includes evidence that drug use, domestic violence and legal problems occurred with the tenant well before and during the time M&M chose to lease to him. If M&M had done their due diligence with any type of background check of the tenant these issues would have been readily apparent and this entire situation with him avoided. 

 

Our research of his application showed that his current landlord was satisfied with his tenancy as well as that of his roommates. The landlord reported prompt rent payments, no complaints about behavior and their housekeeping was satisfactory. They stated that they would re-rent to the applicant. Previous landlord did not report complaints, and stated that they would re-rent to him. 

We asked many times for what information they received prior to leasing to the tenant, Kyle Parenti, and all they provided for their “research” into his acceptability is a statement from a prior landlord that they would re-rent to him with a qualified application and a credit check.  Yet even with all the known or suspected problems including months of unpaid rent (beginning Jan 2013-- to the point where M&M would only accept a cashier’s check), reports from neighbors of drug use and other people living at the property, as well as yard maintenance issues, **** ************** still wrote a reference for Kyle ******* to another potential residence.  In that reference M&M used the exact same language, stating  they would re-rent to Kyle ******* with a qualified application (******* referral and application to Slate Creek apartments available upon request.). In Oct 2013 M&M was aware that Kyle ******* was a very unreliable tenant at minimum.  We feel M&M failed to do due diligence in vetting Kyle ******* and did not communicate the red flags to us when recommending him as a tenant (******* documentation for rental from M&M available upon request).

 

 

When we placed the tenant, we discussed the application with the owner.

This is untrue. They did not discuss his application – in fact we didn’t even see the tenant’s application until we found it in the papers the tenant left behind, although we had requested any and all materials related to the tenant’s application from **** ************** many times. All we were told was he thought the tenant was going to be good because he was a veteran, going to school on the GI bill and received over $5000 per month in an insurance settlement.  **** ************** said his manager agreed with him.  Because of this, we assumed M&M had fully vetted this prospective tenant. However, M&M had not done so and failed to find the issues described in this complaint.

 

The owner agreed with our suggestion to increase the tenant deposit based on the application's merit and unusual circumstances.

The deposit was less than that we had received from the previous tenant.

 

In October 2013, we conducted a welfare check of the tenant who at the end of September contacted the property manager to provide his new phone number and state that he had been hospitalized with pneumonia. This took place a few days after posting a notice of abandonment October 8, 2013. 

The lease had expired on September 30 and Mr. ******* had received a 3-day notice served on September 1, 2013. It is not clear why it took over a week after expiration of the lease for M&M to check on the condition of the property or to perform the “welfare check”.  The “welfare” check was done only after our repeated prompting through phone calls, texts and emails.  We feel that failure of the property manager to do a walk-through of the property before expiration of the lease is poor management practice and resulted in unnecessary damage to the property.  M&M never completed a final walk through checklist as specified in the management agreement.

 

 

When we entered the property, we saw inconclusive evidence that there may have been unauthorized occupants at the property, hearsay conversations with the neighbors suggested that there may have been other persons occupying the property who were not overnight guests.

Again had M&M done their job, they would have noticed unleased occupants and an unleased dog as early as the beginning of 2013.  In fact, the tenant was delinquent in rent in Jan 2013, and a 3 day notice was placed at the house (documentation available upon request).  Documents which were removed by **** ************** and taken to his private residence indicated additional unleased persons living at the house.  It was only after our insistence that he return those documents to us (email exchange available upon request). The lease agreement requires notification to M&M and the owners if additional persons are living at the property.

 

 

It was at that time that we saw in plain view in the kitchen, drug paraphernalia; pipes and screens and such. While some items were left behind, it was clear that people had not been living at the house for at least a week. This is when we determined that it was prudent to change the locks immediately in case the tenant had provided keys to unauthorized persons.

M&M chose to change out the deadbolts and locking door knob rather than re-key existing hardware as authorized.  It was prudent to re-key the existing locks as **** was asked to do, but NOT to go buy new locks. And they left the main entry to the house (doorknob lock) unchanged.

 

Owner describes the carpet as "nice berber carpet" The carpet was left in poor condition in the summer of 2012 by the previous tenant before we took over management. A carpet restoration company tried to remove deep stains that penetrated the carpet to the pad. A few days later the company returned to remove spots that came up. They did an additional cleaning for spots that were returning at the time that the tenant was placed.

It is true there was some wear on the carpet but it was not stained nor was it torn. Whatever previous soiling or damage had been done to the carpet was fixed and restored by M&M’s own carpet restoration vendor, in summer of 2012. When it was repaired it was restored to a very good condition. (Photos available). It was a nice Berber carpet until the dirty diapers and pet damage from the tenant M&M chose and did not manage.

 

 In October of 2013 there was evidence of substantial pet damage to the carpet. The tenant was not authorized to have a pet. We did not have reason to believe that the tenant had a pet.

The figure of $6500 for repairs stated by our client is actually a figure from a estimated disposition of deposit form mailed to the tenant covering $3390 past due rent, and estimates for damage repair and cleaning. We did not find deliberate damage caused by the tenant beyond the pet damage to the carpet, landscape neglect in the yard and a missing staircase banister. 

Somehow M&M is not accounting for wall damage including a fist sized hole in a wall  in a bedroom and a series of approximately ½” sized holes in a kitchen wall, damage to the control panels of the stainless stove and dishwasher (purchased 2008), as well as to the microwave (photos are available upon request). This was noted by the carpet cleaning vendor hired by M&M to clean the interior of the property -- although they actually did not clean the carpet because **** ************** told them not to(phone conversation with **** ********* Nov 2013).  M&M’s response does not dispute severe damages to the interior of the house that occurred on their watch.  The fact is that M&M did not check on the interior of the house until our insistence both by phone and email and after severe damages had been incurred. 

 

 

We wish to point out that the landscaping was not in good condition when the tenant moved in. There documentation that the landscaping was maintained poorly by the previous tenant. In preparation for the new move-in, Our client had the irrigation repaired and the dry and dead plants removed and cleaned up. Move in photos speak for themselves (available upon request.) The interior of the house was in very good condition as was the yard. We had much work done on both the house and yard. New sod had been installed and a new irrigation timer installed, which seems the tenant never used and was found unplugged by the landscaper we hired in Nov 2013 to repair the landscape damage caused by M&M’s negligence.

 

The landscaping is a low-maintenance design and it was the expectation that it should grow back with proper water. We contacted the tenant from time to time to remind him to remove weeds in front which we could see from a drive-by inspection. 

Low maintenance does not mean NO maintenance. M&M’s response does not dispute the severe damage to the landscape that occurred on their watch.  The problem was in plain view from June to October.  It was a requirement of the tenant to take care of the yard by the lease agreement. **** ************** knew in July that the back yard “still needs attention” (email available upon request). We even asked **** ************** several times to address the issue that the tenant was not taking care of the yard.  We had several discussions about hiring a landscaping company to take care of the yard but **** ************** was negligent and never followed through.

 

We discussed each landlord complaint with the tenant. There are issues about invasion of privacy when the landlord is asking to address the tenant on the contents of his trash can and requests that may come from neighbor's hearsay about the tenant.

Civil Code 1953 and 1954 restricts unescorted inspections without the permission of the tenant. We were not granted permission by the tenant to enter the property without the tenant present.

M&M did not go into the property after we entered in Feb 2013.  By their own admission, there were rumors from the neighbors of problems at the property but did nothing to investigate or to intervene. From our understanding it is possible given 24 hours notice for management to enter a property, especially given safety issues with smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. There were a full 6 months when M&M did not check on the property.

 

On occasions where the tenant invited us into the home - the owners were present on one of those occasions, and noted that the property was maintained in a clean and orderly manner. At that time there was no indication of drug use or the presence of pets or other unauthorized tenants. Vendors who made repairs did not report any unusual conditions to us. We believe that the behavior of the tenant and the apparent unauthorized tenants and pets were a development the last few months of the tenancy.  Regardless of what M&M believes, the facts speak for themselves. There was evidence back in March 2013 of unauthorized tenants and pets.  We have no knowledge of vendors being in the home from Feb 2013 until July 2013.

 

5. M&M Property management does not add any charge to an invoice from a vendor nor do we receive any kind of compensation for using a vendor. All of our vendors present appropriate licenses, liability insurance as well as workman's comp insurance and any EPA, lead, asbestos or other specialized certifications they may have.

We will provide the BBB with documentation covering all vendors dispatched by M&M Property Services and Management to the client's rental property. 

There are bills we received from M&M which have no information about the vendor or what the bills were for. One we received from **** ************** simply asks us to pay him personally $97.10. (Copy of bill and email exchanges requesting details from **** ************** available upon request.)

 

6. At the end of November and beginning of December 21012 there was a particularly severe rainstorm and the tenant called to report a significant leak in the living room area. We sent a roofing contractor to evaluate the condition of the roof and make an emergency repair to try to stop or slow the leak. They presented us with an inspection report and stated that they had installed a temporary patch which they would not guarantee and stated that it would not stop the leak completely and would not last for any length of time. Their evaluation of the roof indicated that it was in need of immediate and complete replacement. The client chose a different company and had the roof replaced the next year after a second storm again caused water intrusion.

The client climbed on the roof and examined it and concluded that there was no doubt that it had to be replaced. It was also his opinion that a temporary patch was not placed on the roof. He asked me to discuss the matter with the roofing contractor we had sent, stating that he refused to pay for the invoice they presented.

The invoice from the roofing contractor was for evaluation and for temporary repair. When I brought the client's concerns to the company, they elected to waive the fee as a matter of good will.

It is not good will to rescind a fraudulent charge. We refused to pay for work (roof patch) that was never done.  There is another BBB complaint against M&M that refers to charges to owners by an M&M contractor for work not done.

 

The property manager is not qualified to evaluate roofing nor insured to climb a roof for such an inspection - we rely on the opinion of qualified, licensed people for inspections. We believe that while the owner may be familiar with his property, he does not have a contractor's license and is not otherwise qualified to evaluate the condition of the roof or work performed on the roof.

M&M does not know our qualifications and are not in a position to comment on them. The fact is no roof patch was installed. This was stated by the roofing company we hired to replace the roof, as well as being easily observed and documented by photographs. The roof was replaced immediately after we were informed of the problem.  The new roof was completed in Feb 2013, not the next year as erroneously stated.

 

7. Consumer's Desired Resolution: We have returned the $500 owner capital as mentioned above and we apologize for the delay. We have returned the original locksets which were replaced and provided the photographs on a cd in the same package that they acknowledge that they have received. The lockset between the garage and the house was broken and would not latch the original was discarded and replaced with a locking set as appropriate for a door leading to a garage. We reject the balance of the client's desired resolution. Recourse for repairs and damages to the home beyond normal wear and tear caused by the tenant is gained through the tenant. Part of those damages have been recovered through the deposit of $2100 which was forfeited by the tenant and paid to the owner.

Photos were not provided until our insistence. They were few and of poor quality. **** ************** said he placed them in a file we had access to which he admitted later he actually had not done. He also did not take photos of the yard until we asked for them as part of the documentation and he only took them in our presence. This contrasts sharply with the many well documented and higher quality move in photos that **** ************** took prior to his leasing our property to Kyle ******* in Sept 2013. 

 

M&M Property Management's Desired Resolution:

 

As a company with 34 years of experience currently managing over a billion dollars worth of property we are insulted by this client's unfounded and wrongful public accusations regarding our handling of vendors.

We are glad to see license information provided. We tried to obtain license information for some of the questionable vendors, but no licensing information was available. In addition, at a minimum one of the vendors (plumbing contractor) contacted by M&M to provide a quote to replace the water heater was not licensed in Roseville.  When we spoke with John, he admitted his contractor did not know either local and city code requirements or inspection requirements. Had we used the M&M contractor, we would have experienced trouble with the city of Rosevillle for improper installation of an uninstpected water heater.

 

We expect an apology.

At no time was an unlicensed or uninsured vendor used. We did not mark-up invoices and we did not receive compensation from our vendors.

We expect the client to retract the wrongful lies in this public accusation and avoid legal action from us for the attempt to damage our re

 

We stand by our original complaint. M&M’s proposed resolution is an arrogant response.  Threatening legal action for a legitimate complaint is harassment.  This comes from a management company with “34 years experience”, but who doesn’t seem to have a handle on their managers nor their billing.  We suffered over $6000 of losses and property damages as a consequence of doing business with M&M.  Anyone reading the M&M response should ask themselves whether they want to do business with M&M when their response is to make threats of punitive legal action.  Such an action by a member of BBB should be an embarrassment to all legitimate businesses in the Sacramento area and elsewhere. 

 

We request the return of the remainder of our “locksets” they have not returned, or $100 to replace with a kind that matches the rest of our house. We seek return of the $97 charged for purchase of new locksets that M&M was not authorized to purchase or install and that do not match the style used in the house.  We seek $1500 for landscape restoration.  We also seek refund of $475 of the management fees collected for June to October 2013 due to mismanagement and the fees for November 2013 ($95)

charged when M&M terminated the management agreement on November 2. We seek $2300 in restitution for damages to the property and loss of rent.

 

 


Sincerely,

Sue Sheya

Business Response: We wish to respond with a focus on our management agreement with our owner/clients. The last paragraph of the addendum to our agreement states clearly that Landlord/Home Providers enter a business that involves risk, especially to cash-flow. It also instructs the client to allow the property manager the latitude of making the right decisions. The owner has declined many of our recommendations both from a class that Sue Aim Sheya attended and through the course of managing the property. 

1. They did not allow our rent pricing strategy
2. They did not allow a gardening service to maintain control of the landscaping
3. They did not want to pursue eviction in February when the tenant was more than 30 days late with rent, electing to see if the tenant would bring in January and February's rent (which the tenant did)
4. They wanted to exert control over the process of notice of abandonment in October in ways that would have compromised its validity in court and were unhappy about the required delay when a tenant cannot or refuses be contacted but leaves property behind.
5. They do not understand the tenant's legal rights to privacy.
6. They did not follow our vendor recommendations.
7. The contract allows either party to terminate the business relationship without penalty at any time. We terminated the contract with the owner/clients in November because it was clear that our recommendations would continue to be ignored and believing that it was headed in an adversarial direction which would be unproductive and unsatisfactory for either party.

The first page of the contract gives us authority to take whatever means necessary in our opinion to secure the property and exceed the $250 threshold for pm-approval when protecting the property or making habitability repairs or expenditures to comply with codes and laws. This covers the decision to install deadbolts at the property when we believed that persons may have keys and gain unauthorized access to the property. 
To remove the locks and leave the property unsecured while they were taken to a locksmith for re-keying would have been a poor decision that would have allowed anyone to enter the property. We have mentioned before that the instruction to have the original locks changed was received after the deadbolts had been replaced. 

The owners agreed to "go green" and use a paperless, secure. Internet based owner portal where they may access records, statements and other information. Documents are scanned into .pdf files including original copies of receipts for repairs and purchase of parts such as locksets. These are available through the portal. Our records show that the clients set up this internet access and we believed that problems in utilizing the service in Nov 2012 had been resolved. All of the information that was requested was available through this portal referred to in section 3-m of the contract. In October we were unable to post items to their Dropbox account as they requested and notified them.
We have resolved the return of the owner's capital reserve which the client refers to as a deposit. We have refunded management fees which were charged against the account in error. We have apologized for the delay. 
At the beginning of September when the tenant had not paid the rent we did not inform them of our intention to increase the rent and hire a gardening service because we recommended that it would be prudent to not renew the lease. 
In early September, the water heater had burst and a contractor was dispatched to assess the situation. He determined that a replacement was necessary. He was instructed to also repair the stairway banister which the tenant had reported was loose. The owner sent a vendor they chose to replace the water heater, so we did not have an opportunity to observe the interior of the home through our vendor. He did tell us that it looked like the garage was being used as a "man cave" but did not mention a dog or numbers of occupants. 
No one was home in September when we posted a 3-day notice at the property and the tenant was not returning our calls. Near the end of September, the tenant contacted us with his new number and agreed to bring the rent Thurs Oct 3, 2013. He said he would be vacating as soon as he could find a place. He explained that he had been hospitalized with pneumonia and had just been released. We believed that he would bring the rent as he had in the past and expected to have a conversation in person about when he would vacate the property. 
We posted a notice of abandonment Oct 8, Tue of the next week. Comments from the neighbors suggested there were problems. Lights were on and looking through a window we could see into the kitchen where there was some furniture. We conducted the welfare check the next Mon, after repeatedly trying to contact the tenant to determine a vacate date and return of keys. It was at that time that we discovered the condition of the property and enough items left behind including beds, food and appliances that we felt there may be others living on the property. A belief of abandonment has a legal waiting period which was explained to the owner/clients when we could claim possession if we were not contacted by the tenant. 
We wish to point out that legal processes do not always seem fair, but if not followed can produce expensive claims and delays, and require re-filing court actions. 
Recourse for damage to the property is through the tenant. Unfortunately we were not given a forwarding address and notices mailed to him were neither returned to us nor were we provided a requested forwarding address. We have provided the owner/client with the information we do have. 
At the owner's request, we did not pay the roofing contractor for his invoice for inspection and temporary patch which he stated did not solve the problem and did not guarantee. 

We still do not see where the owner/client is willing to apologize for or retract the wrongful accusation about receiving back compensation which our contract states that we will not do or for their unfounded and reckless claim that we used unlicensed, uninsured vendors. We consider that since this complaint is on a public forum, these accusations constitute a defamation of character. 

We ask the owner/client Sue Ann Sheya to drop this entire matter to avoid legal action from us. 
Regards, 

Bruce Mills

 

Business Response: We wish to respond with a focus on our management agreement with our owner/clients. The last paragraph of the addendum to our agreement states clearly that Landlord/Home Providers enter a business that involves risk, especially to cash-flow. It also instructs the client to allow the property manager the latitude of making the right decisions. The owner has declined many of our recommendations both from a class that Sue Aim Sheya attended and through the course of managing the property. 

1. They did not allow our rent pricing strategy
2. They did not allow a gardening service to maintain control of the landscaping
3. They did not want to pursue eviction in February when the tenant was more than 30 days late with rent, electing to see if the tenant would bring in January and February's rent (which the tenant did)
4. They wanted to exert control over the process of notice of abandonment in October in ways that would have compromised its validity in court and were unhappy about the required delay when a tenant cannot or refuses be contacted but leaves property behind.
5. They do not understand the tenant's legal rights to privacy.
6. They did not follow our vendor recommendations.
7. The contract allows either party to terminate the business relationship without penalty at any time. We terminated the contract with the owner/clients in November because it was clear that our recommendations would continue to be ignored and believing that it was headed in an adversarial direction which would be unproductive and unsatisfactory for either party.

The first page of the contract gives us authority to take whatever means necessary in our opinion to secure the property and exceed the $250 threshold for pm-approval when protecting the property or making habitability repairs or expenditures to comply with codes and laws. This covers the decision to install deadbolts at the property when we believed that persons may have keys and gain unauthorized access to the property. 
To remove the locks and leave the property unsecured while they were taken to a locksmith for re-keying would have been a poor decision that would have allowed anyone to enter the property. We have mentioned before that the instruction to have the original locks changed was received after the deadbolts had been replaced. 

The owners agreed to "go green" and use a paperless, secure. Internet based owner portal where they may access records, statements and other information. Documents are scanned into .pdf files including original copies of receipts for repairs and purchase of parts such as locksets. These are available through the portal. Our records show that the clients set up this internet access and we believed that problems in utilizing the service in Nov 2012 had been resolved. All of the information that was requested was available through this portal referred to in section 3-m of the contract. In October we were unable to post items to their Dropbox account as they requested and notified them.
We have resolved the return of the owner's capital reserve which the client refers to as a deposit. We have refunded management fees which were charged against the account in error. We have apologized for the delay. 
At the beginning of September when the tenant had not paid the rent we did not inform them of our intention to increase the rent and hire a gardening service because we recommended that it would be prudent to not renew the lease. 
In early September, the water heater had burst and a contractor was dispatched to assess the situation. He determined that a replacement was necessary. He was instructed to also repair the stairway banister which the tenant had reported was loose. The owner sent a vendor they chose to replace the water heater, so we did not have an opportunity to observe the interior of the home through our vendor. He did tell us that it looked like the garage was being used as a "man cave" but did not mention a dog or numbers of occupants. 
No one was home in September when we posted a 3-day notice at the property and the tenant was not returning our calls. Near the end of September, the tenant contacted us with his new number and agreed to bring the rent Thurs Oct 3, 2013. He said he would be vacating as soon as he could find a place. He explained that he had been hospitalized with pneumonia and had just been released. We believed that he would bring the rent as he had in the past and expected to have a conversation in person about when he would vacate the property. 
We posted a notice of abandonment Oct 8, Tue of the next week. Comments from the neighbors suggested there were problems. Lights were on and looking through a window we could see into the kitchen where there was some furniture. We conducted the welfare check the next Mon, after repeatedly trying to contact the tenant to determine a vacate date and return of keys. It was at that time that we discovered the condition of the property and enough items left behind including beds, food and appliances that we felt there may be others living on the property. A belief of abandonment has a legal waiting period which was explained to the owner/clients when we could claim possession if we were not contacted by the tenant. 
We wish to point out that legal processes do not always seem fair, but if not followed can produce expensive claims and delays, and require re-filing court actions. 
Recourse for damage to the property is through the tenant. Unfortunately we were not given a forwarding address and notices mailed to him were neither returned to us nor were we provided a requested forwarding address. We have provided the owner/client with the information we do have. 
At the owner's request, we did not pay the roofing contractor for his invoice for inspection and temporary patch which he stated did not solve the problem and did not guarantee. 

We still do not see where the owner/client is willing to apologize for or retract the wrongful accusation about receiving back compensation which our contract states that we will not do or for their unfounded and reckless claim that we used unlicensed, uninsured vendors. We consider that since this complaint is on a public forum, these accusations constitute a defamation of character. 

We ask the owner/client Sue Ann Sheya to drop this entire matter to avoid legal action from us. 
Regards, 

Bruce Mills

 

12/30/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My property manager failed to inform me of the condition of my property. Then actively engaged in covering up the condition of the property. I have been renting my property for 6 years, and finally decided to sell the property in September. Upon hiring a real estate agent, I discovered that my property had damage that could have been addressed over the last 6 years. I had an above ground pool that was thrown away by the tenants 5 years ago, and according to them at the suggestion of my property manager. When asked why he didn't report it to me, he stated he never noticed it missing because he could not see it in the dark. I also had issues early this year trying to get my roof repaired. Apparently, the tenants had been discussing the issue with him for over six months before he even contacted me. Upon contacting me, he neglected to send me photos of the damage in a timely fashion, I had to get a neighbor instead to send me photos. In September, I informed my tenants that I would be selling the property and they told me they would start looking for a property. Approximately October 24th, I received an email from my real estate agent informing me of their move date. When I called the property manager he informed me that by them saying they would start looking for new rental, that was their official 30 day notice. When asked to take photos of any damage he saw, he referred me to the photos that my real estate agent took while preparing the house for sale. When re-instructed to take photos anyway, he avoided taking some pictures of areas that were damaged. When he did send me photos, I noticed the refrigerator was missing from the property, he stated that it went bad 2 years earlier and he instructed the tenants to replace it. The MLS photos of my property clearly show the refrigerator in the photos from September though. When asked to provide me with a copy of the original walk through, he stated that he remembered "finishing" it for the tenants. It also conveniently states the very same issues I complained to him about before termination, but without the signatures of the tenants. When questioned about the legality of what he did, he stated that the walk through "was completely in my favor and that I should be thankful he did not push the tenants to point out everything".

Desired Settlement: My dispute is with Mr. ****** ******* of ***** ***** Realty. I had asked him for a refund of his last 12 months commissions. I simply want to warn other consumers. Mr. ******* is dishonest, negligent, and took advantage of us simply because we are out of state.

Business Response: Initial Business Response
In a letter dated December 10, 2013, the company states: This office has been retained by ***** *****, ****** ******* and M&M Property Management to address a recent complaint filed with your agency by **** ********. Any correspondence should be sent to this office. Mr. ********' demand for the return of one year's property management fees is absurd, and my clients refuse to "pay him off" under threat of negative publicity (such as his complaint recently submitted to BBB). Mr. ******** agreed with the tenant that he could use the pool if he maintained it himself. The tenant made no complaints about the pool and the property manager ****** ******* had no reason to suspect the pool had "vanished". All other items complained of are the result of tenant negligence or normal wear and tear, and my clients cannot be expected to have magically known about these items before the move-out inspection. Neither Mr. ******** nor the tenant gave my clients prior notice of the alleged damages. In any event, Mr. ******** had a $2500.00 security deposit from this tenant. He returned $2000.00 of this deposit to the tenant - the only person who could actually be responsible for the alleged damages. Mr. ******** demanded that he determine the amount of security returned to tenant, and he alone determined that $2000.00 was an appropriate amount to return. Mr. ********' has a right to be generous with tenants, but not at my clients' expense. If Mr. ******** had only followed the advice of his property manager he could have recovered his damages through the deposit. Now he realizes his mistake and wants someone else to pay for it. Please be advised that if Mr. ******** does not voluntarily retract his statements my clients intend to bring legal action against him. In the meantime, my clients respectfully request removal of Mr. ********' complaint from BBB files (Case # XXXXXXXX). Thank you for whatever you can do to expedite this.

Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I voluntarily dismiss my complaint, and no longer seek any interaction with Bruce Mills Realty or their associated companies.

9/23/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Unauthorized ACH Withdrawl - Will not refund We have lived in a property managed by M & M Properties for over 2 years with no trouble whatsoever. Our rent was never late and we rarely called for assistance on the property. We were responsible and respectable renters. I faxed our 30 day notice to the number suggested by Mr. ********* (our property manager) on 7.31 with our last day of residence to be August 31st, 2013. We were out by the time stated and did our walk through on September 3rd with Mr. ********** The walk through was seamless and immaculate. On September 6th, there was an ACH withdrawal out of our checking account for the amount of $1100.00 to Bruce Mills Realty despite the fact that we no longer are tenants or contractually associated with the company whatsoever. I noticed this withdrawal on the morning on September 7th at 7:00 am and called Mr. ********* immediately. The withdrawal had caused our account to go overdrawn by $536 by Saturday morning. (Please note, that there is an additional approx $1000 being posted to the account in the upcoming days. This does not include any overdraft fees). I called Mr. ********* again at 8:00 am, 9:00 am, and finally emailed he and Mrs. ********* both at 10:00 am. In the meantime, I had called my bank and told them that the $1100.00 was not an authorized charge and was informed that it would take 7-10 business days to reverse the charge if I won my case. Our account would be locked and overdrawn for approx 7-10 days as well. At 11:30 am, I heard from Mrs. ********** She informed me that I needed to contact my bank to have them reverse the charges and the bank would handle it. She also informed me that she did all the correct paperwork on her end, but something "must not have went through." After informing Mrs. ********* that I had already contacted the bank and our account would be in limbo for 7-10 days with no access to our money, she told me that there isn't anything that she can do. She offered absolutely no recourse to the situation aside from letting my bank handle the charges. "Aside from giving you $500 out of my personal account, I can't do anything" was what was told to me. I then asked her for the full $1100.00 that the company took without any authorization out of my account and she said "Well that sure isn't going to happen." Mrs. ********* was hostile and incredibly unpleasant to speak to about this situation. Had she offered anything aside from rudeness, I would have been happy to take it. An "it's Saturday, so the office isn't open, but I would be glad to help on Monday" would have been sufficient. Her only option was to let my bank handle it. She did mention that it was Saturday and your offices were not open, but never to settle this into next week. She claimed it was my bank's responsibility. Unfortunately, this is not my bank's responsibility. Because Mrs. ********* knows that the charge was not authorized, but apparently will not take action to fix it, this situation is theft. I have no other option other than to believe that my money was taken without my consent with no intention of returning it, which under any and all definitions of the word, is theft. I know my bank will, in fact, return the charges, but I do not believe that they should have to - M & M should. My husband I have no access to our money until this is resolved.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of all unauthorized transactions as well as any overdraft fees or any fees associated with the unauthorized withdrawal.

Business Response: Initial Business Response
Contact Name and Title: Susie Caballero/Prop.Mgr Contact Phone: 916-213-8526 Contact Email: susierents@gmail.com Prior to this complaint being filed, and several emails between my broker and tenant re.this situation. We have advised the tenants we will reimburse them any fees associated to the ACH taken by our company in error for the month of August. The only reason it has not happened thus far is we are waiting for proof of fees associated to this transaction and the tenant has agreed to supply this / these documents to us. As for the security deposit per civil code section 1950.5 we have up to 21 days to return all or any remaining deposit if any left to tenant. We will be returning the whole deposit to the tenant. We will be waiving the charges for missing/burnt out light bulbs, air filter, and other minor items.

7/1/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My wife an I recently applied for a rental property that M&M property management manages. We were very excited and everything seemed perfect. I provided all documentation that they requested along with a typed statement explaining some credit issues my wife an I experienced so it would not be a surprise to them. We have had a perfect rental history for 6 years and one year of bad luck on credit due to things that were out of our control. When working with ***** prior to her pulling our credit she was very pleasant, then after we contacted her for a update and she was extremely judgemental and harsh when explaining why she would not approve us for the home. We had done nothing wrong and to be talked down to because she didn't like the outcome of our credit report is completely unnacceptable. When I asked her why she couldnt work with us she advised we have standards in her exact words. When I asked her if she reviewed our statement in regards to our credit she stated no I don't even know it was in here and then read it while I was on the phone. She made a decision before even seeing everything we provided. When I emailed her to ask if we could use a consigner she never responded.

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Refund I would like a full refund of $60.00 mailed to the address we provided. A apology would go a long way if M&M Properties feels that they were in the wrong on this matter.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
I am truly sorry that the perspective tenants are so unhappy. They told me they had a couple challenges to their credit. It turned out they had 11 Collections/judgements against them. They talked to me about 3 or 4. This is far below the standard the owner has on this property. There were also utilities included in these collections for AT&T 293.00, Sprint 910.00 and Nashville electric for 319.00. Even my lower income properties when there are utilities in collection I seldom rent to them. Again I am very sorry the prospects did not qualify for the property and for any misunderstanding I may have caused them. It is more than just 4 credit cards as their letter states.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I am not disputing that we did not meet the credit standards that your company has. I am disappointed and feel very discriminated against based on the treatment by you and your company. This matter should have been escalated to an owner or operator of your company. You completely disregarded my emails after our conversation and while looking at my credit report your tone and attitude toward me completely changed. I would like a full refund of $60.00 mailed to my address provided. I will be contacting the CFPB if this issue is not resolved. Thank you.

Business' Final Response
There is nothing more to add to their complaint. They were not true full about their credit. If they were, we would not have accepted their application

3/5/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: M and m property management didn't believe when I complained my agent is harassing me. When I asked to deal with another property manager because of how I was treated by ***** ******** who is renting **** ********* circle #4 Sacramento , ca XXXXX to me, I was told that I can turn in my Keyes if I don't want to deal wither. That my only option was to be treated unfairly by ***** or I could move and not live at the property. ***** called me several times , the last all was on feb. 11, to tell me I didn't pay the rent for feb. when I have the money order receipt of my paying the amount I owed on feb. 1st. When I arrived at the office today on feb.13 she says that made a mistake and is just now informing me when I called western union I was told that the money order was cashed on feb. 6. This is the second misunderstanding I have had with ***** so I asked to be able to change agents and I was told that I couldn't, that I would have to just deal with ***** or I can move.

Desired Settlement: I would like to be assigned another agent to deal with who I can trust and does not lie to my face and one that doesn't loose money orders or payments for rent. Do I not have the right to deal with someone who is more organized and professional? Thank you for your time.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
Contact Name and Title: Broker ****** ****** Contact Email: *****@bmrealtor.com ****** G called the resident about a non-payment rent issue. The person did not return the 1st phone call and ****** called again and this time the person called back angry- called back 5 times in 15 minutes. The resident said she did pay the rent. ****** got the information and checked her records and found the rent was placed in the wrong account at the same address (4 plex). The resident came in to see me about ******. ****** was doing just as she was suppose to do when a no rent situation shows up. Called to find out why.

11/13/2012 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Failure to notify home owner of roches in the house being rented. Contract says they will "manage' the property for us and they have not done this. M and M property was hired by my brother and I to manage our parents home. This house has been in our family since 1968. The contract says they will manage the property and notify us of any problems. We were notified of an issue with some type of insect in May of 2012 which "we" were charged for. At the time the pest control company took care of that issue they also notified M and M roperty that there was an issue with cockroaches. They did not tell us about that and only left it up to the tenant to take care of them. I have a copy of an estimate to get rid of them from the pest control company. And asking our agent Susie Caballero to make sure they are gone all she did was call the tenant and he said "he was self treating the problem and sees very little activity". Which tells me that the agent has not gone to the home herself to make sure they are gone completely. There were no insects in the home when the tenant moved in. I have requested copies of bills from M and M Property and they refuse to give them to me. All they say is "get on line and look them up". Their web site does not work properly and we have not seen any bills since we first rented this home. The contract says the the agent "will notify the owner of a material concern or breach". The e mail have from her is dated October 2012 and the pest control estimate to get rid of the roaches is dates July 2012.I feel like we were charged for repairs that may not have been done since we never saw any proof of what was done and by who. The agent says she will only give us copies of the bills for $20.00 per copy. Now that we have contracted another property managment company we would like to have on hand what has been done in the past so that we will not be charged again for the same repairs. I feel that this agent has not stood up to her end of the contract. Also she did not inform us that the tenant changed his phone number and has not given this information to our new company. They need to be able to get into the home and inspect it.

Desired Settlement: I feel that we were charged for repairs and pest control that were not necessarily for us to pay but the agent charged us for them. The house was completely rid of any bugs when he moved in and if he saw a problem he should have taken care of right away. The agent never told us of any issues until they were done and then took money from the tenants rent to pay for repairs. We still don't know if the house is still infested. If so it will cost hundreds of dollars to get rid of them completely. We feel that the tenant is responsible for that since he did sign a contract that the home was clean of any insects at the time he moved in. Also the home was newly painted completely on the inside, new toilets and all new blinds in the windows. We realize there is normal wear and tear on homes but we are very concerned that the home may be in very bad shape on the inside since the agent has not been in the home to inspect.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
*COMPANY HAS RESPONDED TO THE ISSUES LINE BY LINE IN ALL CAPS LOCKS* Failure to notify home owner of roches in the house being rented. Contract says they will "manage' the property for us and they have not done this M and M property was hired by my brother and I to manage our parents home. This house has been in our family since 1968. The contract says they will manage the property and notify us of any problems I ALWAYS NOTIFIED THE OWNER OF ALL REPAIRS EVENTHOUGH, HE GAVE US A $500 LIMIT AUTHORITY PER OUR CONTRACT THAT I ATTACHED TO THIS RESPONSE. We were notified of an issue with some type of insect in May of 2012 which "we" were charged for. At the time the pest control company took care of that issue they also notified M and M roperty that there was an issue with cockroaches. They did not tell us about that and only left it up to the tenant to take care of them. I NOTIFIED THE OWNER FROM BEGINNING TO END, WHEN THE TENANT lsT CONTACTED US, MY HUSBAND VISITED THE PROPERTY A WK OR SO LATER WHEN THE TENANT COULDN'T GET RID OF THE BUGS, MY HUSBAND COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT KIND OF BUGS THEY WHERE, THAT'S WHEN WE CALLED SPECIALIZED PEST CONTROL, WHEN THEY VISITED THE PROPERTY THEY DID A OVERALL SWEEP OF THE HOUSE THAT WHEN THEY FOUND THE ROACHES UNDER THE KITCHEN SINK, THEY SPRAYED FOR THEM AND DID NOT CHARGE AND ADDITIONAL FEE FOR THE ROACHES AS A COURTSEY TO M&M. PLS FIND ATTACHED A LETTER OF EXPLAINATION FORM THE PEST CONTROL COMPANY. I have a copy of an estimate to get rid of them from the pest control company. And asking our agent Susie Caballero to make sure they are gone all she did was call the tenant and he said "he was self treating the problem and sees very little activity". Which tells me that the agent has not gone to the home to make sure they are gone completely.I WAS THE ONE WHO ASKED THE PEST CONTROL VENDOR TO LAY OUT A PLAN TO GET RID OF THE ROACHES, I ADVISED THE TENANT HE WAS GETTING A DISCOUNT BECASUSE HE IS OUR TENANT, OR HE COULD FIND AN OTHER VENDOR THROUGH THE YELLOW PAGES ETC. SINCE THE OWNER DID NOT WANT TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE. There were no insects in the home when the tenant moved in. THERE IS NO ACTUAL PROOF THERE WERE NO ROACHES IN THE HOME BEFORE THE TENANT MOVED IN, SINCE MOST BUGS SUCH AS ROACHES DO NOT COME OUT IN DAYLIGHT. WE DID NOT NOTICE IN ROACHES AT TIME OF MOVE IN, AND WHEN WE VISIT OUR RENTALS WE DO A GENERAL LOOK AROUND THE PROPERTY MUSTLY WE LOOK TO SEE IF TENANTS ARE CHANGING FILTERS AND BATTERIES TO SMOKE AND CO2 ALARMS AND WE REPORT TO OWNERS IF THERE IS ANY MAJOR OR NOTIBLE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. I have requested copies of bills from M and M Property and they refuse to give them to me. All they say is "get on line and look them up". Their web site does not work properly and we have not seen any bills since we first rented this home. THE OWENR AND PREVIOUS CLIENT RICHARD STORM KNEW AND KNOWS THAT WE DO NOT MAIL OUT BILLS TO OWNERS WE GIVE ALL OF OUR CLIENTS FREE ACCESS TO OUR WEBSITE MMPROPERTIES.COM TO ACCESS ALL OF THEIR DOCUMENTS, BILLS, INVOICES ETC. RICHARD NEVER ASKED ME TO SEND HIM ANY INVIOCES SINCE HE NEW HE COULD OBTAIN THEM THRU OUR WEBSITE.WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM ANY OF OUR CLIENTS SAYSING THAT OUR WEBSITE DOES NOT WORK, IF YOU NEED ME TO GATHER LETTERS STATING THIS FROM SOME OF MY CLIENTS I WILL BE HAPPY TO SUPPLY THEM TO YOU. AS FOR CHARGING HER A FEE, YES WE CAN AND WILL CHARGE A FEE PER OUR CONTRACT FOR SENDING OUT COPIES OF BILLS ETC TO OUR CLIENTS SINCE THEY HAVE FREE ACCESS TO VIEW AND PRINT THEM OUT ANY TIME THEY WISH/SEE CONTRACT REGARDING CHARGING A FEE PER DOCUMENT. The contract says the the agent "will notify the owner of a material concern or breach". AGAIN I ALWAYS NOTIFIED MY CLIENT RICHARD STORM OF ANY AND ALL REPAIRS, BILLS, TENANT, AND PROEPRTY CONCERNS. HE WAS MY CLIENT FOR ALMOST 3YEARS THAT SHOULD SPEAK FOR IT SELF THAT HE WAS HAPPY WITH OUR SERVICE. IN MY OPINION IT SEEMS THERE WAS POOR OR NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OUR CLIENT AND HIS SISTER. The e mail have from her is dated October 2012 and the pest control estimate to get rid of the roaches is dates July 2012. THE EMAIL SHE IS REFERRING TO IS THE EMAIL I SENT THE TENANT / OWENER REGARDING THE EST. FOR ROACH TREATMENT AND THE EMAIL DATED OCTOBER IS THE EMAIL I SENT HER AFTER I lsT S PO KE TO HER = = PLS BARE IN MIND I NEVER SPOKE TO HER DURING MY TIME MANAGING THIS PROPERTY UNTIL OCTOBER OF 2012 IN WHICH SHE HAS ONLY BEEN A BULLY,LOUD, AND HARRASSING TOWARDS ME WILL NOT LISTEN TO REASON. I feel like we were charged for repairs that may not have been done since we never saw any proof of what was done and by who. lst WE USE LICNESED, BONDED, INSURED VENDORS WHO SUBCONTRACT THROUGH M&M, WE DO NOT HAVE OUR OWN EXCLUSIVE VENDORS, AND AGAIN ALL THE INVOICES/BILLS ARE IN THE OWNER PORTAL THRU OUR WEBSITE, I EVEN UPDATED THE EMAIL ADDRESS UNDER RICHARD STORMS PROFILE PER HIS SISTERS DIRECTION SO THAT SHE CAN UPDATE THE PASSWORD AND ACCESS ALL DOCUMENTS SINCE I GUESS RICHARD WAS NOT WILLING TO GIVE HER ACCESS // HE HAD THE PASSWORD. HONESTLY MAKE ONLY MASTAKE WAS TAKING CAROLYNS CALL IN THE lsT PLACE, AND REPLYING TO HER EMAILS, SINCE SHE WAS NOT EVEN MY CLIENT RICHARD HER BROTHER WAS. The agent says she will only give us copies of the bills for $20.00 per copy. Now that we have contracted another property managment company we would like to have on hand what has been done in the past so that we will not be charged again for the same repairs. AGAIN THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE BILLS, AND IN FACT I SPOKE TO THE NEW PROEPRTY MANAGER VINNIE AND ADVICED HIM IF HE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS OR IF I CAN BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL, WHICH BY THE WAY I HAD TO GOGGLE THE NEW MANAGER SINCE ****** REFUSSED TO GIVE ME HIS TELPHONE AND OR NAME SHE ONLY TOLD ME IT WAS ALPHA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. I feel that this agent has not stood up to her end of the contract. Also she did not inform us that the tenant changed his phone number and has not given this information to our new company. They need to be able to get into the home and inspect it. (Less) I DID EVERYTING AS PROMISED AND BEYOND FOR MY CLIENT LIKE I DO FOR ALL OF MY CLIENTS, I GAVE THE NEW PROPERTY MANAGER THE TENANTS NEW NUMBER, AND ALL OF THE TENANTS INFORMAITON AND DOCUMETNS. WE DO NOT GIVE THE OWENRS TENANTS NUMBERS SINCE WE ARE PAID NOT ONLY TO MANAGE THE PRIOPERTY BUT ALSO TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE TENANTS ON THEIR BEHALF. WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS CANCELED AND I FOUND THE NEW MANAGERS INFORMAITON ON THE INTERNET I GAVE HIM ALL THE NESSACARY INFORAMTION FOR THE TENANT. I feel that we were charged for repairs and pest control that were not necessarily for us to pay but the agent charged us for them. ROACHES AND / OR ANY BUG INFESTATION IS THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF EXECPT ANTS UNLESS IN SOME RARE CASES THERE PROVEN ANT INFESTATION. NEVER THE LESS THE OWNER CAN THEN CHARGE THE TENANT OR TAKE FROM THE SECURITY DEPOSIT THE COST FOR THE ROACH/BUG TREATMENT. THIS PERSON ****** ****** IS VERY RUDE, MEAN, AND WILL NOT LISTEN TO REASON, AND THERE IS NO COMMUNICATING WITH HER. The house was completely rid of any bugs when he moved in and if he saw a problem he should have taken care of right away. MUST BE PROVEN BY OWNER The agent never told us of any issues until they were done and then took money from the tenants rent to pay for repairs. AGAIN I ALWAYS REPORTED ALL ISSUES TO RICHARD STORM AND YES I TOOK MONEY FROM RENT TO TAKE CARE OF ALL REPAIRS PER OUR CONTRACT. We still don't know if the house is still infested. If so it will cost hundreds of dollars to get rid of them completely. We feel that the tenant is responsible for that since he did sign a contract that the home was clean of any insects at the time he moved in. Also the home was newly painted completely on the inside, new toilets and all new blinds in the windows. We realize there is normal wear and tear on homes but we are very concerned that the home may be in very bad shape on the inside since the agent has not been in the home to inspect. AT THIS POINT THEY AND / OR THEIR NEW AGENT CAN VISIT THE HOME AND PER MY OPINION WHEN VISITING THE HOME FORM BEGINNING OF LEASE TO THE END OF OUR CONTRACT (OUR LAST VISIT WAS SOMETIME END OF SEPT. BEGINNING OF OCT.) THE HOUSE WAS IN GOOD CONDITION.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I am not treating them as if they were the tenant but the management company that was being paid to take care of any problems with the home in question. The home did not have roaches when the tenant moved in because that would clearly have been against the law to move someone in to a home that had any type of infestation. I would have thought that they knew this. I am not going to stop this claim until we have reached an agreement that M and M property was in the wrong and should have made the tenant take care of the problem and made sure it was done right by inspecting the home. That is what we were paying $90.00 a month for. I feel that if the tenant brought the roaches into the home its not for us to pay to remove them. I don't see anywhere in our agreement that if the home should become infested with any type of insects or rodants that we are responsible to pay for removal. We were charged for pest control services which should have been paid for by the tenant and M and M should have made them pay. If the agent Susie Caballero had followed through when it was first brought to her attention that there was a problem I would not be filing this claim. The fact that I was not completely involved in the home being taken care of is due to the fact that I live 500 miles away, but thats no reason why the home should not have been taken care of properly which is what M and M property was being paid to do. I still feel that Ms. Cabalerro did not do her job and we are paying the price (besides her monthly fee) for cleaning up her mess.

Business' Final Response
I honestly do not know why this complaint is continuing, and I do not understand what she is actually trying to resolve with M&M. It seems like she is seeking an agreement that we did not do our due diligence and if that is the case I am sorry to say she will not get that agreement from me or M&M Property Services. We did our job we were hired for as I said before if at any time our client "Richard Storm" was not happy with our service and / or communication he could have canceled the contract the fact that he did not speaks for itself. I can only advise Ms. ****** to hire a professional pest control vendor through her new management company or herself and take care of the roaches as this is ultimately the owners responsible since it falls under Civil Code §1941.1 and Health and Safety Code §XXXXX.3 / warranty of habitability/ and then either collect reimbursement from the tenant or take the cost out from the security deposit when the tenant moves out. As for the dates on the emails and the roaches coming out at night or day...I honestly am dumbfounded that her complaint is based on this type of bases and is being looked at this deeply I have no words..this should had not been taken this far. The fact that she says they have a joint contact but only she has access what not, is of no concern to me, when we spoke on the phone she asked me questions that lend me to believe they had no communication regarding the rental she did not even know we offered the free website service which allows our clients to access / review property documents, bills, invoices ETC. Overall we are being pursued as if we brought the roaches into the home and / or as if we were the tenants. Lastly she is continuing to slandering our character for what purpose I remain confused, we want to be done with this I feel we are having to defend ourselves to someone we have never met in person, dealt with in business, or know anything about. As I said, at this point I can't even imagine what middle ground there is to meet. I have been trying to move on from this horrible experience Ms. ****** has created for us, but she keeps pulling us back in. Please advise her our business is done we are not pest control experts or the tenants that is who she should be dealing with...not us. eml was sent 11/9/12 to Rebecka Calvert Dispute Resolution Services