BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
In Northeast California

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

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

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

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Huber Property Management, Inc. include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
  • Response to 5 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

5 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 4
Total Closed Complaints 5

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Huber Property Management, 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: December 16, 1992 Business started: 01/01/1974 Business started locally: 01/01/1974 Business incorporated: 08/12/1987 in CA
Licensing

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

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Ms. Jan Quarton, Vice President Ms. Lisa Hickey, President
Contact Information
Principal: Ms. Jan Quarton, Vice President
Business Category

Property Management

Products & Services

HPM provides property management for both residential and commercial properties.


Additional Locations

  • 1222 High St

    Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 885-7252

  • 851 Sterling Parkway

    Lincoln, CA 95648 (530) 885-7368 (916) 645-8443

  • 1
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) 645-7368(Phone)
Find a LocationX

  Change Location
Show Only Accredited Locations


Complaint Detail(s)

7/23/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Applied for a rental property and the application didn't include any disclosures or paperwork regarding possible disqualification and/or denial reasons. Also no disclosure, not even verbal, on non-refundable application fees. They required we pay in cash a total of $70 for our application. We were the first to call and apply for a home and had sufficient verifiable income, recent bankruptcies that have been discharged with re-established credit. We were told we were denied based on credit and that they rented to someone who was already pre-qualified through their company. We feel that this is an income producing unlawful practice not disclose possible denial reasons and non-refundable deposits before paying for the application to go through processing. We are politely requesting our application fee of $70.00 be returned to us upon receipt and processing of this complaint.

Desired Settlement: Refund the application fee of $70.00 due to non disclosure of tenant right information. Send to ****** and ***** ******* at ***** ****** *** ***** ******* ** *****

Business Response:

Dear ******,
We are in receipt of the applicants complaint, which was not only retaliatory but inaccurate.

The applicant who was in our office on three different occasions had access to our rental binders located at our front lobby. Application disclosures, procedures, guidelines, and qualifications are clearly listed for the public to read prior to submitting an application or paying any fee's.

The $35.00 application fee, may be paid by cash, cashier's check, or money order, as stated on the application.

Application criteria is Three times the amount of the rent in verifiable gross income; Positive credit report including an eviction search; and Positive landlord or mortgage history.

On the front of our application it clearly states in writing "a non-refundable screening fee is required before the processing of the application". Further, in the signed Authorization section of the application, it states "Applicant understands and agrees: This is an application to rent only and does not guarantee that applicant will be offered the Premises; and Landlord or Manager or Agent may accept more than one application for the Premises and, using their sole discretion, will select the best qualified applicant."  This is the same application that the applicant completed, and signed prior to submitting it into our office for processing. We are clear with all applicants, properties are not offered to applicants on a first come basis.

Unfortunately, this applicant was denied based on a low/negative credit rating/history; however they also scored low on their past rental history.

It would be discrimination, if we refunded an application fee based on being pressured with threats of poor online reviews or reports to the BBB.

Our office always provides a disclosure in the form of a denial letter, as per California Law, usually sent by mail. However, this applicant was quite aggressive and became
confrontational when she came into our office lobby regarding the reason for denial. Therefore, due to her demeanor, when she demanded to know the specifics of their application, we took the notice out of that day's outgoing mail and handed it to the applicant. Thus, the disclosure regarding denial was picked up by the applicant.

The amount of time necessary to process applications vary and the response time from the property owners upon completion, although usually prompt, is another factor on the processing time, which is out of our control.

Our office is diligent about being consistent with our application processing and follow the same guidelines for all those who apply for any of our rentals. 
It's not only the law, but makes good business sense.

Respectfully Submitted,

Huber Property Management, Inc.

Consumer Response: I am rejecting this response because:

There were no visible policy binders located at the front desk when we picked-up or dropped off our application and income documents. They may have adopted this policy after my complaint was filed. HPM currently has many negative online reviews some of which are non-disclosure issues and issues of unfair practices. Most can be found on the Yelp site under additional, non-recommended (negative)reviews. 
My husband and I were not clear on what was considered an unacceptable credit score or what "scoring low" on rent history meant or means. We have 5 years of rent history with no late payments. 
But I think most importantly, we would have never applied for the rental at HPM knowing there was already a pre-approved applicant/s in our price range. These are the same applicants we were denied against. A very unfair practice that was not disclosed either. This is why we have politely requested HPM return our  application, private information and fees. We are feeling even more uneasy that they have every piece of our personal and financial information.  This has been quite an upsetting, unsettling experience for us. 
Thank you for your efforts in trying to resolve this matter.
 
***** and ****** *******

Business Response:

The applicant’s response is inaccurate.

For over 40 years we have had binders located on our front lobby counter available for public viewing.  These binders each contain application fee breakdown, and qualification process, along with the available rentals, a pictorial of the property, directions  and the costs associated with property.   The applicant had access to these binders upon every visit into our office.

It would be unfair to comment on others reviews without releasing their personal information or situation. This of course is not something our Company  would do, as we respect the privacy of those involved.

It is discrimination if our office was  to “pre-screen” an applicant. It is the applicant’s choice whether to pay the processing fee and apply for one of our rentals. Until this processing is complete we have no way of reviewing credit, income and past residency to see if it qualifies them for one of our rentals. 

Our office accepts up to four applications for any given property.   The approval process is not based on a first come first served basis, but the most qualified applicant.  At times two or more applications will be approved; however, the most qualified will be first offered the property. The other approved applicants then have the option to submit their application to another property that will be coming available.  If they choose to do so there is no additional fee and the application is then reviewed with that property’s Owner for a final approval, since some properties have pet or other restrictions.

This applicant simply did not qualify.

Respectfully submitted,

Huber Property Management, Inc.

Consumer Response: I am rejecting this response because:

 
We have stated our response and have no further information to add. We have been through enough stress to go "back and forth" with the company. We would like our money to be returned to us. We have no way of disputing this wrong doing through our bank since they only take cash. Money orders, etc. is the same as cash. This business should have known the home we paid $70 cash to apply for was already going to the pre-approved applicant! It is a way to make money and it's an unfair, unethical practice. We are now asking the BBB to further investigate this matter before we consult an attorney.
 
***** and ****** *******

BBB's Final Determination: After reviewing the position of all parties, BBB determined that the business made a reasonable effort to address the complaint. However the consumer remains dissatisfied.

8/30/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The Office Manager, *****, Lied and Caused Undue Expense and Effort. The Company Misrepresents Its Services We are moving from San Antonio, TX to Auburn, CA. We contacted ***** of the Auburn office. We submitted an application and were pre approved. ***** lectured that all properties would be available to SEEN, ***** stated that ALL leases were for a MINIMUM of ONE YEAR and must be accompanied by cash or certified check. My wife arrived at the office to find that ***** has lied. Only one of seven properties was available to be seen, although all properties are unoccupied. My wife then went to the one property and when she called *****, ***** stated that they had accepted an application for FOUR MONTHS RENTAL and NO MONEY!!! ***** then would not accept an application for one year rent complete with full cash deposit. ***** declined the money and the application, the landlord had not yet had the opportunity to review the applications. One has to wonder about *****'s character and the company that has almost unlimited poor reviews on the net. How can companies that have no moral character survive?

Desired Settlement: We would like the airfare refunded. It is only partial payment for the violation of trust we believe. The airfare was $700.00. We would also like to hear that either ***** has been terminated or a statement of policy from the owners of the company admitting that they have no character.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
Dear BBB, We are in receipt of the above referenced complaint, which is not only inaccurate, but sadly, falsely attacks the character of one of our exemplary employees. Moving can be very stressful, yet this is never an appropriate reason to lash out and misrepresent the facts. The middle of July through August is always an extremely busy time of year for people to be moving, not only does this mark the end of summer, but for many the start of a new school year. Thus, our inventory of homes moves very quickly. A property may sit for a period and then several showings may occur on the same day. So, it is impossible for us to predict how many people might come in on any given day, thus we never make guarantees. Some prospective tenants like to go through the application process in advance of finding a specific property. The applicant is then approved for any property they income qualify for and the only other processing would be if they had a pet and a specific property is advertised as pet on approval, then the pet(s) (type, size, number) needs to be cleared for that properties restrictions. Finally, once an applicant is approved for a specific property, they have 24 hours to bring in a deposit to hold the property until the property is ready for occupancy. If they fail to post the deposit, then the property is again available. The complainant was pre-approved on 07/17/13. They wanted to wait until 07/25/13 to come into our office to look at our inventory. When they arrived they discovered one of the properties they had interest in had been rented, so they left to view several homes. Two homes were vacant and the others were still occupied, so appointments were needed to view the interiors, but they were going to drive by to look at the exteriors and neighborhood. They called the office to cancel one appointment we were trying to set up for them because they changed their mind about the house once they saw the location and the apartment complex nearby, so they were still uncertain which property they wanted to specify. On 07/25/13 several other applications were in the process of being approved for the various available properties. During the course of our regular duties that day, another person's application from 07/23/13 for a specific property was completed and the applicants were notified. This property had been on the market since May when the prior tenants had given their notice, and was now vacant and move-in ready. Upon notification, this applicant scheduled their move in for the next morning, which was within the required 24 hour period. Unfortunately, when the complainant returned to the office at the end of the day, they wanted the same property that had been rented earlier in the day while they were still looking at properties. They were angry at the fact that properties were being rented while they were still trying to decide, not only what house, but what town they wanted to live in. They were very upset and insisted since they had money in hand that they should get the property instead of the other applicant, who had been told they have 24 hours to post the deposit. They were told that they could check back the next day to make sure the applicant had finalized the process. Which they did not do, rather they chose to post untruthful reviews. While we can understand it is more difficult for those people moving to a new area from out of state, their behavior after the fact is totally inappropriate. Respectfully Submitted, **** ******

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Let it be noted that this lecture from Ms. ******, is authored by a firm that has had severe licensure violations resulting in suspension, an extensive history of litigation, and an almost overwhelmingly disproportionate number of exceptionally hostile revues on the World Wide Web. Perhaps the fundamentals of business and the obligation of the real estate agent need to be reviewed. The reason that we license real estate agents as opposed to say used car salespeople is that the real estate agent relies solely upon their character and business acumen. ***** Property Management appears to find wisdom in cultivating adversarial relations with its clients and the remarkably tightly knit local community. Ms. ****** borrows heavily from the language of the professions. The denial and the manufacture of a narrative in the face of facts, the explicit refusal to negotiate by a person generally hired for their skills as negotiators, and the portrayal of their narrative in terms of absolute and concrete suggest more experience with the professions more than rational business practice. The bottom line is that we have joined the substantial number of members of the local community, business and otherwise, who appear to be eager to share their dissatisfaction with this company. This rebuttal by Ms. ****** is more illustrative of what we now understand is the local impression of this business. It is not at all satisfactory, valid, or representative of a firm possessing the adequacy to perform business. Ms ****** complains that we, like so very many, have taken to the world of shared consumer information. The failure to acknowledge the fundamentals of the consumer driven market amplifies my concern that this organization of divorced from the reality of the cooperative good will shared by reputable business. Interestingly enough when consumers such as us confront this firm in a spirit and forum of mediation their sole response if characterized by splitting and accusations. I have confronted them in a forum for which they pay membership. Rather than negotiate they have chosen to further aggravate the adversarial relationship. The impression that she gives is that the service provided here is a playground for poorly supervised children rather than a opportunity to rehabilitate a severely damaged relationship and remedy the betrayal of trust her firm has committed. This may well explain why the two competitors in this market have a zero negative web profile. Fairly they have shown a refusal to discuss this as an adequate and responsible business organization.

Business' Final Response
Dear BBB, We are in an industry that functions under strict rules regarding discrimination and policy. We do not modify these rules when a disgruntled applicant attempts to give us ultimatums. Doing the wrong thing with the promise that this will result in a "cooperative good will" to be "shared" in our community or on the "World Wide Web" is nonetheless wrong. In this case, the other family that had been promised the property driving this complaint, would have been truly wronged if we had caved to this complainant's request, to take" money in hand" and rent the home to them. Finally, it is apparent that we will continue to view this matter differently. Especially since they perceive they have "confronted this firm in a spirit of mediation". The personal assaults, false accusations and disregard for the other applicant in an attempt to pressure staff to break protocol, is not the behavior of a person who wants to fairly discuss and resolve a matter. Our Company deals equitably and consistently with our clients. Making the right decision is not always popular, but that should not be a basis for making the decision. Respectfully Submitted, ***** Property Management, Inc.

BBB's Final Determination: After reviewing the position of all parties, BBB determined that the business made a reasonable effort to address the complaint. However the consumer remains dissatisfied.

8/20/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Business practice is unethical and extreamely questionable practices. We moved into a property Huber Property Management (HPM) manages in August of 2012. We were asked to give them a list of problems with the house when we moved in. The list included problem with the doors in the house and there not being able to close and latch. They said there handyman was just out there and should have fixed the problem. He never did. The air conditioner went out and there practice is to charge a $45 charge to the renter for service on anything that may go wrong with the house. We had the garbage disposal go out that cost us $45 for that to be replaced. HPM said we were lucky we had a home warrenty with this house. When we moved out they did not do a walk through with us that would cost us another $95 if we wanted that. They sent our deposit back holding $110.00 back for repairs. The repairs were an AC air filter which we had just replaced 2 weeks before. A outlet cover which was missing when we moved into the house and asked them to replace. The total cost of parts for the repair/replacements was $7.00 but they charged us $100.00 for the person to do a 30 minute job.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund in full for the deposit. Also I would like this business to be investigated for fair business practice.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
Dear BBB, This is in response to the referenced complaint, received today. The tenant signed a one year lease. This lease clearly states, Section 8. "Occupants are responsible for the first $45 of service", this is for mechanical equipment and plumbing stoppages. This stipulation is in writing, and in case the tenant does not thoroughly read the lease, we have the tenant watch a video that reads the lease to them and they initial to confirm understanding PRIOR to taking occupancy. Further, the tenant is given a pre-move in inspection form and an additional 5 day form to mark any items they may have missed during the move-in process. Additionally, there is no charge the first 30 days of occupancy. Upon review all maintenance requests from this tenant were handled promptly. Regarding their security deposit transmittal, they did have a $110.64 deduction from their $1,600.00 deposit, SEE ATTACHED. However, the tenant fails to note the charge was for not only changing a dirty filter and outlet cover, but for reattaching a thermostat, repairing a broken bath plug and cleaning the stove vent and hood that was greasy. As you will see, the $95 move out inspection was waived on the transmittal and there was no charge for re-cleaning the carpets that had pet odor from the tenant's dogs, which is noted on the carpet cleaning receipt also ATTACHED. Furthermore, all tenants are welcome to be present when the move out inspection is done (at no charge) and they are able to make any corrections noted before the work is hired out. This tenant did not request to be present. We have 21 days to process security deposit transmittals, yet we do our best to return of the tenant's deposit as quickly as possible. This tenant's deposit was returned in just 8 working days. The tenant's check went to one address and a copy with the transmittal went to the other address provided.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) These people are crooks I will except the response just to be able to be done with this horrible business.

BBB's Final Determination: Consumer accepted resolution offered by the business.

11/29/2012 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: HPM collected and deposited an early lease termination fee, failed to return deposit balance and is demanding rent beyond early termination date. We have on several occasions tried to convey the point that HPM is incorrectly attempting to collect for charges in this matter. We have tried to be understanding that this is clearly a clerical error, but it has become evident they are broaching unethical/unlawful practices by continuing this pursuit. For your purposes here are the facts that have transpired: We submitted our notice of vacating apartment **** ***** Drive, Auburn, CA XXXXX on 1/15/11. We moved out on 1/31/11 and paid the early termination of lease fee of $500 with check # 5804 which was accepted and deposited in HPM's bank on 2/22/11 to terminate our lease. Subsequently, we received a statement for additional monthly rent as well as late charges. Clearly one can not by virtue of accepting the early cancellation by cashing the check, collecting the keys (making access impossible), cleaning and charging for those services, and then also attempt to collect rent. Please demand that they cease all further demands on this account and the dispute with HPM regarding the early termination for the underlying lease. Additionally, we demand that they refund the balance of our cleaning deposit in the amount of $180 since it was due within 21 days after the keys were turned in. Cleaning deposit $350 Move out Admin fee -95 Window blind cleaning -75 $180

Desired Settlement: A notice be sent informing me that they have terminated collection proceedings. The notice will also include validation that that my credit report had been restored to reflect there is no balance owed HPM and that we we not "evicted" (which never took place)! Additionally, we demand that they refund the balance of our cleaning deposit in the amount of $180 since it was due within 21 days after the keys were turned in (2 years ago).

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
****** ****** and ***** ******* entered into a six (6) month lease for an apartment located at *** A ****** Dr. Auburn, CA on September 29, 2010. The rent for the apartment was $795.00 per month with an early payment discount of $120.00. (copy attached) On January 10, 2011 a 30 day notice was brought into our office. (copy attached) They were informed they were on a lease and Section (1) of their lease was reviewed with them. The following day a certified letter was sent to them clarifying their responsibilities. (copy attached with a signed receipt) On January 31, 2011 keys were returned to our office and the tenant requested to be present during the move out inspection. The inspection was scheduled for February 04, 2011 with the tenant. February rent was not paid. The estimated security deposit transmittal was sent on February 17, 2011, within the required time frame. (copy attached with postmark) Thereafter, we received a payment of $500.00 in order for us to attempt to find a replacement tenant to fulfill the remaining balance on their lease agreement, pursuant to Section (1) of their lease. Advertising was immediately started. Unfortunately, a new qualified tenant was not secured before the end of the lease. A final security deposit transmittal was sent out and payment was again requested. In August of 2011 another letter was sent to the tenants offering a discount for payment before it was to be sent to collection. No response was received and the file was sent into Placer Credit Bureau September 23, 2011. The complaint is based on what Mr. ****** hoped would happen, rather than what the contract and other clarifications stated. Payment of a $500.00 administration fee in order to assist a tenant in locating a replacement tenant does not cancel the lease agreement. Our leases are primarily one year, with some six month leases on apartments. This charge is not a break lease fee, which would in all cases be less than a standard 30 day notice, thus eliminating the need for any lease other than a month to month agreement, which is clearly not the case.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The $500 early termination fee was paid, accepted and deposited. The keys were returned prohibiting access to the unit validating that HPM accepted the early termination of the lease and has no further demands for rent. In addition to falsely demanding additonal rent and sent matters to collections, and have maliciously listed our status as "evicted" when clearly that was not the case. Although having no way to validate this, we were told from friends at the complex that HPM had rented the unit within days of our departure. Subsequent to our leaving, I checked reviews of HPM's business practices and found alarming reports of misrepresentation and "creative" interpretaion of leasing/rental practices (please check for yourself).

Business' Final Response
Pursuant to the lease agreement, the tenants did pay the $500.00 administration fee to assist with securing a replacement tenant, which the owner offered to apply to their outstanding balance if payment was made, as previously indicated. The tenant chose to turn in the keys so we would have access to assist them in showing the unit, since they were no longer living in the area. They chose to move early. In no way were they restricted from access to the unit. Further, the lease clearly states rent is due as agreed until a replacement tenant is secured or the lease expires, whichever occurs first. Unfortunately, this unit was not re-rented in the remaining month and a half left on the tenant's lease. Regardless of what their "friends" stated, another tenant did not occupy their unit. We also have no record of a status of "evict" ever being reported, thus we request confirmation as to the origin of this information. Finally, it is unfortunate that erroneous on-line comments are allowed. We understand life situations change sometimes by choice and others by uncontrolled circumstances. However, we are required to equally apply the contract in order to avoid discrimination. Some people believe this is unfair and become angry and leave un-answerable comments, which could be responded to if given the opportunity. We strive to be consistent and equitable in all business matters.

BBB's Final Determination: After reviewing the position of all parties, BBB determined that the business made a reasonable offer to resolve the complaint. However the consumer did not accept the offer.

10/31/2012 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: ****** ****** has failed to respond to various written communication from tenant "******" to resolve NNN fees as required within the lease agreement. Tenant "******" has contacted, in writing, ****** ****** several times from 2010 on to address and close out the triple net costs, credits and terms of the lease. ****** ****** has failed to provide any documents in a reasonable and timely manor as a property manager and registered agent. We are coming up on our lease renewal and have not been provided the information that has been demanded several times to verify the fees, costs and accountability of the NNN fees being billed. On or about July 6th 2012, HPM-****** ****** claimed to have returned out rent check due to not paying the correct NNN fee's, but no check was enclosed within the demand letter. We have sent written communication to her and HPM to resolve and she has failed to respond. Furthermore, we have sublet the building we rented form HPM to our tenant. We came to find out that HPM-****** ****** and staff have been contacting our tenant, Mr. ****** and attempting to demand payments from him. Mr. ****** has no contract, no lease or involvement with our (******) lease agreement and HPM and HPM has no legal right to attempt to communicate, demand funds or harass our tenant whatsoever. Noting that within our (******) lease, we are allowed to sublet and are well within our rights. We have in the past and currently, in writing, clearly informed HPM and agents that they are not to disturb, communicate or harass Mr. ******, our tenant under lease with us. HPM continues to do so with complete disregard of our lease terms, legal warning and/or notices. We ask that HPM be held accountable for there actions and request the BBB help to resolve the dispute

Desired Settlement: We would like to receive the full triple net costs, fees and copies of all fees being charged. We have been informed by the prior tenant that HPM in fact did the same thing to her (Kimberley Warley) We want to avoid being taken advantage of and have requested to meet, discuss and close out or lease obligations with no response from HPM to do so. Our tenant is to take over our lease upon termination next month and HPM is holding our tenant hostage. Completely unfair and illegal. We just want out fees accounted for as we have been asking from 2010 on. Yes, HPM has trickled in some fees, however, in no way has all the fees being demanded been accounted for in a reasonable manor or time frame.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
This is in response to the above referenced complaint, received Monday July 30, 2012. This complaint, as you will see, is inappropriate and has no merit. As I mentioned when we spoke, I believe all parties mentioned in the complaint are now represented by legal council, which makes a response more difficult. Further, the ******'s are currently in default of their lease and subject to an Unlawful Detainer action for non-payment of rent. But, since they are not currently in possession of the premises, this directly affects the sub-tenant, **** ******, referenced in their complaint. Thus, we would request an extension to after August 31, 2012, which is the end of the ******'s lease. After such time all parties we will be at liberty to address each item presented in the ******'s complaint, more freely. Further, this extension would also allow us to produce additional documentation, although we have attached copies of the most recent correspondence, which immediately precedes this complaint. The ******'s main file has just been transferred to our Attorney. We take pride in our BBB rating and reputation. We find it unfortunate when a complaint is used for improper purposes. We are available to answer any further questions and would appreciate an extension as noted above. We await your decision. Respectfully Submitted, ****** ******

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Dear BBB, ****** has received a "general" copy of the unaccountable and unsupported fees, costs and due-billing. However, there is NO supporting documention whatsoever within the communication, only a brief summary statement. This is a continued example of the total lack of accountability to support all costs. ****** has spoken to there sub-tenant, Mr. ****** has confirmed through his lawyer that until supporting documents are provided based on the lease terms, there can be no blind payment issued. In addition, ******'s accountant/CPA had stated that the statement received is vague and reflects no accounting standard that he is able to issue payment/payments from. Hos comments were, This is absurd. Again, ****** and ****** have both offered to place the disputed funds into an escrow until HPM provides supporting and accountable documention for Mr. ****** and ****** to review. Furthermore, there are letters and communications dating back three years requesting the above. The only documents received to date are confusing, fail to identify dates/times and supporting costs. At this time, we will be forwarding the entire file of written communications from both parties to the BBB for review and resolve. Within said file, there is a consistent failure by HPM to answer, provide and even respond in a timely manor to tenants requests as was even noted when the BBB when they attempted to contact HPM and received no response in a reasonable amount of time after multiple requests at the beginning of this complaint. We beg the BBB to review the communications sent and received from HPM overt the course of the lease. ****** shall be forwarding the file to the BBB without delay. In the event that HPM does provide a accountable and clearly supported proof of all fee's, costs, taxes, the tenants (****** AND ******) simply are unable to pay the billing blindly. In addition, , HPM has a history of lacking to provide nnn documents and accountability with the prior tenant, ************ , ****************. ****** was warned of this very issue by the prior lease holder when the lease was issued to ******. We further ask that HPM forward the requested documents to the BBB for review, I find it clever that they responded without providing the document to the BBB. We will be forwarding the latest statement from HPM with our file to the BBB without delay. In regard to the HPM Attorney, Mr. *******, ****** has contacted his office multiple times by cell phone (Date time stamped), letter, e-mail and fax, confirmed receipt of all with with Mr. *******'s office staff and to date, there has been no response to a request for a meeting to review, settle and resolve the issues at hand. We recommend that the Mr. ******* perform his due diligence and provide truthful statements moving forwards. Mr. ******* has only responded to the BBB complaint with feinted communications about securing litigation upon his return form Oregon and taking both tenants comments with a large grain of salt. Please note, that within his communications to the BBB, he claims he was filing a complaint upon his return from Oregon. Please advise ****** where and when to pick up this filed complaint, if we need a court of law and Bar to sift through this completely unaccountable management mess by HPM, so be it. Again, both tenants again are requests for clear, accountable and supporting documention along with the prior requested meeting with Mr. ******* to discuss and resolve this failure to comply with lease terms. Mr. ****** and ****** have a check book in hand. Thank you, ****** ******.

Business' Final Response
A complete copy of the supporting documentation for all NNN and sewer billings remains available for pick up in our office in will-call and a duplicate copy is available through our Attorney's office. Yet another copy of these documents was sent certified mail yesterday, October 03, 2012 in compliance with this complaint, verification attached. We have correspondence dated May 2010, which included supporting documentation through this period that was sent certified mail to ******'s. We have attached the signed receipt returned by the postal service confirming delivery. In July 2010, ****** responded in writing to this correspondence and documentation asking for clarification on one of the invoices included in our May correspondence, attached. This question involved the annual Placer County property tax bill. The question was since sewer was charged through the property tax bill, was it a utility or a tax. Unfortunately, the answer was that the property tax is a tax and the sewer charge is a utility. Pursuant to their lease, both are to be reimbursed to the property owner, once paid. Further, in correspondence from the ****** in March 2011, they confirm that they reviewed the documentation with us in our office with their bookkeeper, earlier in March 2011. Copy also attached. The above examples are why we continue to be perplexed at the misrepresentation and inaccurate accusations made by ******. Once again, we believe this continued false misrepresentation of the facts is intended to avoid their financial obligation that remains unattended and outstanding. We again request this complaint be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, ****** PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. ****** ******

BBB's Final Determination: Consumer accepted resolution offered by the business.

1