BBB Accredited Business since

Mainlander Property Management Inc

Additional Locations

Phone: (503) 635-4477 Fax: (503) 635-6508 3927 Lake Grove Ave, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 http://www.mainlander.com


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

Description

This company offers residentials property management services.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

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

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


Reason for Rating

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

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

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


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

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

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

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

Additional Information

BBB file opened: May 30, 2001 Business started: 01/01/1981 in OR Business started locally: 01/01/1981 Business incorporated 08/10/1982 in OR
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

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

These agencies may include:

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

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

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Chris Hermanski, President Ms. Kathleen Hermanski, Secretary Ms. Bette Durham, General Manager
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Ms. Bette Durham, General Manager
Principal: Mr. Chris Hermanski, President
Principal: Ms. Kathleen Hermanski, Secretary
Business Category

Property Management Residential Property Managers (NAICS: 531311)

Hours of Operation
M: 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
T: 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
W: 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
Th: 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
F: 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM

Additional Locations

  • 3927 Lake Grove Ave

    Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 635-4477

  • PO Box 2028

    Lake Oswego, OR 97035

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


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

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

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

BBB Letter Grade Scale

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

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

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

Complaint Detail(s)

1/7/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Mainlander didn't refund $168.10 that is due to us from our "owner reserves" account. The cleaning fees exceeded the renters deposits, so mainlanders charged the remaining cleaning tee to our owners account in violation of our contract. Under the cleaning clause it clearly states that the cleaning fees are the responsibility of the renter. No where in the contact does it state that the homeowners are responsible for cost incurred by the renter.

Desired Settlement: We took back possession of our home on June 1, 2015. Our owners reserve fund was $300.00. $75.00 went to Mainlander Proprty Management for June. $56.90 was refunded to us. $168.10 was not refunded. We would like Mainlander to refund the amount of 168.10 that is due to us.

Business Response:

Hello,

I am responding to the most recent complaint filed by ***** *** *****. Mainlander Property Management will be refunding Ms. ***** the amout of $168.10. Mainlander will continue to try to collect the outstanding balance owned by the tenant. The check will be sent within the next week or so to address on file for Ms. *****.

I am sorry this was not was not taken care of earlier.

Best regards, 

Bette D*****

Business Response:

When the tenant's at this property moved out on May 31, 2015 Mainlander completed a move-out inspection and charged the tenant's the following charges:

 

Cleaning (in excess of $350 cleaning fee)

Carpet Cleaning

Turnover Maintenance Charges

Landscaping Charges

 

$350.00

165.76

402.34

150.00

Mainlander was holding $900 in security deposit in addition to a $350 cleaning fee.  After using all of the deposit money and cleaning fee to pay off these charges a return the home to the condition it was received in the tenants were left with a balance of $168.10.  The tenants were informed that they needed to pay this balance as soon as possible.  As of today the tenants have not paid their remaining balance.  We will be sending them to collections in order to receive the remaining funds. 

 

Mainlander does not assume responsibility for unpaid charges from former tenants. However in this case with the balance of only $168.10 we will agree to refund the money at Mainlander's expense in order to resolve this issue and we will go after the tenants ourselves to recover the unpaid balance. We will mail out the balance of $168.10 to our former client ***** *** ***** directly at her home address.  Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information in resolving this manner.

 

Sincerely,

 

Tom F*********

Mainlander Property Management

Consumer Response:

This matter has been resolved.

Thank you.


11/10/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We hired Mainlander to manage a property in Oregon because we moved out of state and needed someone to trust in state that could keep an eye on the condition of the property. Unfortunately, despite receiving commitments from Mainlander that they would be that trusted resource, they failed to deliver the services we hired them for. Before the last tenants moved out I heard reports from our handyman of serious staining on the carpets. I immediately notified Mainlander. They reassured me that we would go over the walk-through results when the tenant moved out and would make sure that any damage would be settled out of the deposit. However, when the tenant moved out I was not notified during or after the walk through at all. We put the house on the market for sale and eventually learned that the tenants had damaged the carpets by letting their pets go to the bathroom on them. They also did not maintain the yard according to the rental agreement. I brought both of these issues up with Mainlander and both times they said they would look into it and get back to me. But, then they simply didn't follow through with getting back to me at all. We had to pay for both items out of pocket to keep the house presentable for sale.

Desired Settlement: We are asking that Mainlander refund to us the cost of cleaning the carpet and having a landscaper do the weeding/cleanup that the tenant was supposed to do. These costs should have come out of the deposit. But, Mainlander did not collect those amounts at the appropriate time (as they were hired to do) and have not moved to correct that mistake after it has been brought to their attention. The carpet cleaning bill is $500 and the weeding/debris cleanup portion of the landscaping bill is $330.

Business Response:

MAINLANDER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

**** *** ****

**** **** ***** ****

LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035

October 23, 2015

To Whom it may concern, 

In April 2015 Mainlander received notice from the owners to terminate management upon the tenant 

vacating.    There was a question if we could continue to pay the utilities because the home was going on 

the market and the owners lived out of state.    At that point a note was put in the file not to close out 

until we heard from the owner.    The owner was sent and e-mail on 8/20/15 to ask him if he would still 

like us to manage or close them out.  He responded on 8/28/15 and we agreed to keep the utility bills 

coming to mainlander and the owner would send funds.  Effective 9/1/15 we no longer charged the 

minimum management fee because all we were doing was pay bills for him, his realtor was overseeing 

the home.  

When the tenants vacated on 7/9/15, the Property Manager, Angie R******* inspected the home on 7/10/15 (evening)  She did note a few light 

stains throughout the home but the realtor at that time agreed that the home “looked good” .  On 

7/15/15 the owner asked how things were and the Assistant Property Manager( Kristine C****) told him that the move 

out report was compared to the move in report and everything looked good and nothing stood out our 

needed to be repaired.  

On 7/21/15 the owner sent in an e-mail saying the new realtor said the yard looked bad.    When the 

tenants vacated on 7/9/15 the yard was in good shape.   The Property Manager and Assistant Property 

Manager went to the home on 7/21/15 to see what the yard looked like and it still looked good.   The 

only thing that looked different was the front lawn had quite a bit of moss growing in it.  The past tenant is not responsible for the yard care beyond their

tenancy.  

On 10/13/15 The owner was notified that Mainlander received a very large PGE bill and was a little 

concerned because it was so high.  We had asked him to reach out to his realtor that was overseeing the 

home to make sure things were okay.  He responded back saying it was caused by someone leaving the AC 

on full blast during the time before he switched agents.  The bill was from the month of Sept. which is 

with the new agent. 

On 10/13/15 the owner sent an e-mail and in that e-mail  stated that the carpet cleaning that was done 

by the tenants which was by a professional company was a temporary clean just to hide the stains & 

smells which did not stand out when I did my initial walk through.   He said that his current agent 

cleaned dog poop off of the carpet.  In the 3 months this property has been vacant it has had multiple 

realtors, potential buyers and even the owner’s handy man going in and out.  It is hard to know what 

has happened.  When the move out inspection was done on 7/10/15 there was no poop, horrible stains 

or smell in the home.   It is true stains can wick back up.  However, when Bette D***** (Principal Broker at Mainlander) first visited the home in 2012 she noted

to the owner there was a pet urine smell on her first visit. The owner thought it was because the home had been vacant and closed up for awhile. He sent a

carpet cleaning invoice to show the carpet had been cleaned. The invoice did note  “Pet odors, stains, paint in various rooms, dyes, traffic, bleach”  This was

prior to any marketing for a tenant by Mainlander. The move-inspection for the first tenant did note existing stains on the carpet. 

This is a very unfortunate situation. I will send the owner all copies of the move-in/move-out inspections and all pictures of the property taken during the

management of the home. It is not the Property Management Company's responsibility to manage and over-see the home when a Realtor has been hired to

over-see, market and sell the home. It appears some very unusual things have happened at the home during this Realtor marketing period. 

Regards, 

Bette D*****

Principal Broker and Operations Manager

Consumer Response:

Complaint: ********
I am rejecting this response because:

Mainlander’s response to the complaint contains inaccuracies and does not address the substance of the complaint.


Mainlander claims that we asked in April to terminate management. That is not accurate. When Mainlander asked if we wanted to terminate management after the tenants moved out I told them no because we weren’t sure if we would sell our house or rent it out again to new tenants.


Mainlander’s description of the communication from 8/20 to 8/28 is misleading. They told me at the time that they would not waive the $75 fee and they specifically referred to it as a “management fee”. I consider it a positive gesture that they are offering not to charge that now and I am willing to count that as a credit toward the damages to our home. However, that does not absolve Mainlander of liability for their neglect during the property condition assessment.

Mrs. D***** explains that Angie R******* noted evidence of damage during her walkthrough even in her reply here. Her defense seems to be that our previous agent decided that it “looked good”. Whether or not some person has an opinion that a carpet looks good is not a reasonable evaluation of whether or not it was damaged and/or left in the condition it was in when the tenants moved in. That agent had never stepped into the house until after the tenants had lived there for many months. He had no way of knowing how the condition of the house compared to what it was before the tenants lived there. We should have been notified at the time that Angie noticed the stains so that we could work with Mainlander to investigate the condition further. Angie R******* herself ensured me a short time before this walkthrough that she would be working closely with me to go over the condition of the house. Instead, it happened with no notification, calls, reports or follow up of any kind.

Mainlander claims that the yard was “in good shape” on 7/9 and 7/21. That they claimed that the yard was in good shape on those dates when it actually was not is precisely why Mainlander is liable for the damages that we had to pay to correct. Everyone who looked at the yard, other than Mainlander, agreed that it was not in good shape. It cost several thousand dollars to get the yard ready for market. The damages we are seeking from Mainlander are only the portion of those charges covering weeding and yard pick-up that the tenants were responsible for and Mainlander neglected to manage.

Mainlander again mischaracterizes my communication on 10/13. I was trying to give Mainlander the benefit of the doubt and propose theories as to why they would have thought the house was not damaged when it really was. One theory is that the tenants cleaned the carpets, temporarily covering the damage. A theory that Mrs. D***** admits in her reply is a possibility.

Mrs. D***** points out that the house was not in perfect condition in 2012. Nobody claimed that it was. That there was existing wear in the house does not mean that tenants are free to damage it further at no cost. This is why it was Mainlander’s responsibility to work with us to examine photos and descriptions in order to distinguish what was new damage and what is from previous wear. Mainlander neglected to do that.


Mainlander did not need to take my word for it that our agent cleaned poop off of the carpet right after Angie’s walkthrough. I connected them all via email and our agent confirmed it directly. Since this occurred right after the walk-through, there was no time for any handy men, agents or prospective buyers to cause that.


Mainlander says that they aren’t responsible for managing the home when a realtor is involved. Yet, they knew that a realtor was involved during the time that they said they would be charging me a $75 “management fee”. The contract we signed with Mainlander was still in effect over this time and has not been cancelled or “closed out”.


Mrs. D***** writes in this reply that she is going to send us reports. It is now days since we received this letter via the BBB and we have not received any reports. At this point, such reports are of little use since we have no way of knowing when they were actually created and whether or not they have been altered. But, that she says she is going to do something and then does not is consistent with the pattern of communication we have had with Mainlander. I’m not sure if it’s because they are spread too thin or if it is a deliberate strategy. But, they need to take responsibility for the consequences.

Sincerely,
*** ******

Business Response:

To Whom It May Concern,
I am responding to the BBB complaint filed by *** ******.
I believe I was not very clear in my explanations of the process in determining the charges which can be claimed against a tenant’s security deposits.  I am hopeful Mr. ****** has now received the copies of the reports and the pictures of the property throughout the tenancies. This property has a total of 3 different tenants occupying the property from 2012 to 2015. The first tenants moved into the property on 11/2012. The second tenants moved into the property on 3/2013 and the third tenants moved into the property on 5/2014. I noted the carpet did have some staining and pet odor prior to the first tenant moving into the property. Based upon the original condition of the carpet/home “existing wear” was noted by the owner as well.  The owner would like the last tenant to be charged for the stains in the carpet. The last tenant did provide Mainlander with proof of professional carpet cleaning as per their move-out instructions.  At the time of the move-out inspection there were signs of preexisting stains. Since there were stains and odor noted prior to the first tenancy and pictures noting some stains throughout the additional tenancies it is not equitable to charge the final tenant for the normal wear and tear to the property. 
Angie R******* was not relying on the Realtor at the time to inspect the property. She was noting another person had viewed the property and thought everything looked as she had noted in her move-out inspection.  I wanted to also clarify the issue with the dog poop on the carpet as noted in Mr. ******** email in October.  It was not there when Angie did her inspection in July. She would certainly have taken a picture of the poop and had the carpets cleaned and charged the past tenants had that been the case.
Concerning the yard, I have reviewed all the pictures of yard with special attention to the pictures prior to the last tenancy compared to the move-out inspection pictures. The yard looks very similar with the exception of the lawn area which was not green.  Tenants are responsible for returning the yard to the standard in which they received it with the exception of trimming trees and shrubs.  This is an owner responsibility since typically tenants don’t have the knowledge of how to trim and can damage the bushes or trees.  It is not a tenant responsibility to make the yard or home “sale market ready”.
Mainlander has no problem holding tenants responsible for damage to properties. Damage is considered anything above normal wear and tear. Mainlander has a high level of expectation for the condition of the property at move-out.  A very thorough move-out check list is provided to the tenant prior to their move-out.  An inspection is done prior to the tenancy and after the tenancy.  In this particular case I do not see the tenants damaged the property. The property did show normal wear and tear after three tenancies.
I am very sorry Mr. ****** is unhappy with condition of the property at the end of the third tenancy. I am also sorry the supporting documents were not sent in a timely manner.  All the documents which have been sent are dated and have not been altered.
Regards,
Bette D*****

 

 

Principal Broker/ Operations Manager

Consumer Response:


Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

Mainlander continues to deny the problem. So, I believe it’s appropriate to look at the evidence:

Mainlander did send the reports. However, they raise more questions than they answer. As one example (image of report attached - dirtyhouse_example.PNG), the third tenant reported that the walls in one of the bathrooms was “filthy.” Why was the second tenant allowed to leave the bathroom walls filthy when they moved out? This contradicts Mainlanders claim that they hold a high standard in their walk-throughs.

Mainlander claims that the yard was in the standard we left it. That is not true. Attached is a statement (grass_roots.pdf) from the vendor who did the work confirming that the yard was not kept up according to contract and that the weeds and debris were not from after the tenant moved out. It is also not true that we are holding Mainlander responsible for the yard not being “sale ready”. We are only holding them responsible for the tasks that the tenants by contract were responsible for. You can see from the attachment that the full bill for all yard work was higher than the item we are asking Mainlander to cover.

Mainlander claims that there was no dog poop on the carpet. Attached is an email (mimi_email.PNG) from our agent Mimi H*** confirming that the poop was found and cleaned up by her on the same day as Mainlander’s walk through.

Sincerely,

*** ******

1/13/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: When we entered the apartment on Aug 9th, we found a fridge that was leaking water from the freezer into the fridge. The water then refroze in the fridge, broke the lowest shelf and formed an ice block in the drawer designed for produce. Numerous shelves were missing, one in the freezer and at least 3 in the fridge. Maintenance showed up to fixed the leak and replaced the broken shelf. We were told that this model is so old that replacement shelves are not available anymore. The issue we are having with the fridge now is that the entire unit has one temperature dial for both freezer and fridge. There is a plastic dial in the freezer, located behind a screwed-in panel that is supposed to adjust the amount of cold air able to enter the fridge portion. We have tried multiple times, as has maintenance, to adjust the dial so that both fridge and freezer will remain at appropriate temperatures. Maintenance left the screws off so we can get to the knob and adjust it without having to call them every 24 hours. Thus far, none of our attempts, or maintenances' attempts, has worked. We end up with freezer burned items and frozen produce in the fridge or everything in the freezer melts and spoils when we get the fridge to the right temperature. Since the refrigerator is producing cool air, Mainlander is calling it "in-working order" and is refusing to do anything further to assist us. So far we have had to through away hundreds of dollars worth of food due to inappropriate fridge/freezer temperatures. The maintenance person that has come out multiple times referred to the fridge as "old" and "primitive". He stated that based on the design there was nothing more that he could do to fix the unit.

Desired Settlement: A new refrigerator/freezer unit with dual climate settings and an appropriate number of shelves.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2014/09/12) */ MAINLANDER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT P.O. Box ***** **** **** ***** **** Lake Oswego, Or. XXXXX *(XXX) XXX-XXXX *Fax (XXX) XXX-XXXX Better Business Bureau XXXXXXXX Dear BBB, I am responding to your letter concerning a customer complaint from ******* ***** **** The Property Management team who manages the home has traded emails with Ms **** concerning her complaints. I would like to apologize for the move-in which did not go smoothly. There were several items which should have been taken care of prior to the move-in. Ms **** had a real estate professional view the property on her behalf. This sometimes makes for a difficult move-in since the resident did not view the home personally prior to the move-in. Mainlander Property Management does not own this home. We are an agent for the owner and must adhear to the management agreement with the owner concerning repairs. 1. Refrigerator- Indeed this is an older model but it does work. The repairs were done to the refrigerator as per the maintenance request. The refrigerator repair person noted the unit is working but old. I do understand the older refrigerators do have limitations. Adjustments to how food is wrapped for the freezer and where you keep your produce in the refrigerator may be needed to avoid issues the resident is experiencing. 2. Cleaning- carpets and home. The carpets were re-cleaned. Mainlander refunded the tenant $50 for the cleaning issues and we would have been happy to send the cleaners back to the home if the resident had given us the chance to do so. 3. Dishwasher- The dishwasher will be addressed today. The unit operates but is not secured properly. A maintenance person is scheduled to visit the property today. 4. Window Blinds - Have been repaired or replaced. Sink stopper has been repaired as noted in the resident's letter to BBB. The fan operates and will not be replaced. 5. Management Team- The team which manages this home has managed the home for the owner for several years. I cannot change the team who manages the property. Unfortunately, I cannot meet Ms. **** request for reimbursement of one month's rent. Mainlander will continue to do appropriate repairs/replacement of items which do not function in the property. Sincerely, ***** ****** Broker/Operations Manager Mainlander Property Management XXX-XXX-XXXX ext *** Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2014/09/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Dear BBB, That was a very distressing response from Mainlander, and I do not accept that response. Let me address the reasons in the order that they are listed. 1) Move in. While I appreciate that Ms. ****** agrees that this was not a pleasant move-in experience, it has nothing to do with an agent doing the initial walk through of the unit for us. I was given Mainlander's move-out criteria, and based on the criteria, I had expectations of the unit. A simple walk through by any of the Mainlander staff would have turned up these issues. Additionally, I told ***** in an email, "Please make sure that all appliances are clean (no mold/mildew/dust) and in working order. Please make sure that the windows open/close/seal appropriately and all blinds are in working order." There was plenty of time before I got there to find and address the problems if someone had simply done an inspection of the unit. 2) Refrigerator. The myopic view of the Mainlander staff is most distressing on this issue. Once again, blowing cold air does not constitute 'in working order'. The staff continue to read only what seems to be in their best interest. As for Ms. ******'s comment, "how food is wrapped for the freezer and where you keep your produce in the refrigerator may be needed to avoid issues the resident is experiencing" shows this unwillingness to listen to the complaint. The refrigerator blows only one temperature for the whole unit. If I set the temp so that the fridge portion is correct, the freezer part melts. How exactly would you have me wrap water so that it freezes into ice when the temp is above 32 degrees? How would you have me keep the rest of my food frozen? On the other hand, if I set the temp so that the freezer is correct, now the fridge is frozen too. How do I store my tomatoes so that they don't come out rock hard/frozen when the temp is now below 32 degrees in the fridge? Your comment is honestly, absurd. 3) Cleaning. As for re-cleaning the carpets, I do appreciate having that done. It took 3 weeks for them to come do it though, and I was told it would be done the week I moved in. As for the rest of the condo, please check your facts! It is not that I did not allow you the opportunity; instead, I told you that I had already done the cleaning. There was no point in sending cleaning people after I did all the work. ***** acknowledged this fact in our meeting the Monday after I moved in. I moved in on Saturday. I was not going to live in that dirty apartment all weekend and then move in my furniture before Mainlander's cleaning people could come and do a proper cleaning. Please do not insult me by misrepresenting facts or saying I did something that I clearly did not do. 3) Dishwasher. I am not sure what repair you are referring to on the dishwasher. The last time the repair person was in the condo, he stated that one tab was broken off and unrepairable. That means only one tab is left holding the dishwasher, and in time it will break too. At that point, the dishwasher will need to be replaced. I already had this discussion via email and agreed that as long as it is balanced and attached, I will use it as-is. Why did you send a repair person for something that I did not request and cannot be fixed? Additionally, you gave me no notice that you Ire sending someone. Did you enter the unit without authorization? 4) Blinds. The blinds have been cleaned. I am waiting on the replacements which should have arrived last week. 5) Management team. Why can't the team be changed? Length of time in a position/at a property is not a reason something cannot be changed? If you are unwilling to change the team, that is your prerogative. However, I expect better, timely service from the team. I also expect them to be professional and not use this incident as a point of vindictive response. 6) Rent concession. Why not? You have given no reason why you cannot give a concession. Do you just not want to give one? I understand that, but I did not want this experience moving into a condo. What I am asking for is not unreasonable given all the effort and time I have put into doing the job of your staff. I would love to have a conversation about Mainlander's counter offer, but they have not given one. I am a reasonable person, and I am willing to have a discussion. However, I cannot do that with someone who is unwilling to be reasonable. Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 13, 2014/10/11) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Dear Ms. ******, I appreciate your apology, but your comments continue to perplex me. I have a 2 bed/2 bath condo with approximately 1200 sq feet. I was able to find 90% of the issues within the first 15 minutes that I was in the condo. What did your people do for 1-2 hours? The dust, dirt, residue and dirty carpets were immediately apparent. As for the appliances, there are not many to check: washer, drier, fridge, dishwasher, and stove. Then there are the five faucets, four vents, heating units, blinds and screens. So can you see why I am so confused when you say you spent 1-2hrs and managed to miss everything we have mentioned thus far? It should have been blatantly obvious. It is not appreciated your trying to involve the realtor as a way to shift blame. They conveyed the state of the condo to me, and I specified stated in one of the early emails to *****, "Please make sure that all appliances are clean (no mold/mildew/dust) and in working order. Please make sure that the windows open/close/seal appropriately and all blinds are in working order and not broken." I would have done the same thing if I had been there in person. My mistake was that I did not assume that I needed to send the realtor back to the property to make sure that you did your job appropriately. Additionally, your move out criteria is very clear as to how the property should be left when people move out, and this unit was the exact opposite of what you specify. So, yes, I did find a property, and then I asked the property management group to uphold its move out criteria for the unit. As for the second point regarding your cooperation with our maintenance requests, if that were the case, I would not have had to do all this with the Better Business Bureau. You have multiple times stated "we are not replacing the refrigerator". That is not cooperating with my request, that is stonewalling me. In other words, you are blatantly changing your story. As for your comment about immediately notifying you upon arrival at the unit, I have one question. Have you bothered to get all the facts about my situation? I moved into the unit on a Saturday. After multiple attempts to get someone to meet us on Saturday to get the keys, do a move in inspection and sign the paperwork, I finally had to arrange with a trusted friend to pick up the keys on Friday because nobody could be bothered on Saturday. Thus, I would have had to call the emergency number to have someone come out and clean the unit. Given the effort of the company thus far, I can imagine what the answer to that request would have been. In light of that fact, are you going to recommend that I should have lived in a filthy unit for 2 days? I notified ***** first thing Monday morning about all the issues I had with the unit. So, I did notify you as soon as possible. I am not sure what you are telling the owner, if you are talking to them at all. If you are talking to them like you have been "talking" with me, I have no faith that you are even remotely representing the situation. The 'comments' of the owner seem way too similar to your initial comments to us. Lastly, it is the responsibility of the management group to make sure the move out criteria have been met (hence the inspection that you are supposed to do). So, stop trying to shift the blame and responsibility to owners or realtors. Own up to the mistakes and give me a month's rent concession for my effort and experience. Your own employee severely blushed and was truly embarrassed by our unit. This is a simple matter of doing the right thing. You are embarrassing yourself at this point. Sincerely, *** Final Business Response /* (1000, 24, 2014/11/13) */ MAINLANDER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT **** *** ***** **** **** ***** **** Lake Oswego, Or. 97035 *(XXX) XXX-XXXX *Fax (XXX) XXX-XXXX November 13, 2014 Re: XXXXXXXX Dear BBB, I am responding to the third letter from ****** ***** ****. As noted in my previous response many of the repairs were completed. In addition the owner approved a new refrigerator which has been installed since the last communication through the BBB. Mainlander does not have owner approval to reimburse the tenant one month's rent as she requested. This is the owner's funds not Mainlander's funds. I believe Mainlander and the owner have tried to remedy the resident's dissatisfaction with the move-in. Sincerely, ***** ****** Principal Broker/Operations Manager Mainlander Property Management XXX-XXX-XXXX ext ***


Customer Review(s)

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

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on Mainlander Property Management Inc
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)