This business is not BBB accredited.

John L Scott Property Management

Phone: (206) 621-9840 Fax: (206) 623-5721 1225 S Weller St Ste 400, Seattle, WA 98144 View Additional Email Addresses http://www.johnlscotthometeam.com


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

Description

This company offers management of residential and commercial rental properties.


BBB Accreditation

This business is not BBB accredited.

Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.

To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.


Reason for Rating

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

Factors that lowered the rating for John L Scott Property Management include:

  • Failure to respond to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
  • 1 complaint(s) filed against business that were not resolved

Factors that raised the rating for John L Scott Property Management include:

  • Length of time business has been operating


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

5 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 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 5
Total Closed Complaints 5

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on John L Scott Property Management
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: February 22, 2001 Business started: 03/02/1988 Business started locally: 03/02/1988 Business incorporated 06/29/2001 in WA
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:

Washington Department of Licensing Real Estate
2000 4th Ave W, Olympia WA 98502
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/realestate
Phone Number: (360) 664-6488
realestate@dol.wa.gov

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Ms. Michele Rozinek, President
Contact Information
Principal: Ms. Michele Rozinek, President
Business Category

Property Management Real Estate

Alternate Business Names
Emanar Inc John L. Scott Property Management Whidbey Property Management

Additional Locations

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1225 S Weller St Ste 400

    Seattle, WA 98144 (206) 621-9840

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)

9/16/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: When I moved out of your rental (***** ** **** *** ******** , WA 98006) on July 31st 2015, the house was returned to its original condition minus normal wear and tear. This is an old house (built in 1962) and we moved into the house five years ago with the condition mostly stated as fair in our moving-in inspection list. I expected my full $2000 security deposit by August 14th, 2015. However, we still have not received our security deposit.

Desired Settlement: return back the $2000 security deposit to the tenant.

6/5/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I hired ********** ******** ********** a Division of John L Scott to manage my Snoqualmie Washington Home. The management team made many mistakes from charging renters for damage but not having the repairs done, Charging me for repairs that were never completed, giving permission to renters to remove walls, damage epoxy floors breaking large permanently mounted mirrors stealing exercise and ski equipment along with other misc lawn and shop equipment. Allowing damage to be caused by unauthorized pitbull dog. Allowing damages caused by adults not authorized to live on the property. Not correcting issues after being notified there were problems

Desired Settlement: monetary costs to repair and replace.

Business Response: Decline to answer this complaint. It comes from husband of property owner, not the owner herself. I cannot discuss with him and will not. I have responded over and over and will not continue to waste time with this individual who is totally unreasonable.

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

I am rejecting this response because: 1 I am the owner of the house in the complaint. 2. My husband has power of attorney over this house as well and is legally allowed fully to act on my  behalf (JLS/********** have a copy of this power of attorney) . I expect a reasonable response from this business. This is just another attempt to not answer our complaint about the work done by this Company. John L Scott has been dragging their feet in  this manner since August 25, 2014 when we were made aware of their poor performance and not standing to their contractual agreement.

Sincerely,

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

6/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We hired John L. Scott Seattle Metro property management company which is owned by ******** *******. We signed a 12 month contract with them to manage our rental home in Kent Wa.From the very beginning we were displeased with there lack of communication with us. In March 2014 everything went wrong. We received an email from our agent that a pipe had burst. At that time the agent found out that the tenant had moved his girlfriend in without telling us. We were told by the agent that the girlfriend had filled out an application and was being screened. We were also told that the contractor had gone to the house to make repairs. After the repairs were made the agent and contractor noted in writing that the damages were do to the tenants negligence and they would bill him. On May 5th I tried to contact our agent and the owner of the management company trying to find out why we only received $706.41 (should have been $1525.50) deposited into our rental account. I tried many times by email and leaving voice mail messages to get information. On May 8th I received an email telling me that the "tenant refuses to pay and is not cooperating regarding his girlfriend, fianc or whatever""We paid part to the vendor who did the work and the balance to you. We can serve the tenants with a 3 day pay or vacate for the rest of what they owe. However, I am not inclined to take on that job since we are terminating the contract". So as soon as the managing of our property got a little sticky they want to bail and leave us high and dry. I am very disappointed in ******** ******* and her lack of morals, I am appalled that her first instinct is to take our money and run instead of doing her job of actually managing our property.We believe that we are entitled to a refund of $1271.25 which was the amount we paid up front for ******** ******* and **** **** to manage our property for 12 months which was clearly not fulfilled since they are terminating our contract with them as of May 31st. Product_Or_Service: property management

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Refund We believe that we are entitled to a refund of $1271.25 which was the amount we paid up front for Management of property for 12 months which was clearly not fulfilled..We also want the $908.59 that was billed from **************** for the repairs that we were told would be paid by the tenant but instead was paid by us without our knowledge or consent. Per our contract the agent is supposed to contact us and get our consent when a bill exceeds $500.00 and that was never done.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2014/06/13) */ June XX XXXX Reply to BBB regarding Case ID #XXXXXXXX, ***** ************* *** ******* and ***** ************* signed a contract with John L Scott Property Management on June 30 2013. This contract clearly states in paragraph 5: 5. AGENT NOT LIABLE FOR TENANT'S PERFORMANCE. Owner recognizes that there are risks associated with renting property. While screening tenants may prevent some problems, no screening process is 100% effective. Agent does not warrant the performance of any tenant. Owner agrees that Agent shall not be liable for any damages related to or arising from any tenant's occupancy of the Property, including without limitation the tenant's failure to pay rent, or physical damage to the Property. Owner may request a copy of any tenant's screening report in writing, at the time of the application. The contract further states in paragraph 7: 7. LEASING COMMISSION. Owner agrees to pay Agent a sum equivalent to 75% of one month's rent each time Agent leases the property to a tenant. In addition, Owner agrees to pay Agent a sum equivalent to 50% of one month's rent at the then current rate, for each and every renewal of a tenant's lease. Owner agrees that Agent's compensation is earned and due when Agent has procured a ready, willing and able tenant who meets or exceeds Owner's minimum rental criteria, as set forth in Paragraph 3 above and Addendum B. Owner further agrees that Agent's compensation is not contingent upon a tenant's performance. Furthermore, in paragraph 6, where management fee is discussed, that is for the management of the property, not the leasing commission as outlined above. 6. MANAGEMENT FEE. Owner agrees to pay Agent a sum equal to $100.00 per month or 10 % of monthly gross income (determined by rent most recently in affect) (whichever is greater), whether or not the Property is occupied. In a telephone conversation I had with Ms. *******, she clearly stated to me that she would be terminating the contract at the end of this tenant's lease which was about three months away. She was incensed that we had "allowed" the tenant to move his girlfriend into the unit. She told me how unhappy she was with our management. When the pipes burst, we had to act immediately to solve the problem. That did not allow for prior notice to the landlord. As the agent, we have ability to act in an emergency to prevent, as much as possible, property damage. Ms. ******* also wanted to know why we did not force the tenant to pay the bill for the water damage. I am not sure how we can "force" anyone to do anything. I said our only recourse with the tenant was to evict him for violation of his lease and then sue him for damages. During this time the tenant was being extremely unpleasant with us. We told him his girlfriend did not qualify to be put on his lease and all occupants over 18 years of age must meet our criteria. He became very belligerent with us regarding that issue. When we then said he had to pay for the damages because he left a hose attached to the house last winter during freezing temperatures and caused the pipes to break, he completely lost it and refused to do so. Again, our only recourse is to terminate a lease by eviction and sue the tenant. The owner did not want us to evict the tenant. We had reached an impasse...we could not evict the tenant without the owner's permission as there are often costs involved to the owner. The tenant was refusing to pay what he owed. We could do nothing. I decided at that point, since the owner was going to terminate our contract anyway, that we no longer needed to be in the middle of this issue with no way to make either party happy or resolve the problem. We terminated the contract at that time. The contract clearly states, as shown above that, the $1271.25 leasing commission was for finding a tenant that was qualified, which we did. The contract states that commission is not contingent upon tenant performance. We are also not responsible to pay for work done in the house that is the tenant's responsibility. Again, this is an issue of tenant performance which the management company is not responsible for. As shown in paragraph 5 above, the owner agrees there are risks involved in renting property. While our procedures try to minimize those risks, we cannot eliminate them. Stuff happens sometimes over which no one has control. Ultimately, the owner is responsible. I am sorry this has been an unpleasant experience for everyone, ourselves included. We wish all these problems had not come up at the same time or at all, however we are not responsible for this confluence of bad happenings. We will not be refunding anything. Sincerely, ******* *******, Owner John L. Scott Property Management Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 16, 2014/06/20) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The reason ******* ***** Management Company cancelled our contract was because they did not want to do the work that was required of them per the contract. They continue to say that the tenant was unruly but that does not matter. It was their job to represent us and our home. They are lazy and unethical and very unprofessional. The new management company we hired had NO problem getting the tenant to pay the 908.00 for the repair. ******** ******* and **** **** should be ashamed of themselves. I just hope that other renters and home owners see this complaint and think twice about hiring such a poor example of a John L. Scott Franchise. I have spoken with the Vice President of John L. Scott franchise and he is appalled at how ******* ***** ********** Company handled this, unfortunately his hands are tied because it is a franchise owned by ******** *******. He also wanted to see a copy of the he contract we signed because after checking with an Attorney the contract is considered void because they put in a clause that we can not sue them and that is illegal in the State of Washington. All I can say if run far away from this company and do your research before hiring a management company, we paid the price for not doing so. ** *******

6/23/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: ******* ****** was hired as a Property Manager from John L. Scott. At the end of the tenants lease, a stainless steel panel was found scratched needed and replaced. The tenant was charged for the damage and the replacement of the panel. I was informed that it was only a decorative panel. The installation was performed by a "Handy Man". Days later an inspection was performed on the house and found the Bake function was not working on the oven. All other functions worked. I ask ******* to provide me with the part number of the panel replaced. It turns out the panel replace included the control panel. I explained to ******* it had to be a bad control panel or bad installation. ******* and I decided to get the issue addressed by a ** Technician. The Technician found that it was a bent pin on the connection to the control panel. This was the same panel replaced by the "Handy Man". The pin was straightened and the panel re-installed. All was functional. I paid the ** Technician service charge of $174.11.

Desired Settlement: I've ask ******* ****** for a reimbursement of the ** Service Technicians service charge of $174.11. ******* talked with her Broker ******* *******. ******* said, she and ******* agree that the Handy Man, *******, and John L Scott are not going to pay for the GE Technicians service charge.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/05/30) */ We were told the panel was damaged. We nor maintenance man was aware that panel included a programmable panel as well until the part arrived. All the maintenance man did was plug it in. It still needed to be programmed and he was not trained for that. Our most commonly used maintenance man is a licensed, bonded and insured General Contractor. He is more than a "handyman". Owner would have had to pay to have panel programmed anyway...that is not a tenant charge. We do not feel that either the maintenance contractor or the property manager is responsible for this charge. Thank you for your assistance, ******* ******* John L.Scott Property Management Designated Broker/Owner **** ** ****** ******* ***** *** ******* ********** XXXXX ****** *********************** XXX-XXX-XXXX Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2014/06/02) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Your response clearly illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. The ** Technician noted on the receipt (attached in a previous e-mail to ******* ****** and ******* *******) and over the phone, the problem was caused by a bent pin. The pin was straightened and then plugged back in. A functional test was performed and all was fixed. NO PROGRAMMING IS/WAS REQUIRED. The initial thought was that this part was purely decorative. ******* mentioned several times in e-mail and over the phone that it was decorative. She was surprised that the part was in excess of $500, and remarked that it seemed very expensive for a stainless steel cover. Yet no inquiry was made. After the part number was provided to me a ****** search of just the part number (WB27TXXXXX) revealed that this part is a ***** ***** ASM (Stainless Steel) control panel. It is clearly not just a decorative part. If the part was received damaged, then a competent Maintenance man would have sent it back as defective. If the part was good but damaged during the installation a competent Maintenance man would have felt that the connector did not seat properly. Either way a competent Maintenance man would have found the problem after performing a functional checkout post-installation. If they didn't feel like they could perform the task then they were not the right person for the job. Again, the point was to fix the oven, and it ended up in worse condition than the Maintenance man received it in. All in a failed attempt by John L. Scott to fix damage from a previous tenant. This damage and subsequent repair was the tenant's responsibility. The fact that the repair was performed unsatisfactory is the responsibility of the Property Management John L. Scott. This could have been discussed over the phone, however ******* ******* (Broker/Owner) has not been "able" to answer any of my phone calls or return any of my messages over the past 2 months. I again request the re-imbursement of the $174.11 for the GE Technicians repair. Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2014/06/03) */ Company Id ********** I am sorry but this is way too much time to spend for $174. We will send the client his money and wish him well. ******* ******* John L.Scott Property Management Designated Broker/Owner Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 18, 2014/06/17) */ As of 6/16/2014. The payment of $174.11 promised from the manager has not been received. Therefore the problem is not resolved. Once payment is received it will be considered resolved.

7/31/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Lack of communication by owner. unprofessional communications.

Desired Settlement: communication with client and completion of job.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 6, 2013/07/30) */ Client wanted to sell property before tenant lease was up and wanted tenant to move early. All negotiations for such transaction were handled between owner and client outside of our management contract. I was to perform clerical duties only. This is not the way we do business, not to mention that contract was to end six months early with no cancellation fee. Contract has now been terminated and there is no longer any relationship. Consumer's Final Response /* (2000, 8, 2013/07/31) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)


Customer Review(s)

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

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on John L Scott Property Management
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)