Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/05/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Royal York had made many false promises to me, including placing qualified tenants in my house within 15 days. However, my house sat vacant for three months. When they finally found a tenant, I had clearly communicated with ****** ****** and *** that the tenant was not to take possession of the unit without my explicit confirmation. Despite this, the lease was signed by ****** without my consent, and the tenant was permitted to move in before transferring the utility accounts into his name. This appears to be a breach of the conditions outlined in the Offer to Lease.
  
  I still haven’t received the tenant’s deposit from Royal York which includes the first and last month’s rent deposits and the key deposit. I have emailed ***** ****** multiple times requesting that he resolve this issue but I haven’t heard back.
  
  Royal York is billing me for services that, in my view, were not carried out in accordance with our agreement. I am having difficulty understanding how these charges are being justified given the circumstances.
  
  I kindly ask that this matter be reviewed and addressed as soon as possible.

  Business Response

  Date: 19/05/2025

  Royal York Property Management respectfully rejects the claims made in the complaint, which are both factually inaccurate and legally unfounded. At all times, RYPM has acted in accordance with its contractual obligations and maintained clear and documented communication with the complainant throughout the tenant placement process.
  The complainant entered into a legally binding Tenant Placement Agreement with RYPM, which clearly outlines our obligations as well as the fees associated with our services. The complainant was made fully aware that once a qualified and approved tenant is secured, and an Offer to Lease is accepted, RYPM’s duties under the Tenant Placement Agreement are fulfilled. All charges invoiced were in accordance with this Agreement. The only adjustments made were the removal of property management fees, as the complainant had elected not to continue with management services. The remaining tenant placement charges are valid and reflect services that were rendered in full compliance with the agreement.
  As for the claim that the lease was signed without the complainant’s consent, this is categorically false. The Offer to Lease, signed by the complainant, includes terms that authorize RYPM to proceed with the lease execution on behalf of the landlord once an approved applicant is secured. Both ****** ****** and *** followed internal protocol and contractual permissions in coordinating the lease signing. Furthermore, the issue regarding the tenant’s utility transfer is unrelated to the tenant's legal right to take possession of the property and does not affect the validity of the lease, nor does it constitute a breach by RYPM.
  The deposits in question, including the first and last month’s rent and the key deposit, were collected and either already transferred or are in queue for disbursement as per the standard processing timeline. Multiple follow-ups were made internally by ***** ****** and the finance department, despite the complainant’s failure to acknowledge emails outlining the payout structure and timing.
  RYPM has upheld all responsibilities under the agreement and has gone beyond industry norms to accommodate and support this file. The delays referenced stemmed largely from the complainant’s reluctance to approve qualified applicants during the initial listing period, which prolonged the vacancy, contrary to our recommendations. While RYPM strives to meet the 15-day tenant placement goal, this target is conditional on market readiness and landlord cooperation, both of which were challenged in this particular case.
  There has been no fraud, no breach of agreement by RYPM, and no misconduct on the part of any employee. RYPM’s processes are in line with Ontario’s real estate practices and the Residential Tenancies Act. We consider this matter resolved and will not be engaging in further discussion unless new factual evidence is provided.
  Sincerely,
  Royal York Property Management

  Customer Answer

  Date: 27/05/2025

  I am rejecting this response because:

  In their response, Royal York stated:
  “The Offer to Lease, signed by the complainant, includes terms that authorize RYPM to proceed with the lease execution on behalf of the landlord once an approved applicant is secured.”
  This statement is inaccurate. By signing the Offer to Lease, I agreed to move forward in good faith toward a formal lease agreement with the tenant. However, this did not constitute consent for Royal York to sign the Ontario Standard Lease Agreement on my behalf.
  Even Section 8 of the Offer to Lease, which refers to the formation of a lease, clearly states that the agreement obligates both parties to proceed with further actions toward the execution of a formal lease between the landlord and the tenant — not a third party acting on the landlord’s behalf. The specific clause reads:
  “This Agreement to Lease constitutes a contract and an obligation to proceed with further actions…towards the execution of a formal lease agreement between the Landlord and the Tenant…”
  
  At no point does the Offer to Lease include language authorizing Royal York to execute the lease on my behalf. There are NO clauses that state:
  
  “The Owner authorizes Royal York to execute the Ontario lease on their behalf,” or
  “Royal York shall act as the Owner’s legal representative in all leasing matters.”
  
  Additionally, the agreement clearly outlines conditions to be fulfilled before possession is granted to the tenant — including, but not limited to, the transfer of utilities into the tenant’s name. This condition was not met, yet Royal York allowed the tenant to take possession regardless. The agreement was written by Royal York itself, and by proceeding without fulfilling the contract’s terms and without my explicit consent, Royal York:
  
  Breached the terms of our agreement
  Acted outside their authorized scope
  Engaged in unauthorized representation
  
  Furthermore, prior to signing the contract with Royal York, I was led to believe that Royal York’s 15-day tenant placement was unconditional. This turned out to be misleading. Also, their agent, *****, assured me that I could expect $2,000 per month in rent. Shortly after signing, I was repeatedly asked to lower the asking rent, which I did multiple times in good faith to facilitate tenant placement.
  
  Their response also alleged that delays stemmed from my reluctance to approve qualified applicants. This is also incorrect. I approved several applicants, but placements were either cancelled by the tenants or declined by Royal York — including one instance where a tenant’s case worker offered to send the deposit directly to me. Royal York initially accepted this but later reversed their decision, insisting they would only approve tenants if they received all deposits directly.
  
  Each time I approved a tenant, I personally paid for cleaning the unit. Despite this, before the current tenant moved in, Royal York sent a cleaning crew into the property without my prior consent — contrary to my communication with their maintenance department, which had confirmed that no such service would occur without my authorization. When I spoke to *** about this, he assured me that this will be resolved but it didn’t happen. Additionally, the tenant later contacted me to report that the cleaning was poorly done, and when I informed *****, my concerns were ignored.
  
  ** ******* ***** ******** ********** *** ******** **** **** ****** ******* ******** ** ******* ******* ** ***** ***** This pattern of behaviour is extremely concerning and appears to reflect broader issues with their practices.
  
  I look forward to your timely response.
  
  Sincerely,
  ***** *******

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:18/04/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Issue after issue dealing with Royal York since signing contract of our house. The company did not fulfil their written obligation as they promised to and also ******** over $7,200 once we decided to terminate contract.
  The team ceased responding to emails and our property was only advertised on their website resulting in only one showing in a month. Then multiple unexpected charges appeared on owner's portal, which were not part of our contract. After several days of trying to get a hold of someone, we were assured these charges would be removed. Our frustration continued when we received a lease offer for a high risk self employed tenant. We requested more information and were told that vetting can’t be done unless we sign the offer and so we signed a conditional offer and were assured in writing that necessary information would be shared with us before the lease was signed including 6 months bank statement, previous landlord refrence and verification of business license. However, 24 hours after signing, we were notified by ******** that tenant attempted to transfer account into their name. No one from Royal York team contacted to inform us that vetting process was complete or that lease signed. The only information available on owner's portal was insufficient and concerning, including self-reported invoices showing lower income and missing or mislabeled documents.
  Lastly, a collections agent from Royal York sent us a bill for over $9k upon us wanting to cancel our contract and gave 7 days to pay before they report and **** our credit score. This amount included setup fees that were not part of contract as well as a higher monthly Managment fee. ** ******* *** *** ***** ** ************ *** ** * ***** ******* ** ** ****** ***** **** **** ******* *** **** **** ****** **** **** **** **** ***** ** ****** ********** ******** **** ** ***** ** *********. This company did not provide any service to us and we would like a refund of money they took **** ** ******

  Business Response

  Date: 01/05/2025

  Dear BBB,
  
  Royal York Property Management firmly denies the unfounded allegations made by the complainant and categorically rejects any claims of ********* conduct, *****, or contract breach. Our records reflect that all actions taken by our team were consistent with the terms of the signed Residential Management Agreement and in accordance with standard practices in the property management industry.
  The complainant entered into a binding agreement with Royal York Property Management, which explicitly outlined the scope of services, fees, and terms of cancellation. The complainant fails to acknowledge that the $7,200 referenced was not a fee arbitrarily imposed, but rather a combination of setup costs, administrative fees, tenant placement services, and penalties stipulated in the contract for early termination after work had already been performed and a lease offer had been secured.
  The unit in question was listed on multiple platforms, including Royal York Property Management’s website, which receives over 2.4 million monthly views. The claim that the unit was advertised solely on our website is both inaccurate and misleading. Further, only one showing occurred because the property was overpriced, and this was clearly communicated to the complainant along with comparable listings. The owner's refusal to adjust the pricing contributed directly to the lack of traffic.
  As for the tenant screening process, the offer to lease was sent to the complainant with full transparency. The complainant agreed in writing to proceed conditionally and confirmed their acceptance of the tenant, contingent on the provision of further documentation. The standard process—clearly outlined by our leasing team—requires acceptance of the lease offer before sensitive information such as banking or licensing details is released. The complainant was informed of this and consented to the process. Documentation was subsequently uploaded to the owner portal, and communication confirming these steps was made in writing.
  Regarding the mention of ********, the tenant's attempt to transfer utilities is a standard preparatory measure and does not reflect premature possession or lease activation. It is also untrue that the lease was executed without informing the complainant; the lease proceeded based on the complainant’s conditional approval and no withdrawal or revocation was submitted within the permitted timeframe.
  The fee of $9,000 referenced by the complainant was the result of liquidated damages per the terms of the signed agreement. The complainant’s ******* ****** ** ***** ******* was fully informed of the fees, and his voluntary payment of $7,200 constituted partial fulfillment of that contractual obligation. *** ******* ** ************ **** ******* ** *********** ** ********** *** ******* ********. Moreover, the complainant’s attempt to retroactively claim a refund after actively participating in the leasing process, approving the tenant, and failing to cancel within the permitted period is both unreasonable and without merit.
  Royal York Property Management has, at all times, acted in good faith, upheld its contractual obligations, and made documented efforts to communicate clearly and assist the complainant throughout the process. We provided ample opportunity for the complainant to resolve concerns amicably and were responsive across multiple platforms. We categorically reject any assertion that our services were not rendered or that we engaged in misconduct. Accordingly, we will not be issuing a refund, and we stand by the charges incurred under the legally binding agreement.
  
  Best Regards
  Royal York Property Management 
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/05/2025

  Complaint: ********
  
  Dear BBB, 

  I reject the response provided by Royal York Property Management regarding the above-referenced complaint. The response is not accurate and lacks supporting evidence to substantiate their claims.
  Firstly, Royal York Property Management asserts that the property was overpriced, leading to only one showing in over a month. However, the rental price was suggested by their own team, ************ *** *********, who informed us that their colleague, ********, had toured our property and indicated that we could get a rental amount of $3,600 per month. Contrary to their assertion, we were never advised by Royal York to lower the asking price. Furthermore, after terminating our agreement with them and listing the property with another agent, we experienced five showings within four days, received two lease offers, and ultimately secured a lease within five days at the asking price of $3,600. * **** ******** ************* **** ******** ***** ******* ********* ******** ** *** ******** *** *******
  Secondly, Royal York Property Management claims that the property was advertised on multiple platforms. However, despite several requests via email for links to these listings, we were only able to find the property posted on their website. They never responded to our inquiries, nor did they provide links to any other platforms. Additionally, they mentioned that their website receives over 2.4 million monthly views. However, * ** ********* * ********** ** the virtual tour of our property posted on their ******* channel, which is linked to their website* ** ** ****** **** ***** has received only 55 views in over two months, indicating a significant lack of visibility and promotion for our property.
  Moreover, Royal York provided us with just one offer and refused to provide any financial information about the prospective tenant until after we signed the lease agreement. Despite assurances that this information would be shared prior to lease execution, they proceeded with the lease without our consent, ** ********* ** ** ******** ***** ********** *** ******** ** ********* ** *** **** ****** ******* **** ******* ** **** **** *** ***** ***** **** *** ***** ** *** ********. Additionally, they failed to provide the agreed-upon documentation, including six months of bank statements, a previous landlord reference, and two years of tax returns. Instead, they submitted only three self-generated receipts from the self-employed tenant, which were inconsistent with the reported income. They also provided only one month of bank statements after we had already cancelled our agreement, and this document was difficult to interpret, containing hundreds of transactions with no clear representation of the tenant's income. * **** ******** *** ********** ** *** *********** **** ***** ** *** ******* ****** ***** *** ************ *** ******* ***********. 
  ******** * ***** **** ** ******* *** *********** ********* **** ******** ***** ** ******** ****** ******* *** ************ *** ********** ***** ******* ******* ** ***** ***** ****** *** ******** ******* ******* ******* ********* ***** **** ** *** ******* ********** on March 24th, they sent us a legal notice from a collections agent that worked at their company demanding $9,503 in fees, which were not part of our original contract and included fees that had been waived before we shingles the contract. **** ********** ****** ******** ****** ** ********** ********* **** *** *** ******* *** ******* ** ****** *********** ** ********* **** ***** the collections agent reduced the payment deadline from one week to five days, *********** ** ****** ** ********* ****** ****** **** ** ******* *** *** ****** ****** ** **** ********* *** ******** ********** ***** **** ***** **** *** **** ********* ******* ***** ** ** **** ****** **** ** ************* *** ********* ******* ** ** ***** ******** *** ********** * ****** ******* ** **** * *****. In good faith, my ****** offered to settle the matter by paying up to $6,000, ***** ** ***** * ********** ****** *** *** ******* **** **** *** **** yet Royal York refused this offer. 
  Lastly, they continue to ***** ** ******** ** not removing their lock from our door despite sending them several emails to do so. 
  * **** ******** *** ******** ************* ** ******* ** ******* ***** *** ******** ********** *** *** ******* *** ****** ** ***** **** ******** *********** ** ** ***** **** ***** ******** ********* *** ********* *** ***************
  Thank you for your attention to this matter.
  Sincerely,
  **** ******
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/05/2025

  Royal York Property Management  strongly disputes the claims presented in the complainant’s recent submission. We categorically deny any suggestion of *****, ********* practices, or breach of contract. Our internal documentation, communication records, and process adherence demonstrate a clear pattern of transparency, diligence, and compliance with the terms of the Residential Management Agreement signed by the complainant.
  Firstly, regarding the rental price and marketing strategy: RYPM clearly advised that the listed rental amount of $3,600 was not competitive based on comparable market data in the area at the time of listing. Despite these advisements, the complainant chose to proceed with the original asking price. The leasing efforts, including listing the property across multiple partner platforms (**********, ******, ******** ***********, and Royal York’s internal database of over 60,000 tenants), were executed as per our standard practice. We also provided professional media and virtual tours. The complainant’s reference to receiving showings post-termination has no bearing on RYPM’s performance during the exclusivity period, particularly when the market shifted, and their pricing finally aligned with tenant demand.
  Secondly, the tenant documentation process followed all industry-standard leasing procedures. ** ******** ** *** ************** ***** ***** *** ****, RYPM informed the complainant that the tenants were in the process of gathering all requested documents, including six months of bank statements, business licenses, employment letters, and a Notice of Assessment. Furthermore, the complainant was advised in writing of the factors that could jeopardize the lease file—including discrepancies between reported income and verified documentation. At no point did RYPM proceed with the lease execution without owner knowledge. The transfer of utilities was a procedural step aligned with standard onboarding practices following the conditional acceptance of an offer. The complainant’s failure to respond in a timely manner, including ignoring requests for approval or rejection of documentation, contributed to procedural delays and misunderstandings.
  It is untrue that we refused to provide tenant financial information. RYPM provided access to the submitted documentation via the owner portal and confirmed the nature of the documents through multiple emails. Any insufficiencies in the bank statements were acknowledged, and our leasing team continuously followed up with the tenants to supplement the file. The complainant was kept informed throughout this process and was provided the opportunity to raise concerns or opt out before lease finalization, which they failed to do.
  With respect to the fees and collection matter, all charges were fully itemized and in accordance with the signed agreement. The complainant’s assertion that the fees were “not part of the original contract” is false. RYPM does not waive contractual fees unless confirmed in writing by senior management. The $9,503 amount was a result of services rendered and administrative costs incurred due to the complainant’s decision to terminate the agreement prematurely and without cause. Their attempt to settle the matter for $6,000 was not accepted, as it did not reflect the work completed under the contract. ************ *** **** *** *** ******** ** *** ******* ********* ** ******* **** ***** **** ********* * ***** ** ************* *** ******** *********** *** *** *** ******* ********** ************* ******** ** *** **** ** ***** ************
  Regarding the lockbox, RYPM made multiple requests to retrieve the lockbox and schedule access. If it remains onsite, it is due to lack of coordination or access permissions, not negligence. Our legal and field service teams remain available to schedule its removal, provided access is granted.
  Royal York Property Management maintains that we acted in good faith, in full compliance with industry standards and our signed agreement. Any frustration experienced by the complainant resulted from their own delays, unrealistic expectations, and misinterpretation of leasing protocols. We reject all claims of wrongdoing and will not be offering any further responses or settlement proposals on this matter.
  Sincerely,
  
  Royal York Property Management

• Initial Complaint

  Date:19/02/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On Monday, Feb 10, 2025, I viewed **** ******** *** ***** **** *** with ***** from Royal York Property Management (RYPM). He said he would follow up with the landlord.
  
  On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2025, I followed up, and ***** told me the landlord was considering expanding the unit but hadn’t decided whether to rent it.
  
  On Wednesday, Feb 12, I called RYPM’s office and spoke to ****, who insisted the unit was available and said she had direct contact with the landlord. I told her I *** ********* **** * ****** ***** ***** *** would submit the rental application later. Minutes later, she called again, pressuring me to submit it immediately.
  
  After submitting it, an agent *****, immediately called, demanding I pay a $750 deposit to secure “priority” with the landlord. I was ***** ********* *** pressured into paying.
  
  On Thursday Feb 13, I followed up. ***** now changed his story, saying the landlord might move in and that the lease may not even be long-term. This contradicted earlier statements and raised doubts.
  
  Between Wednesday and Saturday, I spoke with four agents (****, *****, ****, and *****), all claiming direct contact with the landlord but giving conflicting information.
  
  On Saturday, Feb 15, I ********** to request a refund. Suddenly, on Sunday, RYPM claimed my offer was accepted and they demanded $1,850 within 24 hours—highly unusual.
  
  I requested a refund, but RYPM refused, citing a “fundamental breach” of the Offer to Lease Agreement. However, Section 4 does not state that deposits are forfeited if a tenant withdraws. When asked to show proof, they failed to do so.
  
  Additionally, RYPM never verified my references, income, or financial documents—standard practice for tenant screening—but repeatedly demanded more money.
  
  On Feb 17, I visited their office. ***** became ******* and physically walked us out, refusing discussion.
  
  I demand a full refund of $750. If unresolved, I will escalate this to Consumer Protection Ontario, Small Claims Court, and media outlets.

  Business Response

  Date: 21/02/2025

  Dear ********* *****,
  
  Royal York Property Management has carefully reviewed your complaint and the circumstances surrounding your application. We categorically deny any wrongdoing and maintain that all actions taken by RYPM were in full compliance with the Offer to Lease Agreement and standard industry practices.
  Your claim that RYPM misrepresented the availability of the property is inaccurate. At the time of your inquiry, the unit was actively listed, and you were fully informed of the landlord’s considerations. The application and deposit submission were entirely voluntary on your part. There was no coercion or undue pressure—our agents provided timely responses and facilitated your application in good faith.
  The deposit of $750 was collected in accordance with the legally binding Offer to Lease Agreement. Once an applicant submits a deposit, it secures the unit for processing and prevents other interested parties from moving forward with the lease. Your subsequent decision to withdraw from the lease does not entitle you to a refund, as the agreement does not provide for deposit reimbursement upon tenant withdrawal. Your reference to Section 4 is **********, as the agreement establishes the applicant’s financial commitment upon submission.
  Your assertion that RYPM failed to conduct due diligence in verifying your financials is incorrect. RYPM follows a rigorous screening process in accordance with industry standards, and all necessary steps were taken within the required timeframe. The expedited process of securing an offer does not negate the validity of tenant screening or due process in rental transactions.
  Your allegations regarding agent conduct are without merit. Our internal records indicate that you visited our office and were provided with a clear explanation of the lease process. At no point was any RYPM staff member hostile or unprofessional. The refusal to issue a refund was based solely on the contractual terms you agreed to upon submitting your deposit.
  Your threats to escalate this matter to various agencies do not alter the facts. RYPM has adhered to all legal and contractual obligations, and your voluntary withdrawal from the lease does not justify a refund. This matter is now closed, and RYPM will not entertain further correspondence regarding this issue. Should you wish to pursue legal action, RYPM is fully prepared to defend its position.
  Sincerely,
  ****** ******
  RYPM

  Customer Answer

  Date: 21/02/2025

  
  I am rejecting this response because your assertion that my deposit was paid “voluntarily” is inconsistent with the communications I received from RYPM, which clearly stated that “as part of our tenant application process, we require a minimum prepayment of $750”. This payment was not offered as a discretionary choice, it was a mandatory condition for processing my application and presenting it to the property owner. Throughout the process from February 10 to February 17, your agents, including ****, repeatedly pressured me to submit my application and make the deposit, despite my explicit statements regarding ** ********** ***** * ****** ***** ****** Such pressure left me with little genuine choice.
  
  If you contend that my prepayment was voluntary, then I must ask: why is there a need to hold on to it? A voluntary payment, by its very nature, should be subject to the payer’s discretion, not unilaterally retained without clear contractual justification.
  
  Regarding Section 4 of the Offer to Lease Agreement, your claim that my withdrawal constitutes a breach is misleading. That section defines a material breach as a failure to provide required documents, submission of inaccurate information, or non-compliance with stated deadlines. At no point was I asked to furnish supporting documents or have my references verified—standard procedures that were never enforced. The Agreement does not state that withdrawing after acceptance automatically forfeits the deposit.
  
  Moreover, the overall process was marked by contradictory information regarding the landlord’s intentions and a noticeable lack of follow-up on essential tenant verification, which raises serious concerns about the integrity of your screening process.
  
  I therefore respectfully demand that you reconsider my refund request and return the $750 deposit in full. Should you fail to do so, I will have no choice but to pursue further action through the appropriate regulatory and legal channels.

  I have attached copies of the mail I received insisting that I had to make that payment, email that was followed up with calls to quickly make payment. 

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

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 25/02/2025

  Dear ********* *****,
  Royal York Property Management maintains that all actions taken in your application process were fully compliant with the Offer to Lease Agreement and standard industry practices. Your claim that the deposit requirement was unclear or unfair is without merit. The $750 deposit was a necessary step in processing your application and securing your position for the unit. You submitted this deposit with full acknowledgment of its purpose and conditions.
  Your withdrawal from the lease does not entitle you to a refund. The Offer to Lease Agreement sets forth clear financial commitments, and your decision not to proceed does not exempt you from those obligations. Your reference to Section 4 is misleading, as the Agreement does not provide for deposit reimbursement under these circumstances. Additionally, RYPM followed its standard screening procedures within the required timeframe, and your claim that essential steps were skipped is inaccurate.
  Your allegations regarding pressure or contradictory information from agents are unsupported and do not invalidate the contractual terms you agreed to. While you may be dissatisfied with the process, that does not equate to any wrongdoing by RYPM. The request for a refund is denied, and this matter is now closed. Should you choose to escalate the matter, RYPM is fully prepared to defend its position.
  Kind Regards,
  ****** ******
  Royal York Property Management

• Initial Complaint

  Date:30/01/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  The issue was first started back to November 2023. I formally submitted my complaint to the business (Royal York Property Management - refer to as "RYPM" in the context that follows) on November 29 2023 but they never responded. I reasonably assumed they have dropped the charge and closed the case. But just recently - after more a year they received my formal complaint - I received an email from RYPM's Collection Dept (so-called First "Legal" Notice asking me to pay the invoice for a service they did not fulfill iaw to the terms of the agreement.
  Here is the summary of the facts and story. A tenant searching agreement with Royal York PM was signed on 2023/10/15 and was then terminated on 2023/11/09 ****** ********** ******** ***** ***). No offer was provided by Royal York PM to me before the termination of the agreement. An offer was provided on 2023/11/10 (after the service agreement had been expired and terminated) with a monthly rent of $2600 which is lower than the agreed minimum monthly rent of $2700. I did not accept the offer. But RYPM insisted bill me for a service they did not fulfill iaw the terms of the agreement.
  
  ****** ***** ** *** ******** ********** ********* *** ************** ****** *** **** ******* ** *** ***** *** **** ***** ** *** ***** **** ** ********** ********* ******** ** **** ********** **** ****** ********* ********* * ** **** * ******* *** ****** ** *** **** **** ******* ***** ** *** **** ********** **** ***** ** ******* **** *********** ** ***** ***** ** *** **** **** ****** ** ********* *********** ****** *** ******* ***** ***** ** * *** **** **** ***** ** ***** ********* ******** ** ** *** **** * ******** **** ****** ********* ** *** ******** ****** **** ******** *********** ***** *********** **** ***** ******* ****** ***** **** **** ********** ****** ***** ***********

  Business Response

  Date: 11/02/2025

  Dear Better Business Bureau and Mr. ***,
  
  Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Royal York Property Management (RYPM) takes all contractual obligations seriously and strives to operate with the highest level of integrity and transparency. After a thorough review of the relevant documents, including the Tenant Placement Agreement, email communications, invoice, and Offer to Lease Agreement, we have identified key aspects of this case that warrant clarification.
  
  The Tenant Placement Agreement was signed on October 15, 2023, and became effective on October 16, 2023. The agreement was for a period of 15 business days, running from Monday, October 16, 2023, to Monday, November 6, 2023. RYPM was contractually responsible for sourcing a tenant within this period. The agreed-upon minimum rent was set at $2,700, as confirmed in an email dated October 27, 2023.
  
  On November 7, 2023, Mr. *** sent an email requesting to terminate the agreement. RYPM acknowledged receipt of this request at 9:40 AM the same day, making the termination effective as of November 9, 2023, in accordance with the contract. However, an Offer to Lease was presented on November 10, 2023, from a prospective tenant, Alain Azar, at $2,600 per month. As this offer was presented after the effective termination date, Mr. *** was not contractually liable for the tenant placement fee.
  
  Unfortunately, a system error resulted in the email terminating the agreement not being properly recorded in our system, which led to the issuance of the collection notice dated January 22, 2025. We sincerely apologize for this oversight and acknowledge that the charge should not have been pursued.
  
  Given the above, RYPM will take the necessary steps to withdraw the invoice and terminate the collection proceedings related to this matter. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate Mr. ***’s patience in bringing this to our attention.
  
  If there are any further concerns, we remain available to address them in good faith.
  
  Sincerely,
  ***** ********
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 16/02/2025

  
  I am glad to see that RYPM has finally responded my complaints and admitted they should have not invoiced me the fees. 
  

  However RYPM still have my property listed after the termination of the agreement. I requested RYPM to remove the listings in November 2023 but they never did. The unauthorized and low price listings RYPM put had interfered and affected my tenant searching and directly or indirectly resulted in three months of rental loss. To prevent future and further impact to my rental business, I request RYPM immediately remove all listings they still have on my property.
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  ******* ***

  Business Response

  Date: 28/02/2025

  Dear Better Business Bureau and Mr. ***,
  Royal York Property Management acknowledges the receipt of your follow-up response. As previously stated, RYPM has taken corrective action regarding the invoice in question.
  Regarding your concern about property listings, RYPM has reviewed the matter and confirms that all listings related to your property have been removed. There are no active or unauthorized advertisements in our system. Any impact on your tenant search resulting from external market conditions or other factors is unrelated to RYPM’s actions.
  This matter is now considered resolved in full. No further correspondence is required.
  Sincerely,
  Royal York Property Management

• Initial Complaint

  Date:27/01/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I retained the business to help rent my condo unit in 2023 and they did not do their part of the contract. For that reason, I fired them and they told me I owed them $4000 for breach of contract and refused to release my keys to the property. I then had to get my own lawyer to send a letter and contact the rep myself (multiple times) and go pick up my keys at their home in order to get my keys returned. Now, they are yet again threatening legal and credit action to me if I don’t pay them, despite this issue already being resolved through my lawyer (and it not being an actual breach of contract). I want them to stop contacting me and threatening to contact the credit bureau since I owe them no money.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/02/2025

  Dear Ms. ******, 
  
  We acknowledge your concerns regarding the disputed balance and the prior communication of this matter. After review, we confirm that you will not receive any further communication from our collections team regarding this issue.
  
  Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. 
  
  Regards, 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:14/01/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  *** ********* leasing agent and licensed realtor contacted me in response to my marketplace listing of an apartment gor lease. He claimed he has prospect A++ tenants lined up and he can place them in my apartment and do all backround checks etc.
  He offered to sign a no obligation contract for 15 days to give it a try, with Royal York Property Management. He didn’t explain the terms and clauses and payment structure of the contract.
  After I signed it, I read it and decided to cancel, and gave a written notice within 10 days.
  Immedeatly I started to receive calls and emails demanding a payment even though no service was performed. They did present me with a lease offer that I was pressured to accept, however I decided to cancel because I’ve seen red flags with the applicants info, references as well as I familiarized myself with contract I signed. Here are some examples of the ********* contact clauses that were not mentioned at signing.
  1. the contract is for 15 business days no 15 days
  2. regardless if the tenant is placed or not the company still gets paid
  3. HST is not included in 1 month rent fee
  4. tenant replacement if the tenant left before 12 month lease term is not included. *** verbally assured me it is included. then later told me it is not.
  5. The company does not recognize and accept 10 day cooling off period cancellation written notice that applies as per Consumer Protection Act.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/02/2025

  It’s understandable that navigating lease agreements, especially under time-sensitive conditions, can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. However, it is equally important to acknowledge that professional leasing agents, like *** *********, and companies such as Royal York Property Management (RYPM), operate within structured industry standards and legal frameworks. Let’s address the concerns raised here with logic, clarity, and fairness.
  
  The contract signed was for 15 business days, not 15 calendar days. This distinction is a standard business practice across industries. It is the responsibility of any party entering into a contractual agreement to thoroughly review the terms before signing. A leasing agent is there to facilitate a deal, but ultimate due diligence rests with the property owner.
  
  Additionally, the contract was presented as "no obligation" in terms of long-term commitment—not as a free trial. RYPM, like any service provider, expects to be compensated for its efforts, whether or not the owner ultimately decides to proceed with the lease.
  
  Real estate and leasing services require upfront investment in marketing, tenant screening, background checks, and administrative coordination—all of which come at a cost to the management company. The fee structure outlined in the agreement ensures that RYPM is compensated for the work undertaken, irrespective of whether the property owner ultimately accepts the tenant. The agent does not "force" a landlord to accept any tenant but presents qualified candidates based on pre-established standards.
  
  The claim that the leasing agent “pressured” the owner into accepting a tenant contradicts the fundamental nature of how leasing agents operate. A leasing agent can present options and recommend a tenant based on screening, but ultimately, the decision to lease is at the owner’s sole discretion. If the owner saw “red flags” and declined the lease, that is within their rights—but it does not negate the work already performed by the agent in sourcing the tenant.
  
  Furthermore, if the owner had concerns about the contract, they should have raised them before signing—not after agreeing and then seeking to void the terms post-factum. Contracts exist precisely to establish clear expectations for both parties and prevent last-minute reversals that waste time, money, and effort.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/02/2025

  
  
  I am rejecting this response because: RYPM uses predatory tactics to get potential clients to sign the contract verbally saying one thing but it turns out to be something else, for example does not specify business or calendar days, demanding payment for service when no service was provided, not honoring 10 day cool off period as per consumer protection act of ontario, written notice of cancelation was given. 

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

  Business Response

  Date: 10/02/2025

  Dear BBB and Mr. *******, 
  
  The claims made by Mr. ******* are not only misleading but also fail to withstand legal and factual scrutiny. In the interest of transparency and truth, we categorically refute these allegations and provide the following response:
  
  The assertion that Royal York Property Management (RYPM) engages in verbal misrepresentation is unsubstantiated. Our contracts are meticulously detailed, written in clear terms, and provided to clients for signing. Ontario contract law is explicit: verbal agreements do not supersede a signed, legally binding contract. If a party willingly signs an agreement after reviewing its contents, they are bound by its terms. Any claim of verbal misrepresentation is legally insufficient unless supported by concrete evidence, which has not been presented.
  
  Under contract law, the obligation to pay arises from the contractual agreement, not subjective interpretations of service delivery. If a client engages RYPM’s services and subsequently attempts to cancel after work has commenced, fees for services rendered remain legally enforceable. Furthermore, if any dispute existed regarding service delivery, the proper avenue for resolution would be through arbitration or the Ontario Small Claims Court—not baseless online accusations.
  
  A client’s submission of a written cancellation notice does not automatically nullify contractual obligations. Cancellation terms are governed by the signed contract, and any financial obligations remain enforceable unless the contract explicitly states otherwise.
  
  RYPM adheres strictly to lawful business practices, contractual integrity, and regulatory compliance. Mr. *******’s claims are demonstrably inaccurate and appear to be a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize our business operations. Misrepresentations such as these are not only damaging but legally questionable, potentially constituting defamation under Ontario law if made with intent to harm our reputation without factual basis.
  
  We encourage clients to approach contractual matters with due diligence, ensuring they fully understand their obligations before entering into agreements. For those with genuine concerns, we always welcome open and professional dialogue rather than baseless public allegations.
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/02/2025

  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  

  If it is 15 calendar days then the agent should say so if the contract is for 15 business days then he should also clearly say that. 

  if you charge your fee regardless if you find a tenant or not then agent should say that instead of saying just give it atry for 15 days.

  you are right written and signed contract always supercedes anything verbal, that is why after I read it and realized that I was mislead by the agent and predatory tactics of RYPM, I gave a written cancelation notice as per consumers protection act of ontario. I do not need to go to small claims court as your company does not owe me anything nor provided any service only wasted my time. but I will not waste my time and will not try to go after you for that. goodbye

  
  
  **** *******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:25/12/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I advertised my place for rent in August 2024.
  One of the agents from Royal York property management reached out to me to rent the place on behalf of me.
  The agent reached out to me multiple them then there was a manager call ***** reached out to me and kept insisting me to list with them.
  I told them I want $3600 as you guys will charge me a month of rent. He said give us 10days and let’s list for $3400. If we rent it you pay us and if we can’t rent it you don’t pay us.
  Till now they are unable to find me a tenant who could pay my asking price and everytime they bring me $3000 or $3100 rent offers and they I told them I can get that rent by just advertising it on social platforms why I need you guys for this and then pay you a month rent on top. Validatity of the contract was only 10days and I clearly told ***** I want $3600 a month rent or just leave it. Since then they kept sending me email about viewing and I kept calling them and no one was available to speak apart from call centre people who said the person is in the meeting or not in the office we will leave a message and they will call you back but nobody is ready to take responsibility. Finally in December I told them I don’t want you guys to show my property anymore. They sent me an invoice of $3898. And claiming that I’m in breach of a contract. As I signed the contract and I’m liable to pay these charges. This business never mentioned anything about these charges and now they are ********* me with these stress emails claiming I owe them this much money and this a legal notice under section so and so.

  Business Response

  Date: 12/02/2025

  We deny the claims made in your communication. Our records show that we followed the agreed terms of the contract, and all actions taken were in accordance with what was outlined.
  
  To clarify, our records show that we acted in accordance with the terms of the agreement you signed. Our team worked diligently to market the property and bring potential tenants, as outlined in the contract. The offers presented were consistent with current market conditions, and you were made aware of these efforts.
  
  Additionally, all communications regarding property showings and updates were handled in the normal course of business. There is no record indicating that our team failed to respond to your inquiries or that we did not follow up as expected.
  
  Regarding the invoice, the charges reflect the services provided in line with the terms of the agreement. The contract clearly outlines your obligations, and the payment is a result of the services rendered during the term of the contract.
  
  We stand by our position that all actions taken were within the scope of the agreed-upon terms. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the facts or the contract.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/02/2025

  I am rejecting this response because:

  They never mentioned about ongoing of the contract at the time of signing.

  According to the person who called me the contract was only valid for 6 days and the reason that contrcat was signed as they already had a tenant for the property ready and upon signing the contract they will proceed with other requirements. 

  They never mentioned i will be on an ongoing contract. The information was never mentioned at the time of sigining. They pushed me to sign the contract by saying they have a tenant ready and i have there emails mentioning "my tenants are interested".

  It was never mentioned that i will pay them a fees even upon not accepting there offer of $3100 when originally the rep told me they will get me $3600.

  It's all unethical and inappropriate representation of offer and businesses and trying to take unreasonable charges. They own me money as my house is still vacant since August and they are suppose to pay me for wasting my time.

  The fees they are asking me to pay is absurd charges and each and everything they did is strategically planned to rob people like me in such situations. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  ******* ***** ****

  Business Response

  Date: 13/02/2025

  RYPM stands by its previous response and categorically denies the allegations raised in your complaint. The facts remain unchanged: you entered into a legally binding agreement, and RYPM has fully complied with its contractual obligations.
  At the time of signing, the terms of the agreement were clearly outlined, including the duration and scope of services. There is no basis for the claim that the contract was only valid for six days, nor is there any evidence to support the allegation that RYPM misrepresented the agreement. You were provided with all necessary documentation before signing, and any assertions to the contrary are demonstrably false.
  Our records indicate that RYPM actively marketed your property, arranged multiple showings, and presented offers consistent with market conditions. You were never guaranteed a tenant at $3,600 per month, nor was there any commitment that a specific tenant had already been secured. The contract explicitly states that offers are subject to market conditions and that RYPM’s obligations are fulfilled when tenants are sourced and presented to the property owner. Rejecting offers does not negate your contractual obligation to pay for the services rendered.
  The invoice issued reflects the agreed-upon fees for the work completed under the contract. Your claim that RYPM “owes” you money is entirely without merit. You voluntarily entered into an agreement, and our team upheld its responsibilities. Your dissatisfaction with market conditions or the offers received does not exempt you from fulfilling your financial obligations under the contract.
  RYPM has acted in good faith at every stage and rejects any unfounded accusations of unethical conduct. This matter is now closed from our end. Further attempts to misrepresent the facts will not change the contractual terms to which you agreed. If you choose not to settle the outstanding invoice, RYPM will proceed with the appropriate legal action to enforce the terms of the agreement.
  This concludes our response. No further communication will be entertained.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:24/07/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  *** ******** **** ***** **** ******** ********** **** ******** ** **** * ***** ****** ** *********** *** **** ** ***** *** *** ******
  
  $2,400 rental home. They asked us for the deposit, so we sent the $750. They asked us for a lot of documentation employment letters, 11 paystubs, passports, driver's licenses, vehicle ownership, and 90 days of bank statements. Then they demanded a 3rd month of rent upfront, and they wanted us to sign a form we noticed the form didn't mention the 3rd month we had them revise it, and we signed.
  
  We were asked to begin getting utilities set up so we did, ************ we were unable to set up water or electricity for unknown reasons (later we learned the electricity was already in someone else's name and the landlord needed to sign the water into our name yet Royal York didn't know how to proceed.)
  
  They asked for a Key Deposit and a "Verification" Fee.
  
  Then we got the lease after reading it over we did not like the 5 pages of additional terms they demanded, ***** ******** **** ** *** ***** ** ********** We tried to negotiate, and they pointed us to the terms of the original form that we signed when we started, which stated that we must comply and sign the lease under any circumstances and that they would keep all our money if we breached the contract. (Failing to set up the utilities in time for move-in would breach it).
  
  They resent the original form to us revised back to only 2 months, now with our signatures on it. We decided to not sign the lease and asked for our money back, they refused to repay any of the money even after saying they would give some back.
  
  **** ****** ** **** ** *** **** ***** ********** ******* * ******* ********* * ********* ***** *** **** * ********** ***** ******* * *** ******* ******* * * ************** ***

  Business Response

  Date: 12/02/2025

  The complainant voluntarily entered into the leasing process with RYPM, providing the required deposit to secure an application. Standard leasing procedures include verifying a tenant’s financial stability through documentation such as employment letters, pay stubs, identification, and bank statements, which were all requested as part of the normal process. The claim that this was excessive or unusual is misleading, as these are industry-standard requirements for tenant approval.
  After proceeding with the application, the complainant agreed to specific financial terms, including the requirement for an additional rent payment. They later objected to the lease’s additional terms despite these being outlined in the initial agreement. When they attempted to negotiate the lease, they were reminded of the contractual obligation they had already agreed to, including compliance with the lease terms upon approval. Their failure to set up utilities or finalize the lease does not entitle them to a refund, as these were responsibilities they were required to fulfill.
  ***** ***** **** **** ******* ***** ***** ** ******** *****. They willingly entered the process, consented to the terms, and failed to complete their obligations. Funds were rightfully retained in accordance with the agreement they signed. RYPM denies any wrongdoing and stands by its policies, which were followed properly in this case. The complainant’s allegations are an attempt to shift blame for their own failure to adhere to the agreed terms.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/02/2025

  
  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  ****** ******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:29/05/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

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

  Paid first and last months rent plus an extra month and a half.
  They wanted over 10 documents to be submitted in 3 days time. Submitted all documents and they asked for more documents. I have to personal bank accounts one in the United States and one Canadian. They asked for statements from both then took information from one and said I was ******* because it didn’t equate 10k, although if looked at both it equaled. ********* **** ******* * *** ******* *** **** ** ***** *********** **** ******* **** ****** *** ** ** **** **** ***** ** ***** **** ***** ** ***** *** **** *** ****** ** ***** ** **** ****** ** ********** * ****** **** ***** *** *** ***** ****** * *** ** ******** **** *** ********** ******* **** **** ***** *** ** *** **** ****** 

  Business Response

  Date: 14/06/2024

  Dear *****
  
  During the tenant screening process, you were required to provide proof of income and other necessary documentation. Unfortunately, the documents you submitted were insufficient.
  
  Specifically:
  
  1. Income Verification:
  
  Tenant 1 claimed to earn $8,000 monthly but failed to provide adequate proof of this income.
  Tenant 2 stated they earned $7,000 monthly but could only provide paystubs that did not substantiate their claim. Additionally, they mentioned being paid in cash, but did not provide any further verifiable proof of income.
  
  2.Business License:
  
  The business license provided was not a formal document but rather a simple letter, which did not meet our verification standards.
  Given these circumstances, the owner expressed concern about proceeding with your application. The owner has had a tenant for 15 years and was looking for a more stable and verified tenant profile.
  
  We strive to ensure that all tenants meet our stringent screening criteria to provide a secure and reliable living environment. We regret any inconvenience caused and are committed to maintaining transparency and fairness in our processes.
  
  Sincerely,
  The Team at Royal York Property Management

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/05/2024

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I ** * ******** ***** *** signed a contract with Royal York Propery Management (RYPM) to manage my condo **** * ******. Under the contract, I agreed to pay $29 plus tax monthly for management fees. Since August 2023, RYPM has been unable to provide me invoices in a timely fashion. Invoices either are never delivered to me or are delivered to me after the due date. **** **** **** ** * ****** ** ****** ** ** ******** ******* ********** ***. As a client, I should expect to receive invoices before the due date so that I can pay the invoice. If I do not receive the invoice in time, I should not be penalized for not paying the invoice in time. ** ********* *** ********* ******* ******** ** ******* ** ***********. In December, ** ****** reported a cracked window. RYPM immediately billed me $170 plus tax. When I inquired if since the window is part of the exterior envelope of the building and if the condo corporation should be responsible for repairs, the answer I received was "You have to figure that out yourself." If I am doing the work to investigate damage and repairs, why am I paying a management fee to RYPM?
  
  Furthermore, I was charged an ********* "tenant finding fee". While I was properly billed $2150 plus tax for a tenant finding fee, I was charged again for $253.10 plus tax and RYPM has not been able to provide an ********** explanation nor refund me for the amount.
  
  Finally, RYPM has been ************ slow in responding to any inquiries, often taking several days or weeks to respond to my inquires. In one ********* example, I inquired about repairs to a plumbing issue ** ****** *** ******** in Dec 2023. To date, I have not received a response from RYPM. Rather, I received confirmation directly from ** ****** that the issue was resolved.
  
  I am happy to provide documentation to support my claims upon request. Please contact me at your convenience.

  Business Response

  Date: 20/05/2024

  Dear Mr. *****,
  
  Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced and appreciate the opportunity to address your complaints.
  
  Firstly, regarding the management fee, as per our agreement, your monthly fee is $59, which is discounted to $29 if your account remains in good standing. The payments are due by the 15th of each month, clearly outlined in section 10.02 and 10.03 Residential Management Agreement that you have signed. See reference below for your convenience.
  
  10.02  The Owner is responsible for paying a monthly management fee of $59 per individual unit for the "RYPM Services" in the Property. This fee will commence in the first month from the Effective Date on this agreement and is due on the 15th of each month. Alternatively, RYPM is authorized to deduct the fee from the retainer and remit payment to itself.
  
  10.03  If on the first (1st) of the month the Owner maintains their account in good standing, which shall mean that they do not have a negative, outstanding or overdue balance for any and all amounts owed to ''RYPM'' (under this contract and any others as between the parties), the Owner shall be entitled to the deduction of the Standard Management Fee of $30.00. For the sake of clarity, in any month where the owner complies with the terms of this section and the other requirements under this Agreement, their Management Fee shall be $29 (the “Discounted Management Fee”).
  
  Unfortunately, the payments were not received on time, resulting in the standard fee being applied. To assist you better, we have given you beta access to our Owner Portal on April 15th, enabling you to view your account balance and outstanding amounts live.
  
  Regarding the cracked window issue. We received the request from *** ****** on August 2nd, 2023 and immediately notified you via email the same day. You replied with approval the same day. Only after receiving your approval, we then scheduled a technician to arrive at the property. While we billed you for the repair, the responsibility for determining if the condo corporation should cover the repair rests with the owner.
  
  You are paying Royal York Property Management for the Silver Property Management package which includes the following:
  
  1. 24/7 - 365 Maintenance
  2. Discounted Maintenance
  3. Online Portals
  4. Lease Renewal
  
  Regarding the "********* tenant finding fee". See the breakdown of our Tenant Placement Fee's located on your Tenant Placement Agreement in section 2.02 below:
  
  2.02   The Owner agrees to pay RYPM a one-time setup fee of ninety-nine dollars and a rental fee equal to one month’s rent, in each case plus HST, upon: (i) receiving a signed Offer to Lease that is within five percent of the Listing Price stipulated on page one of this Agreement and otherwise is on terms and conditions which comply with the requirements set out in this Agreement; or (ii)termination of this Agreement by the Owner during the Term; or (iii) upon the Owner breaching any term of this Agreement.
  
  In your case for this property the fee was $2150 + 99 + HST = $2541.37
  The additional charge of $253.10 was carried over from your previous invoice that was unpaid and charged on the statement. 
  
  If you believe this is in error, please provide any supporting documents . 
  
  Lastly, concerning the plumbing issue, we apologize for the lack of communication from our side. We are glad the issue was resolved, but we acknowledge the need for better coordination and timely updates.
  
  We are open from 9 AM to 5 PM at any of our 17 office locations to service you. Additionally, we are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for customer care over the phone or via email at ******************. We hope to resolve these issues to your satisfaction and restore your confidence in our services.
  
  Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Royal York Property Management

  Customer Answer

  Date: 22/05/2024

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

  
  "Firstly, regarding the management fee, as per our agreement, your monthly fee is $59, which is discounted to $29 if your account remains in good standing. The payments are due by the 15th of each month, clearly outlined in section 10.02 and 10.03 Residential Management Agreement that you have signed. See reference below for your convenience."

  Response:

  
  As I am not invoiced in a timely manner, I do not have the opportunity to make a payment in time. ******* ************** ** ********* ** *********** ** ********** ** ***** ******** ******* ********** **** **** ******** ** * ****** *****. As the customer, I rely on timely and predictable invoice reconciliation to make my payments on time. 
  Further, **** had promised to send me monthly invoices *********** **, but I have yet to receive any invoice for the year of 2024. Up until May 2023, I was receiving monthly invoices. It is reasonable, as a customer, to expect that invoices be emailed to me on a monthly basis so that accounts can be reconciled. 

  
  In none of my communications with **** or ****, did they mention to me that monthly invoices would cease nor remind me that payments are due on the 15th of each month. This ought to be an obvious courtesy if the customer is expressing dissatisfaction with the billing process. If there is a major change in operating procedures, it would be a standard business practice to notify customers of this change. **** and **** did not notify me of these changes. 

  
  As outlined by **** in ********** *, he had knowledge of the accounting system shortfall and yet Royal York has done nothing to correct the situation to ensure that customers are receiving timely invoices.
  

  "Unfortunately, the payments were not received on time, resulting in the standard fee being applied. To assist you better, we have given you beta access to our Owner Portal on April 15th, enabling you to view your account balance and outstanding amounts live."

  Response:

  
  The confusion over missed invoices began in December 2023, and yet, it wasn’t until April 2024 when I was informed there was an owners’ portal. ** ****** ** *** ***** **** *** ****** *** ** **** ** **** ** ** ******** ********** * *********** **** *** ****** ** ****** ************ *** ****** ***** ** ** *** **** ********** **** *******. In the hypothetical situation that I am billed $500 for a repair on the last day of the billing cycle, it would be impossible for me to determine if the fee posts on the current billing cycle or the next. Again, this prohibits owners from paying their accounts owing in time.

  
  "In your case for this property the fee was $2150 + 99 + HST = $2541.37
  The additional charge of $253.10 was carried over from your previous invoice that was unpaid and charged on the statement."

  Reponse:

  
  Royal York has never provided me with the previous invoice for me to reconcile this claim.

  
  "Regarding the cracked window issue. We received the request from *** ****** on August 2nd, 2023 and immediately notified you via email the same day. You replied with approval the same day. Only after receiving your approval, we then scheduled a technician to arrive at the property. "

  Respone:

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

  
  "While we billed you for the repair, the responsibility for determining if the condo corporation should cover the repair rests with the owner."
  
  If Royal York is aware that the responsibility for determining if the condo corporation should cover the repair rests with the owner, then there was no reason to bill the owner in the first place. **** ** ******** **** ***** **** ** ****** ** ******* ** **** ***** **** *** ***** ******* ********* ****. As a property manager, knowing that exterior features are the responsibility of the condo corporation should be fundamental, essential knowledge. Rather than immediately billing me for “repairs”, the response should have been to inform me that I need to contact the condo board.

  
  To add additional evidence that Royal York record keeping practices are *************, I recently inquired about the installation of a lock box, for which I was charged $99 as a one-time set up fee. According to ****, there is no photo evidence that the lock box was installed. There is a lock box in the stairwell; however, the combination that **** shared with me does not work. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the lock box in the stairwell does not belong to my unit, a lock box was never installed and that I was charged $99 fraudulently, and/or Royal York has lost the combination. There is supposedly a set of keys in the box, even though *** ****** told me that she received both sets of keys with the building concierge on the move-in date.

  
  I will accept one of two possible resolutions:

  
  Royal York can correct the monthly management fees to the agree-upon $29/month
  Or
  We can mutually part ways and Royal York can return the last month’s rent deposit to me and we cease business relations.
  
  

  
  
  
  
  ***** *****

  Business Response

  Date: 29/05/2024

  
  Thank you for your detailed response and for bringing these issues to our attention. At Royal York Property Management, we are committed to providing transparent and efficient service, and we regret any inconvenience you have experienced.
  
  Upon reviewing your case, we acknowledge the difficulties you have faced with invoice delivery and reconciliation. We sincerely apologize for the oversight in communication regarding the changes in our billing processes and for any confusion caused by our Owner Portal.
  
  We understand the importance of reliable and timely communication, and we are taking immediate steps to address the issues you've highlighted. Our team is actively working to enhance our accounting systems to ensure that all clients receive accurate and prompt invoices.
  
  Regarding the cracked window and lock box incidents, we appreciate your patience as we investigate these matters further. It is crucial for us to maintain accurate records and to provide correct information and charges. We will review these specific cases and make any necessary corrections.
  
  In light of your experiences and to demonstrate our commitment to client satisfaction, we respect your decision to seek a resolution. We see that your file is now closed, and you have elected to terminate your contract with us. In an effort to resolve this matter amicably, we are willing to proceed with your first option:
  
  Royal York will adjust the monthly management fees to the agreed-upon rate of $29/month.
  
  We value your business and hope this resolution is satisfactory. Should you have any further questions or require additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our customer service team.
  
  Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to rectify these issues. We look forward to serving you better in the future.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Customer Relations
  
  
  Royal York Property Management

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/06/2024

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

   

  This is the first time my cancellation request has been acknowledged. Kindly confirm that Royal York will honour the cancellation terms ** ******** ** ** ***** **********, that for the reasons you have outlined in your response, Royal York failed to meet its commitments to me as a client and managing my property, and therefore should waive termination penalities which includes the return of the last month's rent of $2150.
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  ***** *****