ComplaintsforScott Properties of the Midlands, LLC & Scott Properties of Charleston, LLC

• Initial Complaint

  03/01/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Brief Timeline – 9/13/23 – 1/3/2024 • 9/13/23–10/17 – Notice of Intent to vacate given; ongoing communication with various members of the Scott Properties Team, including the break lease fee and final payment amount • October rent paid in full; vacated property 10/17 • November 28 – Break lease fee paid at Scott Properties Lexington office (check 4980 in the amount of $1,487.10) • 12/ 29 – 1/3/24 received settlement check (7433) dated 12/21/23 in the amount of $1,194.00; series of communications with Crissy C**** in response to my request for an accounting of the final amount sent. Received copy of ledger from Crissy C**** ** See attachments Based on my communication with Crissy C**** on November 27, I expected to receive a refund of the final break lease fee of the $1,482.10. My purpose is to emphasize the importance of clearly written rental contracts that are in congruence with stated procedures and practices. May this help Scott Properties in future interactions with their Tenants, who by the way, are also their customers. My recommendations: 1. 60 day notice requirement: Clarify terms of the tenant Lease, specifically, the 60 day notice requirement, particularly in the case of lease buyout. As explained to me, the lease buyout period starts with the notice of intent to vacate. In order to mitigate costs, I gave notice and vacated as quickly as possible to allow opportunities for re-renting. Should I have remained during the 60 day notice period? Would the break lease period start after that time? These terms need to be made clearer. 2. Tenant Portal – should be available to Tenant until all business is concluded. This allows for clear communications and accountability between the parties. 3. Accounting – Provide a written ledger along with the settlement check, clearly detailing calculations used in arriving at the final the settlement amount. This amount should be clearly communicated and agreed upon before the check is issued.

  

  Business response

  03/01/2024

  As Crissy explained to Genova prior to her breaking her lease agreement, the break lease fee is collected to ensure there are no gaps in income for the property owner. This is spelled out very clearly in the lease agreement signed by Genova. As we explained, once the property is rented by another tenant the buy-out is reduced to the cost of vacancy in between tenants plus the owner's advertising fee of $500.00. Scott Properties was fortunate to find another tenant fairly quickly so we were able to reduce Genova's break lease fee from $2835 to $1641 and the difference of $1194 was refunded to Genova. Unfortunately, no more money is owed, and no more money will be paid out, to Genova.

  

  Business response

  03/01/2024

  The lease buy-out clause / break lease fee reads as follows on Genova's lease.
  

  24. BUY OUT CLAUSE: In the event the Tenant cannot fulfill the Lease term obligations, the Landlord will release the Tenant provided that the Tenant satisfies all of the following conditions:

  a) Provide (60) day written notice of intention to vacate or terminate lease
  b) Pay rent and utilities through the notice period
  c) Pay a break lease fee equal to three month’s rent
  
  Furthermore, a proper 60 day notice per the lease agreement, not even a full 30 day notice, was provided to Scott Properties. Even though she did not fulfill the obligations of the buy-out clause, we proceeded to advertise property immediately in an effort to help save her some money on the lease buy-out. Once the property was re-rented, we reduced the cost and issued you a refund of $1194. The breakdown of costs and the ledger were provided to Genova.

  Customer response

  03/06/2024

  I am rejecting this response because: It is interesting to note the manner in which I was addressed (first name only) in this response from Scott Properties (SP). For me it illustrates the disrespect and absence of customer care on the part of the respondent. I hasten to add that every SP Team member with whom I conducted business – with the exception of Crissy C**** – demonstrated the utmost courtesy and professionalism. It it appears to me that my requests have been taken personally. That is why I emphasized the need to review the lease terms to better serve tenants in the future. It seems that SP is focusing on my lack of adherence to the 60 day notice. No one at SP raised this matter throughout our entire communications, and email thread makes it clear when I intended to move out. (In fact, SP wanted to begin showings before I moved out – this can be documented. Also, I left the unit in move-in ready condition.) There were also two other recommendations made that were completely ignored in the response. I did have an interest in allowing as much time for SP to rent the unit to mitigate my costs; my understanding was that SP had an interest in the same, and that we were working together for the best interest of each party. I expected that if there were any problem with me moving out when I did, SP would have raised objections at that time. As explained to me, the lease buyout period would commence upon my notice to vacate, and I took that to mean the 3 month lease buyout period commenced on October 18th. I paid the full month’s rent for October, because I resided there for part of the month. Therefore, I accepted that the 3 month lease buyout period commenced on November 1st. It was also explained to me that should the unit be rented during the 3 month lease buyout period, I would not be responsible for rent paid by the new tenant, as SP could not double charge for the unit. I proceeded with this understanding. It is clear even from these exchanges that the 60 day notice in the case of lease buyout is problematic for both SP and the tenant. And although a ledger was provided only after I requested it. Additionally, as for accounting practices, any reduction to the cost should have been made and communicated as an integral part of the process. I reiterate that Scott Properties would do well to review their lease terms, and consider making changes to better serve their customers. That would be time well spent, rather than continuing to place blame on a tenant who made every effort to comply with lease terms that lack clarity.
  
  Sincerely,
  Genova ********

  

  Business response

  03/06/2024

  I'll make one last attempt to further explain. Our lease agreements are VERY clear. If a lease is terminated prior to the lease expiration date, the tenant is required to pay a break lease fee equal to 3 months rent along with a $500 fee to remarket the property. No where in our lease agreement is there a requirement for Scott Properties to refund any of this break lease fee back to the tenants but we do it because we feel it's the right thing to do. We could have kept 100% of the break lease fee and been in compliance with Genova's signed lease agreement. The break lease fee is collected for one reason and one reason only...to make sure the property owner never has a lapse in rental income. Tenant sometimes forget that property owners have mortgage payments to make so if the property owners are ever without rental income, it puts them in a bad spot. In this case we refunded a majority of the break lease fee back to the tenant, which we weren't required to do, and no further credits will be issued.      

  Customer response

  03/06/2024

  I am rejecting this response primarily because the most recent response from Scott Properties makes any further attempts to negotiate reasonably futile. With each reply, Scott Properties adds yet ANOTHER detail, another explanation. I mistakenly thought Scott Properties had dealt fairly in this process, but once again there are new claims and differing explanations on their part. It is so disappointing because this makes it look as if Scott Properties is making up or adding new details and excuses as they go along, and uses questionable business practices. They seem to have lost sight of the reasons for this complaint: “...to emphasize the importance of clearly written rental contracts that are in congruence with stated procedures and practices, all provided with the utmost customer care”, and to provide what I thought were sensible recommendations to better serve future customers/tenants.
  There was NEVER mention of a $500.00 fee. Plus, I never disputed ANY amount that was provided as the break lease fee was being determined (and there was more than one throughout the process; However, I DID ask questions, which seems to be the triggering point for this continued dispute.) Additionally, how would a property owner lose if I paid the requisite lease buyout fee (which I did without argument), and there was another renter in the property? Are you suggesting that you are entitled to double charge?
  At the heart of the matter, it is an issue of hearing your customers (tenants), and making an honest and honorable attempt to resolve the matter. Each response seems to be an escalation of an attack on me. Please note that I chose the BBB Complaint route first rather than the Real Estate Commission in hopes that Scott Properties would be willing to look at their lease and business practices, and adapt as needed to serve ALL of their customers. Sadly, with each response Scott Properties seems to double down.
  What is the benefit or purpose in continuing this dispute? As I stated previously, this is not solely about the disputed amount.
  This is my last comment on this matter, however, I am politely requesting that the Scott Properties respondent refrain from disrespectfully referring to me by my first name only – I consider that offensive and it lacks courtesy – demonstrating a complete absence of customer care. It is Ms. ******** or Genova ******** to you.
  
  Sincerely,
  Genova ********

• Initial Complaint

  04/18/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Scott Properties managed our home from October 2018 until June 30, 2021. After the tenants moved out several areas of water and mold damage were discovered. First, the laundry room had extensive mold and water damage. I discovered that the hot water washer valve had a slow leak. The same type of damage on a smaller scale was annotated on the move out evaluation, but ****** who conducted the evaluation failed to discover the reason for the water damage. This caused extensive mold and water damage to the laundry room. In addition, there is mold and water damage to the kitchen countertop and water damage under the kitchen sink. this was not annotated on the move out inspection. In September of 2020 the tenants clogged the garbage disposal and ran the dishwasher. They failed to notice it for an unknown period of time, but the water overflowed from the sink and reached the living room carpet which is approximately 8 to ten feet away. Therefore, a good amount of water was spread. This caused damage to the kitchen countertop and under the sink. This caused mold damage to the kitchen countertop behind the sink. I communicated my concern with Scott Properties several times about water damage in September through November of 2020 and requested a company to access any water damage. I was told the affected areas were fine and I would be provided photographs, but that did not happen even after repeated requests through email. This water and mold damage was not annotated on the moveout inspection. Moreover, the tenants caused water damage to the upstairs bathroom vanity and countertop and failed to report the issue. The vanity developed mold damage due to the continued water usage. The tenants deliberately did not report this damage. Several screens for windows were materially damaged, one of which is almost completely missing. This was not annotated on the moveout inspection. I emailed the owner Scott twice about these issues with no response.

  

  Business response

  05/25/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/04/18) */ As ********* mentioned, we managed his home for a number of years but what ********* doesn't mention in his complaint is the very important timeline. The tenants moved out of ************ home on June 30, 2021. When the tenant moved out we did a move out evaluation, as we do with every home we manage, and we charged the tenant, and deducted their security deposit, for ALL tenant responsible repairs. We have emails where ********* agreed with all the repairs and we also went back at ************ request and did some additional repairs on his behalf during the month of July 2021. We didn't hear from anyone concerning this property and five months, let me repeat five months later, after the tenant moved out and five months after ********* agreed with all the repairs we completed at his home, we get an email on December 1st with a long list of additional repairs that ********* wanted done at his property. In ************ email to us he mentioned that the house sat vacant for six months after we did our move out evaluation and he requested we charge the tenant, or for Scott Properties to pay, for his additional list of issues he found four months after the tenant moved out. As required by SC Landlord Tenant Act, we are required to settle all tenant responsible repairs within 30 days of move-out. The tenants account and ************ property owner account were both closed 10 MONTHS AGO in July 2021. So in response to this BBB complaint the tenant and Scott Properties owes ********* nothing and to get a request so many months after the tenant vacated the property is pretty egregious. Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2022/04/23) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Scott Properties falsely states that I agreed to said repairs. Scott Properties conducted a home inspection in June 2021 but failed to notify me of the results. I had to contact the company on July 27th and request them to send the home inspection to me. Scott Properties falsely states that I agreed to repairs. Work was completed in the laundry area without any notification sent to me or agreement on my part. Almost a month past before I received the inspection due to the company's negligence. The company negligently failed to properly notify me and repair a leak that was in the laundry room area. They hired a painter to scrub the wall and paint it. Black mold that is embedded through the drywall originating from the inside of the wall cannot be properly repaired by scrubbing the wall with a bleach solution and painting it. The repairs I agreed to and known damages from the move out inspection were repairing the toilet handle, towel bar, replace light bulbs and clean the kitchen and bathrooms. Even though this work was completed I have to initiate and request the repairs. Scott Properties was not going to repair these damages until I requested through several emails. In addition, due to negligence the company failed to observe and report on their inspection water and mold damage caused by the tenants in the kitchen and upstairs bathroom. I live out of state which is why I hired a property management company. Due to medical reasons, I could not travel to the property after the tenants moved out. Therefore, there is no way I could know about any of the damages in the kitchen and upstairs bathroom because they were not listed. The leaking washer connection was negligently not listed either and I inquired with ****** **** on July 30th, 2022, as to the cause and I did not receive a response. Moreover, I was told that the laundry area was adequately repaired by the painter Scott Properties hired but, it was not. Upon arrival to the property, I was able to detect the leak in seconds which Scott Properties failed to do. If Scott Properties failed to observe damages caused by the tenants and report it to me, and they cannot charge the tenants by law then they are responsible for the repairs due to their negligence. Simply missing damages then closing an account does not absolve them of their responsibilities of management of the property during the time the tenant's held possession. Scott Properties placed the tenants in the home, I did not. Due to the negligence of Scott Properties and failing to adequately manage my home they are responsible for the repairs. Scott Properties failed to conduct a thorough inspection through their own negligence and missed several damages which they did not list on their inspection. In addition, there are other damages not listed that are not normal wear and tear such as two places on the kitchen counters which are stained pink. There are several pink and purple stains on the carpets which looks like from markers and a pink stain on the wood railing. All of these are more examples of Scott Properties failing to conduct any adequate move out inspection. My complaint stands and my proposal is that Scott Properties is responsible for all of the damages caused by the tenants that they negligently failed to observe and report on the move out inspection. And the damages caused due to their negligence to observe a water leak in the laundry area and to have it adequately repaired even after I inquired about the leak and was ignored. I have supporting documentation and emails to everything stated here to corroborate. Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2022/05/03) */ The repairs we did after the tenant moved out were tenant responsible repairs which do not require property owner approval because these expenses were deducted from the tenants security deposit and these repairs didn't cost the property owner any money. There was no water leak behind the wall in the laundry room when we did our move out evaluation. If a leak would have been present behind the wall at the time of the tenant move out, this would have been a property owner expense not a tenant expense. After the tenant moved out, Johnathan had a friend or relative walk the property twice with us and he also had a real estate agent walk the property after the move out....none of these people reported any of the issues in Johnathan's claim and as a result Johnathan's account was closed with Scott Properties. Johnathan sent us a picture many months after the tenant moved out, showing mildew and mold on the wall in the laundry room. This wall wasn't like this at move out PERIOD! Many people walked this property at tenant move out time, to include Johnathan's representatives, and the picture Johnathan sent showing all the mildew and mold in the laundry room wasn't like this at move out...and if it would have been, yes a leak would have been obvious and we would have asked Johnathan for the funds to do this repair on his behalf. Either way this work would have been done at Johnathan's expense. I'm not sure when the leak behind the wall started but considering the fact that that the house sat vacant for many months after we closed Johnathan's account, it wouldn't have taken long for this mildew and mold to build up...especially in a house with no one living there and no normal air circulation for many months. One other note, when the water was switched from our name to Johnathan's name it's common practice for the water company to go out and read the meter at the time of the name change or after the water is turned off and then back on. If they would have showed up at Johnathan's house to read the water meter or to turn it back on, they would have never turned water on if they saw the meter spinning / running...which would have been the case if there would have been a leak anywhere inside the house...which leads me to believe the leak happened at some point when the house was sitting vacant. Consumer Response /* (4200, 13, 2022/05/07) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Scott Properties has contradicted themselves several times. First, in their first rebuttal they stated that I agreed to all repairs which were completed. In their current response they stated I didn't need to agree to the repairs because it was the tenant's responsibility, and I didn't need to approve or agree to anything since the tenant's security deposit would cover the expense. Next, they stated there was not any mold damage at the time the tenants moved out, but their own move out inspection lists damage to the laundry area which is water damage with black mold spots; and they hired Porth Painters to repair the area. See page 11 of the attached move out inspection. As I stated prior, they failed to report water and mold damage to the kitchen and upstairs bathroom vanity along with other damages caused by the tenants. Therefore, these are damages I was unaware of until I had the opportunity to visit the property. Scott Properties falsely states that I had a representative walk the property with them and I had a real estate agent look over the house. I don't know why Scott Properties wrote that in their rebuttal because neither occurred at my property. They also state I should have known about the water drip due to the water bill and water meter readings. As a property management company, it is perplexing that they do not have a general knowledge of utilities. You pay a base price for the first 10 gallons of water use, after you are charged for the amount of water used. A small constant drip will not affect the water meter. As the hot water washing machine valve had a slow water drip, the water bill was unaffected due to the small drip. The slow constant drip was enough to cause significant damage but not affect the water bill or meter reading. I had to request the move out inspection due to the company's negligence. After receiving the inspection a month late, I saw the damage to the laundry area. On July 30, 2021 at 3:52 pm I emailed Calvin Karl who is a supervisor responsible for home inspections and repair orders asking him what was causing the water and mold damage. Calvin chose not to respond which is more evidence of the company's negligence. Scott Properties does not have a valid excuse for their negligence and failures so they are making false and untrue statements so they can distance themselves from responsibilities they had as the property manager. As a property manager it is Scott Properties responsibility to conduct a thorough move out inspection which they failed to do because they missed damages caused by the tenants which were obvious and in plain view. Next, they are responsible to hire the correct vendors to make the correct repairs which they failed to do. Hiring a painter to scrub and paint over drywall which has mold completely through is not the correct repair method. Third, as a property management company they should know with obvious water and mold damage there is a water source feeding the area to damage the area with water and mold. Not only did they fail to annotate the drip on the Inspection which was quickly and easily noticeable, and have it properly repaired, they failed to respond to my inquiry asking about the water and mold damage and the cause of it. Finally, they failed to communicate with me the findings of the move out inspection and only made additional repairs which were known to me from the inspection after I inquired. To name a few items they were not going to repair a broken toilet handle and towel rack until I emailed and requested. Scott Properties was negligent, did not properly manage the property and is responsible for their negligence and failures.

*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. ↩