When tenant vacated the premises, Johnston Property Management assessed the cleanup costs and some additional charges for the removal of a business sign. As a result, the closing charges amounted to more than the security deposit paid by the tenant when the property was first occupied. So, the property manager sent a demand letter with signature spelling out exactly what the tenant should pay for cleanup and sign removal, including instructions on preparing and mailing the payment.
However, because the sign belonged to a third party, e.G., Kumon North America, the cost of sign removal was subsequently reimbursed to the property management company by Kumon North America. When the cost of removing the sign was then deducted from the final amount demanded by the property management company, and the cost of cleanup only remained, the result was an amount of money owed back to the tenant.
When the tenant asked for a refund of the appropriate portion of the security deposit, the property manager stated that addressing this was of low priority, and claimed he did not have the paper work at hand, and so was unable to respond immediately, and so on and on.
In addition, the property manager brought up damages that had already been addressed in the initial demand letter, and for which charges had already been established for cleanup, claiming that it would likely cost even more. And so, it was implied that not only would there be no refund, but that it was probable that the property management company would demand even more money.
Regardless of the amount of money that was owed, the tenant feels that in principle, the property manager has dealt in very bad faith, to say the least.
Enough said!
0 comments