Complaint Letter FedEx'd to Senior Officers of Home Properties, Inc. HQ

Do Senior Operating Officers of Home Properties, Inc. know the caliber or quality of individuals they employ to manage the properties that make up its decentralized structure? The letter below is a copy of my first official piece of correspondence sent to Home Properties, Inc., HQ, in Rochester, NY. This 9-page letter was sent to three of the top operating officers of the company. So far, no response has been given. Staying optimistic and hopeful of receiving an adequate response. If no responses are received, counter measures will be employed. All I ask for is a little customer service and respect. I think we deserve it.


April 6, 2009


D.C. & C.B.
Unhappy Residents of Penthouse Suite
4801 Kenmore Avenue, #1303
Alexandria, VA 22304

Edward Pettinella, President, Chief Executive Officer
Home Properties, Inc.
Corporate Office
850 Clinton Square
Rochester, NY 14604

Dear Mr. Pettinella:

D.C. and I, C. B., have been residents of the Seminary Towers property, in Alexandria, VA, since July 7, 2007 when we contracted to occupy its sole penthouse unit. Since that time, we have occupied the highest revenue-generating unit within the Seminary Towers property paying a monthly base rent upward of $2,300 ($2,336.00 exactly) notwithstanding the exorbitant fees related to water, heat, and sewage. This translates to an aggregate total exceeding $50,000 in less than a 2-year timeframe.

During our tenure at Seminary Towers, we have encountered numerous defects, some of which I would categorize as being typical of any residential rental community and some that I consider completely unacceptable. While a number of these defects are, in and of themselves, ordinary in nature, the illogical responses of the management team/ property manager have exacerbated these issues to the point of absolute absurdity. Irrational behavior exhibited, primarily by the property manager, has us counting down the days until we can vacate the space that we’ve made our home since July of 2007. Overall, the general staff of Seminary Towers is wonderful. The staff employed to operate the 24-hour concierge desk of building 4801 are courteous and very obliging. The maintenance and ground crews are also pleasant in nature. It would even suffice to say that with the exception of having tolerated the flippant and discourteous nature of the property manager and a few incidences involving certain members of the leasing staff, we have enjoyed our tenure at Seminary Towers.

I am writing to you to express my absolute indignation and frustration over the heinously inept and inappropriate manner in which S.M., Seminary Towers’ Property Manager, administers the overall resident relations / property management process. Mr. S.M. is significantly overdue for a crash course in Customer Service. On numerous occasions, he has regarded me and my residential concerns/ affairs with blatant disdain and disregard. Mr. S.M. has reliably governed resident concerns with a nonchalance that can, categorically, be described as indifference or disinterest. He lacks the appropriate aptitude, decorum, cordiality, and general respect for residents that is required of a Residential Services professional. In all honesty, I do not believe he considers his role as a customer service position.

Judging by his attitude, he does not feel obligated by any sense of duty or responsibility to the tenants of Seminary Towers. He trivializes legitimate concerns of residents. Instead, he embraces a demeanor that reeks of condescension and patronization. I consistently find him to be on a proverbial power trip with a tactless temperament encumbered by a quality of general uselessness.

Upon initial consideration of leasing the penthouse unit, located at 4801 Kenmore Avenue, we were informed by leasing consultants Ms. N.E. and Ms. A.B., that Seminary Towers had only one penthouse suite and that no floor plans or pictures were available for our examination. Concerned with the details of the space configuration and general layout of the potential living space and, equally, being unable to receive any concrete information on the unit, we telephoned and visited the leasing office several times. On different occasions, we came into contact with both N.E. & A.B. urging them to inquire on the possibility of the current residents allowing us a tour of the space in order to attain an indication of what we were leasing.

We were repeatedly told that this was an atypical request, and that it was not in accordance with company policies to allow potential or future residents to infringe upon current residents in that manner. Nevertheless, we persisted with our request. The perpetual urging of this matter continual due to the fact that we had been given nothing on which to base our decisions. Had the leasing consultants been able to provide us with an accurate floor plan in lieu of a tour, it would have sufficed. Absent that, the leasing consultants informed us that they would confer with the property manager, S.M., regarding our request and would contact us with a response. We received a call the next day stating that our request to view the penthouse unit had been denied by their manager. We were, subsequently, shown (by A.B.) two separate units -- a small two bedroom unit and a large one bedroom unit -- and were constructively instructed to “envision the two units forged together with an elongated dining/living room space”. Disappointed by the lack of information available on the Penthouse unit, but enthused by the prospect of living in the well-groomed community, we acquiesced and leased the unit. During the lease signing, a particular clause caught our attention and we immediately addressed it with A.B. and N.E..

The contract clause “Entering the Apartment” read as follows:

“We may enter your Apartment in order to make repairs or inspect or to show the Apartment to possible or actual purchasers, mortgage lenders, possible future residents, appraisers, workmen, or contractors. We do respect your privacy and will attempt to notify you before entering your Apartment,, except in cases of emergency. We may enter the Apartment at any time at our sole discretion, in case of emergency. You acknowledge that in some cases we will need to enter your apartment to handle an emergency or make ordinary repairs to another apartment or part of the building in which the Apartment is located. If you contacted us to request a repair, then we are not required to notify you of our responding service call.”

According to this clause, it would have been permissible to grant us access to tour the penthouse unit, especially since we were signing a lease. We found no comfort in signing a lease with a clause obligating us to a courtesy that had not been granted to us. Based on our pre-lease experience, we asked to have the clause removed from the lease prior to providing our signatures. We were told by A.B. and N.E. that the clause was part of a standard lease contract and that the clause had been included in the lease of the unit’s current residents as well. We were informed that despite the existence of the clause, that resident privacy and comfort were highly regarded. The leasing consultants further assured us that we, as residents, would be afforded the exact same treatment, safeguards, and respect. Against our better judgment we believed what we were told and signed the lease agreement containing the contract clause as stated above.

Upon issuance of our official Notice of Intent to Vacate at the beginning of March 2009; we began to prepare for our move. We brought boxes home and were preparing our items for storage. Items were taken out of their usual places, some very expensive in nature (jewelry and other items of a size that would maximize portability), and placed on countertops, tabletops, dressers, etc. lending a disheveled impression and a general state of upheaval. On March 27, 2009, we received a voicemail message, from Mr. S.M., on our home phone. He indicated that he has brought people into our home and allowed them to have a walk - through without our knowledge, concurrence, or consent, and that the unit had, indeed, been rented. When questioned about these actions, an unconcerned Mr. S.M. asserted that he attempted to notify us several times, during leasing office business hours, via our cell phones. He signified that in the end, being unable to reach us, he’d conceded defeat. Mr. S.M. then issued an executive order, and subsequently, decided to show our apartment without obtaining our acknowledgement or consent.

First, I want to assert that albeit the clause for “Entering the Apartment” exists within the lease, it should be carefully and thoughtfully exercised as there is also an inherent and reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s own home. It may be only “business” to Mr. S.M., as he so frequently verbalizes, but it is our home, our child’s home. As property manager, it is important that Mr. S.M. be able to make that distinction. I reiterate -- there is a reasonable expectation of privacy within your home. The categorical factor of whether that home is leased or owned is mutually exclusive of that expectation. I don’t think a person exists that would argue the fact that it would be undesirable to awaken, in your bedroom, to find a Home Properties Inc.’s staff member standing alongside your bed while you’re in your pajamas. Well, that’s how we’ve been made to feel. Furthermore, if we are speaking in technicalities, that very action I have just described is allowable under the lease we have signed. Mr. S.M., being only concerned about what is legally allowed, would be the man to execute that action while denying any inconvenience was imposed upon the residents in question. I don’t know how much money Mr. S.M. pays monthly to reside next door, however, we pay quite a bit. Some courtesy and respect is not too much to expect from our property manager.

As I have already stated, this has much less to do with legal ramifications of the actions executed, by him on your behalf, than it does with common courtesy, respect, and equitable treatment of residents -- as people first and as residents second:

Problem#1 – Inadequate Attempt at a Proper Notification

I assert that Due Diligence was not performed in obtaining our acknowledgement, preferences, or comments regarding showing our unit. Calling our cell phones during leasing office business hours is not an effective method of contact. Both, D.C. and I, work within secured facilities, which Mr. S.M. is aware of, and are unable to communicate effectively via cell phone during the day. Additionally, D.C. has been experiencing difficulties with his service provider for over a month and can substantiate it. Mr. S.M. claims to have contacted me via my cell phone. However, I neither received the call nor any voicemail messages from Mr. S.M.. I’d think I would remember a message regarding opening our home to the general public. His claim of leaving 2 messages on D.C.’s cell phone was eventually substantiated when he was finally able to retrieve his messages. I’ve had no difficulties with my cell phone or my cell phone provider. Yet, I received no phone call or voicemail message from Mr. S.M.. I am the primary resident on our lease. D.C. is the secondary resident. Still, I received no voicemail message from Mr. S.M.. If we were one day late with our rent, we would have received numerous notices under the door jamb and in our mailbox. We received not one notice. If the maintenance crew were going to spray for bugs, we would have received an advance notice on our door stipulating the date and time the service would occur. If repairs were to be made to our home, we would have received a notice under our door. The property manager, S.M. , occupies the unit right next door to our unit. He must pass our door, at the very least, every morning and evening. However, he just could not find a way to append a note to our door or even leave a note with the 24-hour concierge.

Naturally, these actions, or lack thereof, indicate to me that the leasing office staff did remember the behemoth of a hard time they gave us over viewing the apartment and, furthermore, surmised that we would object to the notion of a public showing. We still have over a month left on our lease. Even more time remained on the lease at the time the apartment was shown without our knowledge/ consent. That being said, I would hardly classify the need to show our apartment as such an urgent and compelling emergency that it couldn’t have waited until he had touched base with us.

Problem#2 – Inequitable Treatment of Residents

When D.C. and I initially leased our unit, we were not given as much as a sketch of the rooms’ dimensions. Mr. S.M. did not authorize us to view the apartment. A.B., who was primarily the consultant that D.C. and I worked with, indicated numerous times that she’d conferred with her manager and that we were not to be allowed inside of the apartment. The spiel that was given to us dealt with respect for resident privacy. The leasing office persisted in banning us from the unit claiming that we couldn’t be allowed into the space until the maintenance crew had completed the cleaning. We were grudgingly allowed inside to actually see the apartment one day before we were slated to occupy the space. The residents, by that time, had long since gone.

Despite this, since we have occupied the space, we have been good about allowing people from the corporate office inside to take measurements of the room dimensions for new floor plans. So now, thanks to our sacrifices, there are floor plans available for the penthouse suite that prospective residents could refer to. This is much more than was offered to us when we were the prospective residents requesting a tour. When we were the prospective penthouse residents, the leasing office staff guarded the penthouse suite and its resident’s privacy as if they were protecting Fort Knox. Why were we denied this same treatment? We are in the process of conducting item inventory of our home to see if any valuable items were taken. Unfortunately, we have to perform this task. It is one issue for Home Properties Inc.’s staff to enter our home when we are not there. Prospective residents are nothing more than random people off of the street. No background checks have been performed. Virtually, it could be anyone including scam artists whose sole intent is to access luxury apartments looking for valuable items. After all, when you are viewing a living space, the staff member conducting the “tour” is not always in the same room with you.

If given the appropriate respect and proper courtesy of an actual notification, notwithstanding the unjust treatment, we could have at the very least ensured that our valuables were secured and private items were stored. We could even have arranged our schedules to be home at the time of showing(s). God forbid a showing be scheduled on a Saturday when residents are actually home. Mr. S.M. afforded more courtesies and respect to people who have yet to pay a dime, than to D.C. and I who’ve been residents for almost 2 years. There are a multitude of scenarios that would have produced a more acceptable outcome than the treatment we received from the property manager. The problem with Mr. S.M. is that he has no sense of propriety or respect for the comfort and privacy of others. He’s even been so crass at times as to make comments, to D.C., on discussions he’s overheard within our own bedroom, which evidently, is adjoined to a room in his unit.

D.C. and I attempted to meet with Mr. S.M. regarding our feelings of this unfair, if not unlawful, treatment. Despite any personal misgivings, D.C. and I visited Mr. S.M. in the leasing office. In an attempt to settle our differences at the base level of authority we opted to utilize a chain of command philosophy and approach. We visited Mr. S.M. in the leasing office to discuss these concerns. Predictably, Mr. S.M. was not amenable to actually performing the duties he’s committed to uphold and honestly listening to our concerns as residents. He was more interested in producing abrupt mid-sentence interruptions and providing empty promises. He asserted that he had no idea that we were denied an opportunity to access the penthouse unit when we initially signed our apartment lease. He promised to speak with A.B. and give us a call once he had spoken with her. We are still awaiting that elusive call.

Additionally, Mr. S.M. blames this whole “misunderstanding” incident on N.E., whom we barely dealt with at the time and who, consequently, was fairly new when we moved in. Also, rather conveniently, N.E. no longer works in the rental office and cannot defend herself. A.B. and S.M. are still working in the rental office and are playing a game called “Hoist all of the Blame onto the Woman who is not here to Object.”

When we finally finished with our futile attempt at explaining our experiences at Seminary Towers, Mr. S.M. became aggressively confrontational and instructed us to proceed with filing a law suit if we felt it necessary. He made no efforts or attempts to preemptively or proactively diffuse the situation and, subsequently, encouraged us to escalate our complaints to the next level having full and unencumbered confidence that Home Properties, Inc. would support his stance and authority.

It seems that Mr. S.M. was so determined to impose his omnipotent power and influence that he assumed we were threatening litigation without that actually being the case. Had he actually listened to what we were saying, instead of calculating his next “power play” or choice set of words, he would know that while we fully understand that entering the apartment without express written consent is, technically, allowable under the leasing contract, we feel that the situation could have been managed more efficiently and would have, perhaps, produced a mutually beneficial outcome. You would be surprised at what you can get from people just by being nice. However, Mr. S.M. never made an earnest and honest attempt to confer with us. He favors dictating and executing orders to facilitating rational conversations with residents. Mr. S.M.’s actions lend credence to his belief that maltreatment of residents and staff is justified as long as his actions are in accordance with the law. That type of rogue behavior does not motivate people, increase stakeholder equity, or promote a healthy and happy living environment.

Moreover, Mr. S.M.’s actions and behavior neither align with the level of treatment afforded to our suite’s prior residents, nor is it consistent with values specified within Home Properties Inc.’s Pledge to Residents. This is the aspect that we were attempting to get Mr. S.M. to recognize and concede. Generally speaking, Mr. S.M. finds it very difficult to accept blame or fault, in whole or part, for anything at any time. He has never conceded to any shortcoming or complaint that we have issued during our residence at Seminary Towers. Furthermore, Mr. S.M. has never expressed an ounce of remorse for his actions, regret for the predicament as a result of his actions, nor above all else, has he at any time respected us, as residents, enough to actually deliver an apology for anything. His ghastly behavior goes unchecked time and again. Consequently, this has resulted in the development of a, for lack of better expression, God-complex.

Thus, I am spending non-existent time out of my schedule to write this letter to you as the officer’s of Home Properties, Inc. I, as I am sure you can relate, am a very busy woman. I do not have the time to perform this task. Nor do I relish having to fit composing this very detailed account of horrid experiences, with our property manager S.M., into that busy schedule. However, considering our latest meeting with him, D.C. and I were very concerned to say the least. So concerned, in fact, that were we allotted more time in our schedules to pursue the effort, we would personally organize complaints of other residents and staff in a formal petition for Mr. S.M.’s removal.

Problem # 3 – Improper Guidance

Another unfortunate defect experienced, as a result of the leasing/managerial staff, is that we were, for all intents and purposes, misled with regard to the amount of money associated with the water, sewage and heating bill. We were initially informed by A.B. and N.E. that the rental fee included electricity, but that we would be responsible for the water and sewage bill. The fact that the water and sewage bill also included fees for heat service (during the months the property management had the heat turned on) and the fact that the bills were not based on individual consumption rates was not disclosed at the time of lease signing. We were astonished to discover that our water, sewer, and heat service bill ranged from $85.00 – $160.00 per month during warmer months and could climb as high as $280.00 during colder months. This amount, in addition to the $2,300.00 a month in rent, is significantly different from the $50 - $60 monthly bill we were led to believe would be incurred. Concealment of this factor, whether intended or unintended, resulted in erroneous budgeting of our financial accounts.

We were even more amazed to discover that our water, sewage, and heating charges were compiled utilizing a formula based on the square footage of our living space as opposed to our actual rate of consumption. Our penthouse suite is larger in size, but, our occupancy rate is low (3 people -- two adults and a small child). Compare this factor to every other unit at Seminary Towers, the multitude of which are smaller in size, maintaining more people, and retaining an increased consumption rate. What these factors invariably translate to is that my family can vacation for a month, not use 1 ounce of water, or 1 joule of heat, and still be obliged to disburse the same exorbitant amounts of money. This is complemented by the logic that, since we occupy the penthouse suite maintaining the highest square footage, exceeding 1400 square feet, we are assured that our bill would always be at a premium. This is despite our conservative nature or any of our conservation efforts. Individual conservation efforts are useless unless the entire Seminary Towers residence community decided to make a joint collaborative effort to conserve. What are the odds of that happening? What would the incentive even be considering that D.C. and I are footing the preponderance of the damage for their higher rate of consumption? These omissions, in my opinion, were intended, fraudulent, and unacceptable.

Naturally, when I brought these facts to Mr. S.M.’s attention, although legitimate to me, were trivialized as whining and regarded with his usual disdainful mannerisms and moderate disinterest proffering no useful comments, actions, or ideas. When I phoned the rental office to raise the same issues with A.B., she responded to me by commenting that she, as a fellow resident, also had to pay the bill and, inappropriately commiserated by adding, that I was not alone. This was hardly the answer I expected receive after being deluded in such a manner. A subsequent example of Mr. S.M.’s inappropriate behavior occurred during a time when the washer/dryers were out of service on the penthouse floor for the third straight day. Of course, upon inquiring about service status for the broken machines, Mr. S.M. not only brushed me off in an abrupt manner, but, in the days after imparting me the “brush off”, proceeded to offer sparsely veiled commentary or “jokes” and acrid biting remarks about my “take charge” nature for the remainder of the year every single time he came in contact with me or D.C.. His “joking” were inclusive of everything short of calling me a bitch. His litany of sarcastic remarks made me uncertain if it was the female gender, in general, he had problems with or if it was with the entire world.

The structure of Home Properties, Inc. is decentralized in nature, so, therein lay inherent and recognizable needs for entrusting designated individuals with power and authority to act as agents on behalf of the owner(s). I am familiar with statutes governing agent authority of contract law. The law places many duties on the agent, the number and scope of which far exceed those that are placed upon an ordinary employee. I implore you to re-evaluate your decision to place this type of trust and authority into S.M.. He is an unmitigated, nonetheless, substantiated risk. I am uncertain of your investigative procedures. In the Federal Government we have the OIG (Office of the Investigator General) to investigate comparable issues. However, I request that you initiate an inquest, exercising the utmost discretion, into the management practices, of S.M., Property Manager of Seminary Towers. Please investigate demeanor and methods utilized in managing staff, residents, and the overall administration of the property. Staff members, who fear losing their jobs, would never oppose him directly. A reliable fact is that they do not like or relate to him well. Although a general consensus among the masses, tolerance of his inappropriateness exists due to the lack of other choices and a healthy fear of retaliation.

As a federal procurement and acquisitions professional, I am an entrusted agent for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I maintain full authority to contractually obligate the federal government’s time, and am a steward of the taxpayer’s dollars, your dollars. However, therein lays a major difference between the authority appointed to me, by DHS, and that vested in Mr. S.M. by the owner(s) Home Properties, Inc. The distinction is that prior to my public trust appointment, my background and lifestyle were thoroughly examined, investigated, and certified. Moreover, I have been appropriately educated, possessing two M.S. degrees in my field, and have been extensively trained to exercise “Fiduciary Responsibility” at all times and in all instances. I am bound by strict standards and laws and am accountable to the public as its trustee. I do not know what type of formal training Mr. S.M. has that qualifies him to manage a property of this magnitude. Nevertheless, I do know that he does not observe Fiduciary Responsibility or possess even a modicum of personal accountability.

These concepts appear to be either completely unknown or irrelevant to Mr. S.M.. I recognize that you are not familiar with me on a personal basis. However, considering my professional function, does it make you feel more assured, as a taxpayer, to know that I am, at the very least, acquainted with these concepts? Mr. Michel affects much more than our personal lives, our home life. Your home is supposed to be your sanctuary. This statement is clichéd, but, it is also the truth. Only, Mr. S.M. has made our home a very difficult place to live. To him, this is all done under the guise of conducting his “business”. So, justly, he asserts that we should not be offended or feel imposed upon. He does not acknowledge or recognize that this is much more than a business decision, but is personal to us. Mr. S.M. demonstrates no remorse, respect, responsibility, or personal accountability.

When a person acts as a corporate trustee, as Mr. S.M. does, there is a Fiduciary Responsibility owed to you as the principal party or owner(s). It is a relationship imposed by law whereby someone has voluntarily agreed to act in the capacity of a “caretaker” or “custodian” of another's rights, assets and/or well being. The fiduciary in this instance, Mr. S.M., has an obligation to carry out responsibilities, on behalf of the owner(s), Home Properties, Inc., with the utmost degree of good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service. The good faith attribute imposes an obligation to act reasonably in order to avoid negligent handling of the interests of Home Properties, Inc. as well the duty not to favor anyone else’s interest over that of the owner(s). THIS INCLUDES THE TRUSTEES OWN INTEREST.

By and large, it is my determination that it is in the utmost best interest of the owner(s), Home Properties, Inc., to ensure that residents are treated with fairness, honesty, and courtesy. It is also my determination that the owner(s), Home Properties, Inc., agrees with this assessment as prefaced by the Pledge to its Residents prominently displayed on the www.homeproperties.com corporate website. Due to the fact that these values have been blatantly communicated and transparently displayed; it is my further determination that Mr. S.M. is the apparent deviant or anomaly and is operating under his own auspices disguised and misrepresented as those of the owner(s), Home Properties, Inc. In actuality, Mr. S.M. does not act in good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty or undivided service with regard to residents of Seminary Towers (or to Home Properties Inc.’s staff members – I have personally observed the manner in which staff regard him. However, it is not my intent to labor or argue that particular point at this time).

Having agent authority for Home Properties, Inc., Mr. S.M. is also bound by a duty not to favor other interests, including his own, over that of the owner(s), Home Properties, Inc. He does not embrace this duty, observe it, nor does he comply with it. He demonstrated this, by casually mentioning his ownership of a two-bedroom condominium in Kingstowne, VA while inquiring upon the number of bedrooms we sought for our next residence. To clarify his intent, Mr. S.M. mentioned that the lease of the condominium’s current occupants was slated to soon expire. Of course, this was all said after prefacing the transparent offer with the clichéd disclaimer “I’m not supposed to tell you this, but…” Ironically, including the “disclaimer” is what actually indicates that Mr. S.M., deliberately and consciously, put his financial interests above that of the owner(s), Home Properties, Inc.

Due to Mr. S.M.’s profoundly unpleasant demeanor, our relationship can be described as strained and formally cordial, at best. Therefore, this information about his Kingstowne, VA condominium was not ascertained by any casual exchange of pleasantries or confidences. This information was verbally offered, by Mr. S.M., on March 9, 2009 during a visit to the leasing office to pay $400.00 on our ISTA water bill [see attached receipt] and prior to us contacting and meeting with him regarding our recent complaint(s). Thus, there is a natural concern for retaliation as a result of this “Whistleblowing” formal letter of complaint. As unfortunate the case, it does not escape our attention that Mr. S.M. does indeed hold agent authority to execute actions on behalf of Home Properties, Inc. For this reason, we must clearly notate our stance, under these circumstances, on our current situation. Our stance is that we’ve suffered more than enough indignities on behalf on Mr. S.M.. We will not suffer another bad occurrence as a result of his actions or those related to his inept administration. This includes, but is not limited to, any attempt to issue a bad reference professing that we’ve been anything less than adequate tenants. If that were to occur, we will consider personal litigation for slander. After all, why would our current property manager offer to rent us his personal two-bedroom condo in Kingstowne, VA if we we’d not been, at the very least, adequate tenants?

“Our Pledge, which was first introduced in 1995, is a written guarantee of satisfaction and a source of pride for everyone at Home Properties, Inc. Everyday, Our Pledge reminds us of the high level of trust our residents have placed in us. It inspires us to meet or exceed the needs of the people who have chosen to make their home with us. If we fail to live up to Our Pledge to your complete satisfaction, please let us know and we will refund your rent for a day.”

The italicized text above is listed on your corporate website. The very first principle of your Pledge to Residents guarantees that as residents we would be treated fairly, honestly, and courteously by a team of caring professionals. S.M. couldn’t literally care less if he tried. He embodies none of these amenable qualities nor does he adapt or employ best practices tailored around these ideals. His best practices are more likely suited to include biting remarks, sarcasm, flippancy, disrespect, and general contempt. Mr. S.M. is not, by a long shot, an asset to your company. His offensive nature, lack of sensitivity and etiquette, and insufficient customer service skills classify him as a liability.

In closing, the state of Virginia supports at-will employers. This economy dictates that better, less expensive, more knowledgeable, more efficient, more effective and better qualified individuals are available to function in the capacity of Property Manager of Seminary Towers. I am certain they would love the opportunity to prove me right. In this high-rent, Northern Virginia area, there is an increased probability that Mr. S.M. is more likely to offend a professional person, like myself, than a person who will not protest this type of treatment. I purposely did not address these concerns to members of the Home Properties, Inc. Board of Directors preferring to keep this issue contained among the operational officer’s of this company. However, as stakeholders, they deserve to have better qualified people managing this property. The residents of Seminary Towers deserve to have people that are better qualified and suited in handling their needs.

Our current lease is slated to end on 5/6/09. Surprise! -- We have decided not to renew the lease and due to the circumstances described within this letter request approval to vacate our unit by this month’s end on 4/31/09. This amounts to an early release of 6 days. If you would like to contact us directly regarding this matter, we can be reached via email during normal business hours at c.b.@dhs.gov or d.c.@###.gov. We can be reached in the evening via our home phone at (703) 751-0000.


Sincerely,

Signed C.B.
C.B.
Resident, Penthouse Suite
Seminary Towers, Alexandria, VA


I, D.C., assert that the account of the aforementioned events is factually and accurately stated to the best of my knowledge and occurred as stated above.

Signed D.C.

D.C.
Resident, Penthouse Suite
Seminary Towers, Alexandria, VA


Cc: Scott Doyle, Senior Vice President, Property Management
Lisa Critchley, Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Resident Feedback/ Resident Relations