I Was Wrong, Sorry Folks -- Same Ole' Song

By - C.B.

April 25, 2009

You may officially ignore my posting entitled "Addendum to Yesterday's Posting: Satisfactory Resolution? or Never Satisfied.... It has been confirmed, Home Properties, Inc. is insensitive to residents' needs and concerns even at higher levels of management. If you've been following our Resident Complaint saga, you can probably tell that I am highly irritated at this point for good reason. The below emails detail my interaction with Beth Dixon, Regional Manager for Seminary Towers, Alexandria, VA. I find that even when attempting to have a rational conversation regarding a relevant residential complaint, Seminary Towers Management reverts to the "cover my ass" routine without lending any type of credence to your complaints. See the below email trail -- if your stomach can accept the BS it's about to digest.

On April 22, 2009 I sent Ms. Dixon the following email:

From: Seminary Towers Penthouse Resident #1
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:04 PM
To: 'Beth Dixon'
Cc: 'Penthouse Resident #2'
Subject: Seminary Towers: Lease Comparison
Importance: High

Ms. Dixon -

I apologize for not getting back with you on yesterday, as promised. I was very busy here at work and did not have the time to compose an adequate response. Below is the clause "Entering the Apartment" as detailed in the rental lease at Seminary Towers:

The Seminary Towers/ Home Properties, Inc. 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."

The Equity Residential contract clause "RIGHT TO ENTER" reads as follows:

"Subject to notice requirements imposed by applicable law, we and our employees and agents may enter the Premises during reasonable hours for inspections, maintenance, repairs and pest control procedures. We also reserve the right to enter the Premises at any time in the event of an emergency or to abate a nuisance {my comment -- (such as leaving your water running in the bathtub)}. If it is necessary for you to temporarily move out in order for us to exterminate or for other reasons, you agree to do so upon at least seven days' notice. If you are forced to move out at our request for more than one day and we do not make substitute accommodations available to you, we will abate your Total Monthly Rent for the period of time you are unable to occupy the Premises."

Upon examination and comparison of these particular two clauses (along with other's I've recently read) it is my opinion that Seminary Towers/Home Properties, Inc. property management unnecessarily imposes upon and assumes unnecessary liberties at the expense of its resident's privacy and comfort. Where the Seminary Towers lease allows virtually anyone to gain access to your home with or without resident acknowledgement or consent, other property management companies make a respectable attempt to safeguard resident privacy and rights.

What are your opinions on this? Do you recognize the glaring deficiencies? Can you see how one might prefer the treatment imposed by one clause over the other? I look forward to receiving feedback regarding this topic.

On April 23, 2009 Ms. Dixon responded with the following email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Dixon [mailto:ElizabDi@homeproperties.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:13 PM
To: Penthouse Residents
Subject: Re: Addendum: Seminary Towers - Lease Comparison

Dear Penthouse Resident #1,

As your concerns and question involve the legality of the lease language at Seminary Towers in comparison to Equity Residential's lease for its property, I felt it best to consult with our local counsel before responding to you directly, causing the delay in my reply.

Our local counsel has stated that the Virginia Landlord Tenant Act (VLTA) allows the landlord to have access to "inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen or contractors" and that the "tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit". The VLTA further states "Except in case of emergency or if it is impractical to do so, the landlord shall give the tenant notice of his intent to enter and may only enter at reasonable times. Unless impractical to do so, the landlord shall give the tenant at least 24 hours notice of routine maintenance to be performed that has not been requested by the tenant."

Therefore, the language of the Home Properties' lease for Seminary Towers does closely coincide with the language set forth in the VLTA. I cannot comment as to the specific choice of language used by Equity Residential as compared to Home Properties in regard to this particular clause.

To reiterate my conversation last week with Mr. Penthouse Resident #2, I sincerely apologize that you did not receive the voicemail messages notifying you of our intention to show your apartment home, which were left on Mr. Penthouse Resident #2's phone, prior to your apartment being shown to prospective residents. I fully empathize with your frustration in regard to this issue, and also apologize that you did not have an opportunity to view the apartment home prior to moving in.

I further regret that your experience at Seminary Towers has not been satisfactory; however, now that we have been made aware of your concerns, we are indeed looking into them.

Please do not hesitate to contact me, should you have any additional questions. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.

Sincerely,

Beth Dixon,
Regional Property Manager

Beth Dixon, CPM(r)
Regional Property Manager
Home Properties
8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 500
Vienna, VA 22182
703/370-7363 x 8510 - Phone
703/370-7368 - Fax
elizabdi@homeproperties.com

On April 23, 2009 I sent Ms. Dixon the following email:

RE: Addendum: Seminary Towers - Lease Comparison‏
From: Penthouse Resident #1(Penthouse Resident #1 @hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 4/23/09 4:17 PM
To: elizabdi@homeproperties.com
Bcc: Penthouse Resident #2

Ms. Dixon:

Thank you for your perfect response, I am offsite today and do not have access to my work email. However, Penthouse Resident#2 forwarded this to my personal email address. Because email has limitations as it relates to tone and inflection, I can only surmise that you are really attempting to empathize with us. It was not my intent to imply legal ramifications of what was done as if to elude to pursuing any legal recourse. The "applicable law" terminology used in my prior email stemmed only from the language used within other leasing clauses. I think the method chosen for execution of these types of clauses is what remains with you with little or no regard to what is actually written. Until it is executed, these words are only semantics. Had this same language been present in the lease, but not executed in the manner in which it was, it would hardly be an issue. It does not escape my attention that you have written:

"I sincerely apologize that you did not receive voicemail messages notifying you of our intention to show your apartment home, which were left on Mr. Penthouse Resident #2's phone, prior to your apartment being shown to prospective residents.

I can only read the above statement as it was meant (I think we both know what that meaning is). Thus, I believe it is my cue not to address these issues further with you. Apparently, what I have been attempting to convey has already been lost. I will lay these matters to rest and will not attempt to contact you with any of them again. Make no mistake, I do still maintain the belief that our rights as tenants were unnecessarily infringed upon and that we were the subject of inequitable treatment which is a violation of Home Properties, Inc.'s Pledge to its Residents. However, it seems that you, and everyone else apparently, seem much less concerned about that than the messages left on Penthous Resident #2's malfunctioning cell phone, notwithstanding the other methods such as leaving a note on our door or with the concierge to ensure timely notification. Especially, when it regards bringing strangers into our home. Obviously, this has never happened to you. I am neither looking for you to suck up to me or anyone else in my family. My only intent was to successfully communicate what I apparently have not been able to. For that reason, I am now done. If I have other concerns, I will find other means of addressing them. Thank you for your time. It's been great speaking with you. At least you know how to say "kiss my ass" with a perfect smile. Which, quite sadly, is much more than I have come to expect. Have a nice remainder of the day.

Penthouse Resident #1