Complaint Review: Duckworth Morris Real Estate

The manager spent good time with future tenants, everything was done in a polite and welcoming manner, including:

• It was explained that cats are allowed in certain units. Tenants did not ask about dogs nor was anything mentioned about dogs as pets during the entire conversation. 
• Tenants listed a cat in their application, as this was the only pet they had. The only document the tenants received from the management was a pre-lease agreement (without pet policy). Weeks later they asked if they could also bring a puppy. 
• The manager did agree that if they would find someone else to rent the unit they reserved, their deposit would transfer towards new tenant's application. Shortly after this an appointment was arranged for another applicant accordingly, several people were interested. Everybody were on the same page with everything at that point, the tenants waited for a feedback from Essex Square.

The company has expressed very clearly their side of the story.  

In addition to the previous information, in a previous response the company states that compliant advertised the apartment after it was leased. First of all, compliant asked permission to advertise the apartment, given that their deposit would be refunded. The company assured them that this way they would not lose their deposit.

After referring several people to Essex Square and not hearing back from the manager, compliant followed up by a phone call, discovering that the unit had been leased and their deposit forfeited. 

Upon inquiry it was explained that this is a normal way of doing things. The compliant cancelled ads about the apartment. 
 
The main purpose of this report is to reveal arguments from both sides.

This report is from an anonymous author. 

The apartment manager and assistant manager are 100% sure the pet policy was discussed since Mr. Palm listed a cat on the application and they remember him very distinctly.

Once it was determined that Mr. Palm was not going to occupy the apartment and that he had not been truthful on his application about his pets it was no longer management's duty to hold an apartment for him that he would not occupy.  It was management's responsibility to lease the apartment they had been holding for Mr. Palm to another tenant as soon as possible.  Mr. Palm's assertion that management should have continued to hold an apartment for him that he would not be occupying is ludicrous.

We are sorry to learn that the company has responded with further insults, including some false information:

First of all: including individual's last name in a current report without permission 

False statements:

'was informed of the pet policy'

'When ... came back to move into the apartment it was discovered...had a dog and under the terms of the preleasing agreement management had the right to keep the deposit paid since...was not able to occupy the apartment'

'asked if...could find someone to take the apartment...had leased would management return the deposit' - Left out: agreement to hold the apartment until August 15, 2012

Referring callers to company's representative cell number: this is true. It was stopped immediately after company's representative asked to not to have anybody contact him and refused of any further contact with the compliant. 

Mr. Palm the person that filed this report is leaving some important facts out.  Mr. Palm did visit an apartment complex leasing office managed by Duckworth Morris Real Estate.  The manager and assistant manager remember his visit very distinctly because they spent more time with him than any other rental prospect all summer.  They are sure that Mr. Palm was informed of the pet policy and on the rental application he filled out he clearly listed a cat which is allowed under the apartment community rules but did not list a dog which is not allowed.  When he came back to move into the apartment it was discovered he had a dog and under the terms of the preleasing agreement management had the right to keep the deposit he paid since he was not able to occupy the apartment.  Mr. Palm asked if he could find someone to take the apartment he had leased would management return the deposit.  Management agreed to this arrangement but leased the apartment  to another tenant without Mr. Palm's assistance.  Some time later Mr. Palm put an ad on Craig's list after the apartment had been leased and began giving people my personal cell phone number on a Saturday morning while I was on vacation with my family.  Mr. Palm has refused to drop this issue to point where I and members of my staff felt we were being harrassed.