Complaint Review: Hayden & Company

In an email dated 11/13/2009, the complainant Mr. Mike Candy has decided to retract this complaint after it was understood by him why or company and owner of said property made our decision and also that we are not the deciding factor in the decision and that the owner of the said property was. However do to this websites policy, they will never in any instance remove a report for irrelevancy, misrepresentation or false claims.

We are happy that Mr. Candy has decided to go this route.

The tenant Michael Candy violated numerous provisions in his lease.
1.) Un-Authorized Pets not approved by management and not in lease
2.) 4 late payments over 12 months
3.) (2) complaints against tenant Michael Candy from neighbors regarding aggressive behavior against management.

All complaints were time stamped at time and date of occurrence. The building was owned by a developer in foreclosure. We managed only a few units. The Association was legally managed by the building owners. We accept no responsibility for another persons actions with respects to his claims. We did our best to accommodate these tenants and fight for their requests.

This tenant placed $1250.00 security deposit down and a $400 good faith deposit down.  The $1250 was refunded to the tenants, the $400 was forfeited to the owner for violation of his lease. Our company policy manual states any violation or default of his lease would constitute loss of good faith deposit. The tenant Michael Candy was required to give a good faith deposit as Michael Candy had poor credit and a history of negative payment history.

Per his lease, per our company policies and procedures and per Minnesota state law his $400 good faith deposit was forfeited legally. After numerous harassing emails from tenant we asked him to cease and desist all communication as his history of irrational behavior worried our staff. We informed him of his legal right have his case heard in a court of law. I assume that since no case has been filed, he to understand this.

With over 5200+ tenants in Minnesota this is the first complaint by an active tenant.

We will provide documentation of the company policy, and copy of this lease to any party interested.

We ask for documentation from the tenant with regards to safety issues? As for lighting issues none were ever reported to us by tenant. With respects to lighting we didn't design the building, so if building lighting was an issue, it would have been a issue for the association management.

With respects to late payments, we do not profit from late payments in any fashion as for a claim that we would hold checks is false. his lease state the rent shall be recieved by the 5th. I managed to recover 2 envelopes from tenants file showing post date of the 6th, and a post date of the 5th. Im happy to furnish these on this site if someone will inform me how to publish scanned images.

This is a simple case of a disgruntled tenant who had no grounds for complaint than to retaliate  against management for enforcing the rules and provisions of a mutually accepted contract.

The tenant Michael Candy violated numerous provisions in his lease.
1.) Un-Authorized Pets not approved by management and not in lease
2.) 4 late payments over 12 months
3.) (2) complaints against tenant Michael Candy from neighbors regarding aggressive behavior against management.

All complaints were time stamped at time and date of occurrence. The building was owned by a developer in foreclosure. We managed only a few units. The Association was legally managed by the building owners. We accept no responsibility for another persons actions with respects to his claims. We did our best to accommodate these tenants and fight for their requests.

This tenant placed $1250.00 security deposit down and a $400 good faith deposit down. The good faith deposit per our company policy and procedures manual which tenant received on move in day explains this. The $1250 was refunded to the tenants, the $400 was forfeited to the owner for violation of his lease. The policy states any violation or default of his lease would constitute lose of good faith deposit. The tenant Michael Candy was required to give a good faith deposit as Michael Candy had poor credit and a history of negative credit history.

Per his lease, per our company policies and procedures and per Minnesota state law his $400 good faith deposit was forfeited legally. After numerous harassing emails from tenant we asked him to cease and desist all communication as his history of irrational behavior worried our staff. We informed him of his legal right have his case heard in a court of law. I assume that no case has been filed, he to understand this.

With over 5200+ tenants in Minnesota this is the first complaint by an active tenant.

Me and my wife moved into a rental over one year ago. In this time we have had several issues with our landlord not taking care of routine issues. Our issue stemmed from day one when we were promised things upon moving in and they were note delivered. FOr one moving into this great new place to find that the unit was not completed or even had appliances. After a few phone calls, the solution was to deduct $25 off our rent. This was unacceptable for one we paid over $1700 in deposits and signed a shady leased agreement. As time went on other issues arised, everytime we called them for support they passed us off on someone else or didn't return our calls. They poorly managed the property setting up for saftey issues, poor lighting and other (undisclosed issues). When "Management" needed something from us, to confirm something was wrong at the complex they called us to check into the situations. For this I expected a little better service in return, this never happened. If it wasn't for the fact that another management company came in to take over managing the complex we would have just moved. During this time one of our deposits was forfieted, supposidly due to what they call "late" rent. Which by the way when you write your rent check be sure to get a receipt. We mailed our payments within the 1-5 day grace period only to find that they cashed the checks passed the 5 day period, resulting in late payments. No matter what I tried to do to get our money back the CEO of the company Mr. Benton Hayden continued to treat us unfairly and threated I stop emailing him and that he would file a restraining order if I emailed him again. Over and over I explained that if it didn't say that we would "lose" our money in our lease then how can they just take our money? I asked several times for 'proof' that it said that in our lease. Instead the CEO would change the topic and begin to say that he wouldn't help us no matter what. Below is word(s) from an email that the CEO himself sent me. The money has been given to the owner anyway per our policy. This was not explained to you as a pet deposit. I have emails between me and you about discussion of getting more pets, and then having to put a deposit down. Be happy you didnt have to put a pet deposit down because those are ALWAYS non-refundable. So if you thought it was a pet deposit, then it would have been non-refundable anyway. And after your little stunt with the review, emial to Lori Swanson (who is the county housing attorney - I copied on the email), I dont care in anyway to pull strings and to help you with this. This matter is closed for a 3rd time. I ask you not to email me again or I will deem is harassment and will file with the police. If you dont like my decision, you have the courts to settle this. Very Truly Yours, Brenton G Hayden 10/19/2009 Working with this landlord has been a living hell, I just hope that anyone in the future that has to do business with these guys consults a lawyer before hand as they will take your money with no hopes of getting it back.

(Nov. 2, 2009) I just spoke with the BBB, and they told me that MR. Brenton Hayden himself is changing the story again! Now he is saying we had an unauthorized pet and that I hung letters around the building saying they were to blame for a recent break in. This ordeal is unreal, so he is now making up additional stories to discredit us. Long story short is the is no proof of that. And Mr. Hayden your making a mistake trying to threaten us with these false alligations. Look in the lease, the lease you created (your firm) you will notice that there is no say about the $400 deposit! Your simply wrong for preying upon people. What happened to just simply conducting good business?? Bottom line is get a lawyer if your planning on doing business with this guy. He will change the story, threaten you and do whatever he wishes with no regard for the Laws of MN. and general ethics. Thank you!