Complaint Review: Abraham Fattah - Fattah Properties - Chicago Illinois

It's been sometime since this report has been review and I felt there needed to be a few things cleared up. First off there were no lies or false allegations made in this first report. As with all transactions many agreements were made but the follow through was the biggest fault. -At the time of purchase the now owner of the apartment complex in question had inspected first hand the condition of the apartments (all apartments). At this time of purchase if there were any damages or things out of the norm from a investors standpoint these factors would have been addressed to the previous owner. No such inquiries were brought to the tenants attention or the previous owner. The maintenance needed in the unit in question was never attended to by the previous owner and only came to attention at the time of the end of the lease when new tenants made light of the situation. -Personal attacks of calling the tenants liars is quite out of line, unprofessional, and holds no validation when there were no false statements in the original statements. -It's unfortunate that this matter had to escalate to this level of back and forth banter, but in the end for certain these two parties for sure will never conduct any mutual business together again. Best of luck to all the parties involved as it has been some time since this incident originally came to light.

It's been sometime since this report has been review and I felt there needed to be a few things cleared up. First off there were no lies or false allegations made in this first report. As with all transactions many agreements were made but the follow through was the biggest fault. -At the time of purchase the now owner of the apartment complex in question had inspected first hand the condition of the apartments (all apartments). At this time of purchase if there were any damages or things out of the norm from a investors standpoint these factors would have been addressed to the previous owner. No such inquiries were brought to the tenants attention or the previous owner. The maintenance needed in the unit in question was never attended to by the previous owner and only came to attention at the time of the end of the lease when new tenants made light of the situation. -Personal attacks of calling the tenants liars is quite out of line, unprofessional, and holds no validation when there were no false statements in the original statements. -It's unfortunate that this matter had to escalate to this level of back and forth banter, but in the end for certain these two parties for sure will never conduct any mutual business together again. Best of luck to all the parties involved as it has been some time since this incident originally came to light.

It's been sometime since this report has been review and I felt there needed to be a few things cleared up. First off there were no lies or false allegations made in this first report. As with all transactions many agreements were made but the follow through was the biggest fault. -At the time of purchase the now owner of the apartment complex in question had inspected first hand the condition of the apartments (all apartments). At this time of purchase if there were any damages or things out of the norm from a investors standpoint these factors would have been addressed to the previous owner. No such inquiries were brought to the tenants attention or the previous owner. The maintenance needed in the unit in question was never attended to by the previous owner and only came to attention at the time of the end of the lease when new tenants made light of the situation. -Personal attacks of calling the tenants liars is quite out of line, unprofessional, and holds no validation when there were no false statements in the original statements. -It's unfortunate that this matter had to escalate to this level of back and forth banter, but in the end for certain these two parties for sure will never conduct any mutual business together again. Best of luck to all the parties involved as it has been some time since this incident originally came to light.

It's been sometime since this report has been review and I felt there needed to be a few things cleared up. First off there were no lies or false allegations made in this first report. As with all transactions many agreements were made but the follow through was the biggest fault. -At the time of purchase the now owner of the apartment complex in question had inspected first hand the condition of the apartments (all apartments). At this time of purchase if there were any damages or things out of the norm from a investors standpoint these factors would have been addressed to the previous owner. No such inquiries were brought to the tenants attention or the previous owner. The maintenance needed in the unit in question was never attended to by the previous owner and only came to attention at the time of the end of the lease when new tenants made light of the situation. -Personal attacks of calling the tenants liars is quite out of line, unprofessional, and holds no validation when there were no false statements in the original statements. -It's unfortunate that this matter had to escalate to this level of back and forth banter, but in the end for certain these two parties for sure will never conduct any mutual business together again. Best of luck to all the parties involved as it has been some time since this incident originally came to light.

This rebuttal is in regards to the false and inconsistent allegations brought up by Mr. Jin Choi and Ms. Nadine Lim. Most of their arguments are either false or irrelevant. The following are illustrations from the statement they published on www.ripoffreport.com proving that the validity of their allegations are inaccurate: 1) They state that their previous landlord did not care much for or upkeep the building. They mention how the doorway would freeze because it was made of a cheap aluminum shell. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with them, these statements are irrelevant. How do they characterize me as a landlord? 2) Currently, the rental price for a similar unit in the area is $1,200.00-$1,300.00. Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim were paying $1,065.00. I told them that I intended to rent the unit for $1,200.00, however since they were in need of subletting the unit I'd allow someone to rent it for $1,150.00. They agreed and a few weeks later they told me they found someone to rent the unit for $1,100.00. Despite the fact that I was not satisfied with that amount, I agreed to accommodate my tenants in order to simplify things for them. 3) Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim state that they spent two months looking for tenants. In addition to being irrelevant in characterizing me, it's not true. I have an email from Mr. Choi dated October 2, 2005 informing me of his intentions to sublet the unit because he was relocated to another city. 4) Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim state that the new tenants complained about certain conditions in the apartment that had pre-existed before they moved into the unit. I find this very hard to believe. While some of the issues brought up by the new tenants were my responsibility, a majority of their concerns were a result of Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim's negligence. Here are some excerpts from the email I received from the new tenants regarding the unit's condition: the carpet was stained and gross, gum on the carpet, the door on the first bedroom was broken (it looks like someone tried to break in when it was locked). These are issues that are not considered normal wear and tear. The tenants (Mr. Choi and Ms. Lin) signed and initialed a section on their lease that states that the tenants inspected the apartment and were satisfied with its general condition and appearance. Would you be satisfied with a unit that contained gum stains on the carpet and a broken bedroom door? 5) With respect to when the security deposit was returned, Chicago law requires me to provide all refunds of security deposits within 45-days after the lease is terminated. I fulfilled my responsibility under state law. There was an unexpected delay because of the Thanksgiving holiday. However, the security deposit was refunded and a deduction of $53.40 was made to replace the broken door (pictures of door available upon request). Note: I did not charge them for the labor it cost me to have the door delivered and installed. 6) I do not know how Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim claim that I profit over $1,200.00 a year because of the increased rent. Its simple arithmetic: $1,100-$1,035 = $65. $65 x 9 (months remaining on lease) = $585,00 a year. 7) While I strongly disagree with Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim's description of the neighborhood, this has no relevance to me. What happens in a particular neighborhood or whether there are crackheads is in no way, shape, or form reflective of my treatment towards my tenants. 8) I found the following statement the most interesting part of their fabricated accusations: we had to state our case and proof of burden prior to the release of our security deposit. What burden of proof? I have all their emails saved and I never threatened to keep their deposit. 9) Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim state that I claimed to have fixed the problems the previous landlord had just ignored. They also say that the problem lies in my inability to follow through with [my] promises all while questioning our integrity and accusing us of minor damages that had pre-existed. First, I never stated that the previous landlord had ignored or been negligent towards any problems. Actually, one of the reasons I purchased this property was because I was impressed with the perfect condition it was in. Gum on the carpet and holes in doors are not considered minor damages. While my main priority in dealing with my tenants is their complete satisfaction, it's not always possible to keep everybody happy. I manage over 100 units in Chicago and hope to double that number in five years. I treat all my tenants with a great deal of respect, dignity, honor, and fairness. While it's disappointing to learn that a tenant is unhappy with my services, its part of the business. I tried my best to accommodate Mr. Choi and Ms. Lim, and unfortunately I was unable to do so.