As the General Manager of Columbus Real Estate Pros, I categorically and completely refute any claims of wrongdoing on the part of our business. While we find it unfortunate that the family have been affected in a negative manner by a difficult economy and, moreover, the well-known issues affecting the real estate market, we cannot take responsibility for this client’s failure to understand or abide by the terms of the management contact they signed. Furthermore, we find it disconcerting that this client has chosen to misrepresent the facts and, virtually throughout their complaint, state information as fact when it is simply not true. To specifically answer the complaints: 1.There was a walk-through of the home-both by our staff and by the tenant. This part of their complaint is simply not true. 2. The claim of carpet cleaning without authorization is not true in two (2) respects. Per section 3, subsections A and D, we are provided full authorization to engage in our best efforts to “attract AND retain tenants for the property” and as the Agent will “contract for or undertake the making of all necessary repairs and the performance of all necessary work for the benefit of the property”. Simply put, they found their own tenant and did not provide said tenant an acceptable product per industry standard. The tenant rightfully complained because the carpet was not clean when they took possession despite assurances from them that the carpet would be clean so we corrected their mistake within the guidelines of their signed management contract. 3. All utilities were transferred into the tenant’s name; this claim is simply not true. The problem, which I personally explained to her on at least three (3) occasions but clearly is still not understood, is that there is always a final bill for the lag time created by a partial billing cycle when service is transferred. The owners always receive a final bill, that was explained to them, and yet they could not understand this and interpreted it as our company not performing this aspects of the management of their home. 4. Our company has a multi-line phone system and voicemail is monitored hourly to ensure calls are not missed; the claim of non-responsiveness is patently untrue. The level of communications expected from them was and has been simply unrealistic. They would call multiple times daily, demanding to speak with me, the General Manager, and threatened multiple times to cancel their contract if they could not speak directly to me. That is not reasonable; we have hundreds of clients in multiple markets and the expectation that the person at the helm can take a client’s calls every time they call is unreasonable. At no time did they ever have to wait more than 24 hours for a responsive via phone or email. Ever owner receives a new owner welcome letter which provides the owners six (6) points of contact and we pride ourselves on customer service; the true issue at hand is simply impatience and unreasonably demanding service; the service without regard for our business or other customers we are/were served. 5. No unauthorized repairs were ever performed. Once again, this is a clear case of them not understanding the terms of management contract (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED) which is the framework of our relationship and our business. Per Section 3, subsection D: “ Repairs and Maintenance. The Agent shall contact for or undertake the making of all necessary repairs and the performance of all other necessary work for the benefit of the property including all required alterations to properly carry out this contract. Agent shall make diligent effort to notify owner of any estimated expenses or repairs that may exceed $500 excluding emergencies. Owner acknowledges that agent may receive compensation for services.” I have attached a copy of the owner’s consolidated statement which clearly states that we do not need advance authorization for repairs below $500; once again, this is clearly a case of them not understanding and/or not wanting to abide by the terms of the contract they signed. 6. I have already answered the utility transfer issue (#3); this aspect of the complaint is, once again, due to the owner’s inability to understand the utility transfer process rather than any failing on the part of our business. 7. The $250 charge was not for photography; this is a misrepresentation of the facts. This charge was for administrative cost and facilitating the screening and lease preparation process. Normally, we charge a full month’s rent for the lease-up process and, in the interest of helping them; simply charged this administrative fee of which they were made aware in advance. Our time, template documentation (lease), and screening processes are not free; the explanation by them that there would be no charge- especially after they were told they would be charged – is flawed. 8. Once again, I have answered the claim of unauthorized repairs (#5). Please reference the consolidated owner statement which clearly shows that no unauthorized repairs were performed at any time. All repairs were performed within the framework of the management contract which they signed. The specific repair was one which had to be performed (exterior drainage) in order to prevent potential water and foundation damage to the home due to this gutter issue. In the midst of this client making unfounded and inaccurate claims against our business, we still upheld our contractual obligations per Section 3, subsections D and F, to maintain this client’s asset. A critical fact should be ignored. Our business has gone above and beyond to take care of a very difficulty client even after they have defamed our business. 9. The reason the contract has not been terminated is that the client will not sign a mutual release; this is standard procedure and provides the appropriate legal protections to our business. We are not asking for anymore money for termination beyond that stipulated in the management contract; we have simply requested that the client (them, the tenant) sign a simple one page release which holds our company harmless once our services are terminated by them to indemnify us in the occurrence that, for example, they do not deliver maintenance within the prescribed guidelines of Ohio Revised Code, violate the tenant’s rights, or illegally withhold the tenant’s security deposit. If we are no longer managing the home, we should not share in the liability then solely borne by the homeowner who would be acting sole Landlord. They, to date, have refused to submit to this; in the interest of protecting our business, we have not cancelled the contract. They have also specifically told their tenant to continue paying rent to our company; this seems completely incongruent with the nature of this aspect of their complaint and the desire to cancel their contract. 10. The claim of inappropriate language is untrue; I would challenge them to produce one (1) email in the 20+ emails we have exchanged. I have personally reviewed all our emails correspondence while this format does not afford us the volume to introduce all the correspondence, there was never, never an inappropriate tone to any email and no “inappropriate language” was ever used – nothing profane, nothing inflammatory, nothing condescending. All correspondence to them form this office have been timely, professional, and courteous; any contradictory claims are simply false. As for providing a choice of regarding maintenance, this is not within the terms of the signed management contract. In conclusion, the entirety of this claim is flawed. It is truly unfortunate that they clearly do not understand nor have they ever understood the terms of the management contract they signed despite our best efforts to help them understand said contract. They hired us to manage their home and then insisted on unnecessarily managing our business and placed continuous and unreasonable demands on our organization which were not in keeping with their signed management contract. At this point, we would be happy to release them from said contract provided they agree, in writing per the form they and their counsel have already been provided, to release our business from any unwarranted liability on a home with which we would no longer have any affiliation in any regard. This is completely reasonable and would pave the way for an amicable resolution to this issue.