DAN DAN THE REAL ESTATE MAN

"As the Realtor involved in this situation, I'm disturbed by the reviewer's perception of my role in his condo rental experience and his characterization that I was somehow dishonest. The reviewer is correct in one of his assertions: I did the paperwork and the walkthrough. And when I presented him with the lease, I pointed out a clause stating that any pre-existing damages, necessary repairs, etc … must be submitted in writing to the owner within 7 days of the move-in date. It's not my responsibility to report these things to the owner; it's part of the tenant-owner agreement and it was clearly spelled out in his lease. Because the reviewer chose not to report any existing damage to the owner, he was essentially stating that the condo was in good repair upon moving in. As a realtor, I view hundreds of homes, apartments and condos every year. For the reviewer to expect me to remember the exact condition of his floors two years earlier is unreasonable and falls outside of my responsibilities to both tenants and owners. The decision to keep the deposit rests solely with the owner and it's a matter that is entirely out of my control. To hold me responsible - and to call me dishonest - is inaccurate and unfair. The reviewer's lease was very clear…it was his responsibility as the tenant to inform the owner of the results of the move-in walkthrough, not mine. And it was the owner's decision not to refund his deposit, not mine. Also, I'm curious why the reviewer feels the cost to him was $40,000. Unless he's including two years worth of rental payments for his two years of living in the apartment, I would respectfully suggest that the cost to him was his $2500 deposit. Had he read his lease more carefully - and more importantly, had he abided by it, the reviewer could have avoided this unfortunate situation. But my role in his rental experience has been seriously mischaracterized."