Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Principle Property Management's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Principle Property Management has 3 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Principle Property Management

  5892 Main St Ste 3 Springfield, OR 97478

• 

  Principle Property Management

  435 NW 5th St Ste D Corvallis, OR 97330

• 

  Principle Property Management

  435 NW 5th St Ste D Corvallis, OR 97330-6492

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/13/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am filing a complaint against Principle Property Management for unfair and untimely billing practices. I vacated my rental at the end of September 2024, and they issued my security deposit refund on October 25, 2024, followed by a finalized Statement of Deposit Accounting on November 22, 2024. However, on January 7, 2025over four months after move-outthey issued a new charge for pet odor treatment, which was never mentioned in the prior statements. Their documentation only confirms that an odor treatment was applied, not that an odor was detected upon move-out. Under ORS 90.300(12), landlords must provide written accounting of all charges within 31 days, meaning these delayed charges are legally invalid.Despite my dispute and request for proof that my professionally trained service dog caused any damage, the property manager failed to provide sufficient evidence and instead sent the charge to collections (Creditors Specialty Northwest, ***** without a court judgment or legal obligation to pay. Their claim that they do not waive the right to bill for additional damages does not override Oregon law. I request that Principle Property Management immediately retract the charge and cease all collection efforts. If they have reported this to the credit bureaus, I also request they work with the collection agency to have it removed.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/19/2025

  Ms. ****** vacated the unit on September 30, 2024. Upon inspecting the unit after receiving the keys, we noted in our inspection there was a heavy dog odor in the carpet. We had the carpets professionally cleaned and deodorized due to this concern. Principle Property Management sent out the deposit accounting to Ms. ****** on October 25, 2024, less than the 31 days required by Oregon law.
  
  Upon doing a property check-in around January *******, we found the dog urine odor still lingered and smelled stronger after cleaning. We asked the carpet cleaning company to return and use an enzyme treatment and clean them again, which did finally take the smell away.
  
  In our inspection prior to Ms. ****** taking possession there were no notes about any dog urine odor. When Ms. ****** turned in the move in inspection there was also no mention of dog urine odor.Therefore, this odor occurred during the tenancy. Ms. ****** signed an agreement when moving in that she would be responsible for all damages as a result of having the animal in the home.
  
  Ms. ****** disputed the claim against the deposit on January 10, 2025 and we gave her evidence against the charges. We also gave Ms. ****** additional time to respond prior to sending her to collections.
  
  ORS ****** states: An action arising under a rental agreement or ORS charter 90 shall be commenced within one year. Allowing us one year to submit any claims against a tenancy. Ms. ****** was billed and notified within the legal period to collect and was provided with the invoices and reports proving she is responsible for the charges.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/19/2025

   
  Complaint: 22937473
  
  I am rejecting this response because Principle Property Management has provided inconsistent and untimely documentation regarding the alleged pet odor charges. They issued three separate final accounting statements:
  
  October 25, 2024 No mention of pet odor.
  
  November 22, 2024 No mention of pet odor.
  
  January 7, 2025 Suddenly claims pet odor after previously refunding my deposit.
  
  
  The only inspection report that references pet odor was completed in January 2025, more than three months after I moved out and after they had already refunded my deposit. If pet odor was present at move-out, it should have been documented on the October 2024 statement, not months later. The timing and inconsistency of their claims raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of these charges.
  
  Furthermore, while ORS ****** gives landlords one year to file claims, Oregon law (ORS 90.300(12)) requires landlords to provide a full and accurate accounting of deposit deductions within 31 days of move-out. They failed to include these charges in a timely manner, and they cannot retroactively add them months later after already refunding my deposit.
  
  Desired Resolution:
  
  I am requesting that Principle Property Management remove the debt from collections and acknowledge that I am not responsible for these improper charges. I also request that they update any records to reflect a $0 balance to prevent further harm to my credit.
  
  Until these issues are fully resolved, I will keep this complaint open.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ******

  Business Response

  Date: 02/20/2025

  Ms. ***************** our move out inspection report dated 10/03/2024, which was sent to you on 10/03/2024 through your online portal, smells heavily of dog was written in the stairwell section of the report. I also reminded you of this note on the report in our email dated 1/10/2025.
  
  Your deposit accounting statement, which was sent 10/25/2024, stated you were charged for carpet cleaning and odor removal per the invoice from PG Long. This would indicate that the carpet cleaning company also smelled the odor and used their deodorizer.
  
  While we are required to account for anything withheld from your deposit within 31 days, that does not mean we have lost the ability to charge you for any damages found after that date. After consulting with our attorney, we have confirmed the right to charge against your account for up to one year per ORS.12.25. 
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/20/2025

   
  Complaint: 22937473
  
  Thank you for your response. I continue to reject the charges, and I maintain that I am not responsible for them.
  
  Firstly, the move-out inspection report dated 10/03/2024 did indeed note "smells heavily of dog, but it did not specifically state dog urine. This discrepancy is important, as it was not documented that the smell was due to urine, which would be a more severe issue and justify the costly treatment. The note simply mentioned a dog smell, which is not synonymous with urine odor.
  
  Secondly, if the odor was truly as problematic as suggested, why was the treatment not performed immediately after my move-out? The deposit accounting statement sent on 10/25/2024 included charges for carpet cleaning and deodorizing, yet the odor issue was not addressed fully until January 2025. This raises further questions regarding the delay in their actions. If the situation required enzyme treatment, why was it not addressed sooner, and why wasnt this documented at the time the initial cleaning was performed?
  
  Lastly, while you mentioned that ORS ****** allows charges up to one year, I have spoken with an attorney who advised that as long as there is no judgment against me, I am not legally obligated to pay this debt. Additionally, your actions contradict Oregon law (ORS ******), which mandates that all deductions from the deposit must be provided in a detailed and timely manner, within 31 days of move-out. Your attempt to retroactively add charges after refunding my deposit is not in accordance with the law. Additionally, you have violated my rights by sending these disputed charges to collections without a judgment ordering me to pay the charges.
  
  Until I have received full and satisfactory documentation of these charges and their legitimacy, along with a sufficient explanation as to why the enzyme treatment was "necessary" more than 3 months after I vacated the unit and not charged to the deposit before refunding, I will continue to dispute this matter. I also will continue to dispute this matter since I was sent to collections after disputing the charges but not ordered in small claims court to pay. I request that Principle Property Management remove this charge from collections and update any records to reflect a $0 balance. If this matter cannot be resolved, or there is any damage to my credit, I will be filing a claim in small claims court to seek a resolution.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ******