Complaints

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:09/12/2022

  Type:Product 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.

   
  Complaint: 17923170
  
  I am rejecting this response because I did indeed contact the host during our stay to report an issue with the heat not working in one of the bedrooms.  This email was sent to ********************* on 8/7/22 and I did not receive a response.

  Neither of my reviews on Dream Homes of Oregon's website or VRBO's website are currently public as I took action to take down both reviews. However, my online reviews were not defamatory or false, and this is protected expression of opinion under the First Amendment. My reviews concern a matter of public interest for purposes under Oregon law, most notably ORS 31.150(2)(d)and this is the type of communication that Oregon's Anti-SLAPP suit statute was designed to protect. I have contacted ************** twice (8/7/22 and 8/26/22) but have not received any response. These are predatory business practices that need to be stopped. Looking further into this business, I have discovered at least 5 other people who have been victims of fraud and extortion from her and her business.

  My desired resolution is a return of the fraudulent charge of $4,660 that was billed to me on Aug. 19 as a penalty for a fair and honest online review.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************

  either of these reviews were public and I subsequently took action to take down both reviews in order to avoid a lawsuit from **************. However, my online reviews were not defamatory or false, and this is protected expression of opinion under the First Amendment. My reviews concern a matter of public interest for purposes under Oregon law, most notably ORS 31.150(2)(d) and this is the type of communication that Oregon's Anti-SLAPP suit statute was designed to protect. I have contacted ************** twice (8/7/22 and 8/26/22) but have not received any response. These are predatory business practices that need to be stopped. Looking further into this business, I have discovered at least 5 other people who have been victims of fraud and extortion from her and her business. My desired resolution is a return of the fraudulent charge of $4,660 that was billed to me on Aug. 19 as a penalty for a fair and honest online review.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/18/2022

  Honest and objective reviews are the lifeblood of a short term rental (STR).

   

  Unlike hotels, which receive **** star reviews, STRs are reviewed with five stars, meaning each star is 20% of the overall review score.

   

  In addition, again unlike hotels, STR hosts also review their guests. This is very much a trust based business and hes critical that both Post and Guest understand the importance of their review. For that reason, we have some reasonable ground rules regarding reviews that apply to the host and the guest equally.

   

  in addition, again unlike hotels, STR hosts also review their guests. This is very much a trust based business and it is critical that both host and guest understand the importance of their review. For that reason, we have some reasonable ground rules regarding reviews that apply to the host and the guest equally.

   

  These involve things like informing the other party of any issues that *** arise before or during the stay and giving the other party an opportunity to correct them. It also states that if something was disclosed in the review, the reviewing party will mention that fact. It also states that neither party will omit significant facts in their review.

   

  ************** signed this agreement and agreed that any breach of the agreement would be paid for by the card on file. He had an opportunity to read the agreement in its entirety prior to booking and was sent a copy of the signed agreement for his records after booking.

   

  ************** proceeded to write a 3-star having made no attempt to contact us during his stay. His review breached the signed contract in several ways and as a result, under the terms of the contract and with ************** prior written authorization, he was charged for damages.

   

  ************** Credit card company agreed with us, and he has therefore resorted to weaponizing the Better Business Bureau by making inaccurate and potentially defamatory complaints against a small, family-run business. We hope ************** will treat future hosts more kindly, or better yet stick to hotels.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/25/2022

  This is a simple breach of contract issue, and has nothing to do with free speech, defamation or Anti-SLAPP.
  

  In our opinion, the consumer is parroting false claims and inaccurate characterizations fed to him by *************************, an attorney representing the attempted Intervenents in multiple lawsuits in which the owner of Dream Homes is both principal and plaintiff.

  ****************, having lost resoundingly in a recent LUBA case against Lincoln County and his clients 15Neighborhoods, is now, in our opinion, resorting to harassment of a plaintiff in good standing in an ongoing case in the Lincoln County Circuit Court.

  This conflict of interest and ongoing harassment has not been previously noted, but is mentioned here as a matter of record with respect to any current or future complaints brought by clients of this attorney.

  This is an unfortunate case of harassment through weaponizing the BBB, an organization which has long stood for consumer rights and fair dealings.

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/04/2022

  Complaint: 17923170
  
  ************** rented a vacation home through VRBO from Aug. ****, in Newport, Oregon. The host of this home was ********************* of Dream Homes of Oregon. Upon completion of his stay ************* personally solicited ************** for a review of her property to provide a star-rating and to write a description of her property and experience of the stay (see attached email). Without this direct request by **************, ************* would never have left a review on her webpage. A review was also requested by VRBO. It was confirmed by VRBO that reviews were not made public for 14 days. Both reviews were fair and honest and complied with the Lodging Agreement. If there was a concern to anything in the review, ************** did not notify ************** to any issue. Instead, she wrongfully charged ************** an additional $4,660.00 - almost four times the cost of the initial stay - without providing justification or a fair opportunity to correct any concerns. At the same time, ************** threatened, additional damages, potential for defamation charges, and legal fees. Yet, most importantly and not to lose track of steps were taken by ************** to ensure both reviews (VRBOs and Dream Homes of Oregons website) were taken down; there is no evidence to any damage being done (tangible or not), as confirmed by VRBO, due to Mr. ****** fair and honest reviews that no longer exist and are not public.

  
  As the response points out, there seem to be a number of other victims deceived by **************. The desired resolution is a return of the $4,660.00 that ************** unjustifiably charged and to warn the Better Business Bureau to what could appear to other consumers to be entrapment and predatory business practices.

  
  For more details please see the attached documents.

   

  -*********************

   

  Business Response

  Date: 10/06/2022

  ************** has included a new complaint here with the inclusion of a bedroom heater not working, and an email he purportedly sent to us in this regard.

  In reviewing the email attachment provided by **************, we would like to point out that it was sent to a random, seemingly auto-generated email address.
  

  We have attached all communication records with ************** showing that all of the communication before, during and after his stay was one-sided. We did not receive any communication from ************** during his stay, either through our dashboard or the **** platform.
  

  Had we received anything we would most certainly have responded.

  With respect to the electric fireplace itself, it is primarily for ambience as it is part of a sitting area looking out over the water. The room has its own central heating via a floor heater. There is a thermostat and controller immediately to the right as you walk into the room. Also it was August, but heat was most certainly available.

  With respect to the reviews, we believe that we have already addressed this, but to reiterate, short term rental hosting is a trust based business in which one party is renting their personal home to another. Because of this, fair and honest reviews are very important for both guest and host.

  Both parties to this agreement agreed to certain ground rules in respect to reviews. Each agreed to contact the other with any concerns and if ratings were lowered because of something disclosed in the listing, i.e. the location of all of the bedrooms and the request for guests to start their towels in the wash upon departure, it was agreed that this be disclosed in the review.
  

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/08/2022

   
  Complaint:17923170
  
  I am rejecting this response because a consumer has a right to leave a fair and honest review.  The host requested my review, as evidenced in the attachment above, in an email dated 8/11/22.  Dream Homes of Oregon requested my review, which I went ahead and provided.  My review was fair and honest as I wrote about the home and our experience.  Nothing that was written in the review was inaccurate or disparaging towards the business or home.  A review is intended to inform future consumers about a property,and that is what my intention was.  I understand that a ********** want or expect 5-star reviews, but a host has no right to financially penalize a customer simply because they did not receive the review that they were hoping to receive.  As you can see from my attached review, nothing that I wrote is factually untrue, inaccurate, or disparages the business in any way. 
  

  It is important to note that I took action so that neither my review on the Dream Homes of Oregon website or the **** website are public.  A customer should not be intimidated, threatened, and harassed to take down a public review, but this was definitely the case in my situation.  I took action to prevent my reviews from being public after receiving en email from ************** on 8/19/22.  Currently, neither of these reviews are public.  However, the host continues to claim a right to fine me $4,660 for these reviews.

  In response to the email I sent to Dream Homes of Oregon on 8/7/22 about the heat not working, I had simply replied to an email that I received from Dream Homes of Oregon days earlier.  Since I received an email from Dream Homes of Oregon from this email address, I hit reply and stated my complaint about the heat.  The name attached to the email address was Dream Homes of Oregon.  In regards to the heat in that bedroom during our stay,there was a note next to the thermostat in the downstairs bedroom that specifically asked us not to use it.  As a result, we adhered to these instructions and tried to use the space heater for heat.  It was not working and we received no response to our complaint.

  This is purely an example of a predatory business practice and this host has a history of attempting to extort money from guests.  Dream Homes of Oregon threatens people and fines them in an attempt to only receive the highest reviews.  This is an illegal practice that attempts to silence guests and customers and needs to be stopped.  

  
  I am requesting the $4,660 that was wrongfully and unjustly billed to me for my fair and honest review be returned to resolve this complaint.
  
  Thank you.
  *********************

  Business Response

  Date: 11/15/2022

  ************** appears not to have read the lodging agreement he signed.

  We contact our guests the morning after their check-in and the day after their check-out to make sure that every aspect of their stay was not only acceptable, but exceptional.

  
  ************** did not read any of the messages we sent; nor did he or respond to our multiple outreaches to him to make sure that everything was exceptional during his stay.
  

   

  We are able to see this through our dashboard which shows if guests have read our messages.

   

  We do our best to provide our guests with every opportunity to communicate with us, and proactively reach out to them if there are any issues during their stay.
  

   

  We cannot force our guests to respond to us; nor are we able to respond to issues that we are not aware of.

  We are most grateful for the many wonderful guests who communicate and let us know if there is anything they require.

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/29/2022

   
  Complaint: 17923170

  The first communication we received from ************** was on August 4, 2022, requesting information prior to our stay at her property.  I responded to this communication the same day with the information she requested, thus establishing a working channel of communication.

  
  Once we checked in to this property on August 7, 2022, we did not receive any communication from ************** until after our stay was completed.  There was no communication from the host the morning after our check-in, whether through VRBO or through email.  VRBO shows no messages from ************* to me, and there are no emails from ************** or Dream Homes of Oregon.

  
  I was the one who reached out to ************** within a few hours of checking in to the property on August 7, 2022 when I noticed the heat in one of the bedrooms was not working.  I wrote ************** an email about this issue, and addressed it to the same email address to which communication from ************** had already been initiated and established (see attached email).  There was no reply.

  
  ************** never sent us any messages during our stay, and this is evident through both my personal email as well as VRBOs platform.  This was frustrating since we had reached out to her on the first day with a concern about the property. 

  
  During our stay, ************** unfortunately never reached out to see if there were any issues or concerns, especially after we sent an email raising a concern on the first day of our stay.  

  
  The day after we checked out, on August 11, 2022, I finally did receive a message from **************, but it was simply thanking me for our stay and soliciting a request for a review.  This was from the same email address that I had written to regarding the initial concern.  

  
  Again, my concern at this point is not about the hosts poor communication, but with the $4,660 that ************** charged me after our stay and after our security deposit was fully returned.  This is a violation of VRBOs policies and was not authorized.  The desired resolution is for the $4,660 to be fully refunded.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************

  Business Response

  Date: 12/18/2022

  This is literally the same complaint ************** has made numerous times. His own credit card company ruled against him.

  It has been repeatedly answered.
  

  Please refer to our previous correspondence and that of our attorney.

  We encourage the BBB to stop entertaining repeat frivolous complaints which have been thoroughly answered.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/14/2023

  Complaint: 17923170

   

  The facts are clear that ************** has still not provided sufficient evidence to a breach in the Lodging Agreement.  If anything, the evidence points to ************** breaking her own agreement, as upon arrival (August 7, 2022) and after noticing an issue, ************** did reach out to the Host.  ************** never once, throughout the entire three-day stay, addressed the issue of the heat not working in one of the bedrooms.  **************, provided no communication or any attempt to contact ************** throughout the entire stay to ensure there were no issues or concerns.

  
  Further, these claims have no merit due to the fact that these reviews, though honest and fair, were immediately removed and were never made public.  VRBOs policies protect reviews,yet due to the actions taken by **************, they confirmed that Mr. ****** review was effectively removed before ever becoming public.  Again, there is no evidence to a breach in the Lodging Agreement (regardless of interpretation) to a review that no longer exists and that was never made public.   How can any damage be done due to something that does not exist?

  
  On August 19, 2022, ************** provided zero evidence to a breach in the Lodging Agreement and wrongfully charged ************** an additional seven-night stay of $4,660.00, ten days after ************** had checked out and after the full Security Deposit had been returned.  This is against VRBOs policy which is, The Host cannot charge you any extra amount exceeding the total of your confirmed booking (**********, **************** Representative 8/22/2022).  Nevertheless, after soliciting a review from **************, ************** then threatened, intimidated, and wrongfully charged ************* an additional $4,660.00 yet, both reviews were immediately removed, were never made public, and have had no bearing on the Host or her ratings, as evidenced on her website and confirmed by **** (*********************, **************** Rep 12/15/2022). There is no evidence of damage being done to the Host and her business due to a review that no longer exists and was never made public.  Furthermore, if ************** did not want a review, she did not need to request and solicit one. Consumers should be made aware of what could appear to be entrapment and to **************** predatory business practices. 

  
  In terms of the credit card, ************** did reach out to Citibank and immediately disputed the unwarranted additional charge of $4,660.00 on August 19, 2022.  ******** said that the charge was not technically considered fraudulent by their definition because they could see the original June 7, 2022 payment to Dream Homes of Oregon for $1,185.14 along with a security deposit of $975.13.  According to Citibank, they define a claim as fraudulent when a consumer has no knowledge of the vendor or approved transactions from the vendor.  Therefore,because ************** had already approved the original transaction, Citibank did not define this additional charge as fraudulent, despite it being wrong.  However, in conversation with Citibank about this issue, they were concerned about **************** actions and described what she was doing as predatory business practices. Citibank then suggested ************** reach out to the Better Business Bureau and to the Oregon ********** of ******* to report and notify this wrongdoing, which is what he did. 

  
  When an additional $4,660.00 -- nearly four times the cost of the original stay -- has been taken from a guest, this is not frivolous, it is dishonest and wrong; future consumers have a right to be warned.  There is a real concern when consumers are threatened,intimidated, and wrongfully charged by a business owner for simply writing a fair and honest review on a trustworthy platform like VRBO.  When those platforms no longer become trustworthy, due to a business trying to control and silence any reviews that they do not like, how are future consumers protected?  How can any consumer learn what is actually true?

  
  This matter could easily be resolved if ************** would return the unwarranted $4,660.00 to *************** 

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/09/2022

  Type:Product 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.

   Complaint: 18002137
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  This response does not address the concern, rather accuses me of weaponizing an organization specifically in place to help resolve these types of issues. This direct and harmful accusation also ignores that, as a consumer, I have a right to a satisfactory resolution and an outlet for others to be warned about the way this business treats is customers. 

  The business owner is correct in stating that I was not directly involved in the conversation regarding the cancelled booking. I am going to have my wife address this with the business directly from this point forward.

  I do, however, maintain my assertion that this business owner's handling of our situation, her lack of communication, and her un-professionalism in clearly hanging up on me mid-conversation (interrupting someone mid-sentence saying you have to go and hanging up IS hanging up on someone, by definition) is a significant cause for concern. After reading the reviews on her business (on ******* and subsequent contract language in her agreement attempting to prevent negative reviews I have additional concerns trusting this business and their communication.

  It should be clarified that her assertion that she is a single property owner/manager is patently untrue. She manages a business with multiple properties. Small business or not, she should be held to her commitments, communicate with her customers in a timely and professional manner, and treat her customers with respect, none of which I experienced in my limited interactions with this business.

  Sincerely,
  
  *****************

  I was able to reach ****** by phone wherein she denied agreed to refund our money, and ended up hanging up on me while I was trying to discuss this issue with her. Upon looking further in to this company I have found similar complaints on ******* where she does not have the ability to remove reviews at her will. We are at a point where we need support in getting our money back, but also need to warn consumers about this company's practices. It is obvious that if we had been denied a reimbursal through the cancellation policy we would have kept the rental and made the best of it. ******'s commitment, on behalf of Dream Homes of Oregon, led us to the cancellation which we now have not been refunded for. Thank you very much for your support in this matter. *****************

  Business Response

  Date: 09/09/2022

  Unlike a hotel, Short Term Rental (STR)  hosts have only one property to rent at any particular time. For that reason, most STR hosts have cancellation policies in place that are clearly disclosed to guests prior to booking.

  This individual did not make the reservation, nor was he privy to the conversation I had with his wife in which I told her we have a strict 60 day cancellation policy and they were not due a refund.
  

  This guest stated that they would have kept the reservation had they known it was non-refundable. The fact is, they did know it was non-refundable prior to booking.
  

  This individual is filing a complaint against our company for upholding our booking policies. Many of his other comments are taken from a conversation he was not privy to; nor did I hang up on him.

  Weaponizing the BBB against a small family business demonstrates the same entitlement that demanding a company change its written policies and issue a refund simply because the guests changed their minds.