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:01/01/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore 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.

  As an international student at **************************, I am formally lodging a complaint against Mozart Management due to their unprofessional behavior, poor communication, and an unjust financial penalty imposed during my recent lease application process.Key Issues:1. Unclear Communication Regarding Deadlines:Mozart Management provided an application link without specifying a deadline. During a busy exam period, I received a Friday email stating the process must be completed by Sunday. I acknowledged their email, assured them Id comply, and began the application on Sunday.2. Technical Issues and Lack of Responsiveness:While completing the application, I encountered technical errors on their website. Despite sending screenshots and contacting them via email and phone, I received no assistance or response over the weekend.3. **************** Penalty:On Monday, I was informed I missed the deadline and was charged $275, in addition to a $55 application fee. This penalty was imposed despite the technical issues being their fault. An additional unexplained $8 surcharge increased the total to $283.4. Unprofessional Communication:After payment, I did not receive confirmation of being added to the lease. Instead, the updated contract was sent to my friend, leaving me without clear communication about my status.This ordeal caused significant financial and emotional stress. As an international student, $283 is a considerable amount, and Mozart Managements dismissive attitude toward my concerns only added to my frustration.I am raising this complaint to highlight their unprofessional conduct and seek accountability for the unjust financial penalty and lack of proper communication.

  Business Response

  Date: 01/07/2025

  The add-on process for this unit began on November 15th, shortly after a company policy change requiring a $275 charge for add-ons was implemented. As a courtesy, we waived the $275 add-on fee because the applicant had inquired about the process before the policy change. Per the add-on lease addendum, the application needed to be completed within four days before the document expires.
  
  We provided clear instructions, sent multiple reminders, and followed up over the subsequent weeks from the initial email regarding the general process from the 15th of November to the completion on the 18th of December. Over 10 outbound emails, application invitations, and reminders were recorded during that time (See attachments labeled CV401 Resident Communication 1-4).  When the application remained incomplete for almost two weeks (from 11/25/24-12/06/24), we set a firm deadline of 12/08/24, advising that the updated policy would apply if the process was not finalized by the deadline. Unfortunately, the deadline was not met.
  
  Our records indicate no technical issues with our system. The delays appeared to result from the applicant not using the provided link, misunderstanding the process, and forgetting her password (See attachment "Steps Explanation.") While she reached out over the weekend, our office was closed. Nonetheless, regular communication was maintained, and ample time was provided for questions or concerns before the deadline.  Instead of the usual four days, we extended the courtesy of providing three weeks before the new policy took effect.
  
  The $275 charge is not a penalty but a standard fee now required for all lease add-ons. The $55 application fee is a separate standard charge applied to all applicants. Additionally, the $8 convenience fee was charged by a third-party processor for using a credit or debit card, with alternative payment options available.

  I have additional screenshots showing the technical issues were user error.  Please reach out to me if you would like to see them as I have reached the limit.  Thank you! 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/08/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  Dear Better Business Bureau,
  Thank you for providing Mozart Management's response to my complaint. I appreciate the opportunity to address their claims and provide additional context. I have attached all the emails Mozart Management sent me, which I believe will clarify the timeline and details of our correspondence.
  Timeline of Communication
  As shown in the provided screenshots, the first email regarding the lease add-on process was sent to my friend, ******** *******, not me. The first email I personally received from Mozart Management was on November 25, not November ******************** their response.
  The subsequent emails I received were on November 28, December 4, December 6, and December 9 (Friday). The emails prior to December 9 contained automated messages about the process but made no mention of specific deadlines. It is also important to note that the additional emails referenced in Mozart Managements response pertain to communication after I had paid the $275 fee on December 18, not prior to the deadline.
  Unclear Communication of Deadlines
  The first email that mentioned a deadline was sent on December 9, advising me to complete the process by the end of the weekend. As a graduate student at *************************** top-ranking university with an intense workloadthis timing coincided with my final exams and project deadlines. Due to the lack of earlier clear communication about deadlines, I assumed I could complete the application at my earliest convenience.
  On December 11 (Sunday), I attempted to complete the application within the stated deadline, using the same link and password provided. However, I encountered technical issues, as evidenced by the attached screenshots of the errors. In their correspondence, Mozart Management acknowledged my communication about these technical issues.
  Lack of Responsiveness and Support
  Despite reaching out via email and phone on December 11 to report the technical issues, I did not receive a response from Mozart Management over the weekend. If weekends are considered part of the deadline period, there should have been technical support available. Alternatively, extending the deadline for a few hours on Monday would have allowed me to resolve the website errors and complete the application as intended.
  Concerns Regarding the Fee
  The $275 fee has been characterized as a standard charge, but it was unfairly imposed due to technical issues beyond my control. Additionally, Mozart Managements failure to provide timely assistance exacerbated the situation. I believe that as a tenant attempting to meet the deadline in good faith, I should not have been penalized.
  Conclusion
  I respectfully request the BBB to review this case in light of the attached evidence, which demonstrates:
  The delay was not due to negligence but technical issues with Mozart Managements system.
  Clear deadlines were not communicated until the last minute.
  The lack of weekend support unfairly hindered my ability to meet the deadline.
  I reiterate my request for a refund of the $275 fee, acknowledgment of Mozart Managements mishandling of this situation, and a review of their communication practices to prevent future issues for tenants.
  Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to reach out for further clarification or additional documentation. (I have some other screenshots but this link allowed me to attach only five of them, I will send all of them to the email address provided)
  
  Regards,
  
  Pariya Ayati

  Business Response

  Date: 01/13/2025

  After careful review of the circumstances and as a good faith gesture to resolve this matter, we have waived the $275.00 administrative fee. Additionally, we are committed to reviewing our internal procedures to enhance communication and responsiveness with both our prospects and residents. This includes ensuring greater clarity around weekend due dates.
  
  If you have any questions or need further assistance, please dont hesitate to reach out.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/15/2025

  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
  
  Regards,
  
  Pariya Ayati

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/25/2024

  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.

  On November 25, 2024, my apartment management charged me $20, citing a lapse in renters' insurance coverage from November 1 to November 23, 2024. I dispute this charge due to the following reasons:1. I updated my renters' insurance information on November 25, 2024, the same day the charge was applied.2. I only received one email from the management prior to the alleged lapse period, which did not indicate that a charge would be applied or provide clear instructions to prevent such a fee.3. The first notice of this charge was sent on November 21, 2024 (Thursday), and the fee was applied on November 25, 2024 (Monday). This included two weekend days when the insurance company and apartment office were not operating, leaving an unreasonably short window for me to address the issue.4. I acted promptly to resolve the matter as soon as I became aware of it, yet the charge was still applied.The limited timeframe provided to address this matter was unreasonable and did not account for non-business days, making it nearly impossible to comply in time.I have attempted to resolve this issue directly with management, but I have not received any resolution or any positive response from them.

  Business Response

  Date: 12/09/2024

  We believe the charge assessed against the resident's account was valid. However, the resident was confused about aspects of the charge. The charge the resident complained about was removed from their account ledger as a gesture of good will.  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/07/2024

  Type:Order 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.

  In order to renew my lease, I am being forced to sign a document enrolling me in a credit reporting program, even though the form says that enrollment is not required as part of the lease.
  
  Furthermore, the utility billing has changed and I have not been given an opportunity to see the formula on how my utilities will be charged (since I dont hold the account). When I spoke to the property manager, he agreed this was left intentionally vague and could not guarantee that I would not be charged exorbitant amounts for my utilities and that if I wanted transparency I should move out.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/19/2024

  The resident opposes a credit reporting service linked to
  our renewal documents that operates on an opt-out basis. The residents are
  unable to proceed with signing a lease and related documents without addressing
  this service. The program description does outline the option for residents to
  opt out and provides instructions on how to do so. She was informed she could
  opt out independently or we could handle it on her behalf. However, she
  declined both options, instead requesting the removal of the credit reporting
  program from her lease packet, which our software does not permit. We have
  provided the requested information regarding utility billing, including
  anticipated numbers for various utilities in her apartment layout and the
  billing methodology, via email and phone. The process is clear, and the
  resident was not informed of any intentional vagueness regarding utility
  billing. She sought absolute assurance against utility overcharges, but such a
  guarantee is not feasible due to the potential for human error.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/31/2023

  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.

  My fiance and I have been renting an apartment through Mozart Management. Our original lease was signed and began on 08/01/2020. We had to resign our lease in January 2021 as an addendum to be able to stay longer (1 year). We had continued to extend our lease and did a 8 month lease which would end 03/29/23. In November 2022, we were told we would need to sign if we planned to stay beyond March 2023 we would need to sign again. We chose a 6 month lease which would start 03/30/2023 and end 08/29/2023. In a turn of events we had the opportunity to purchase a house. We reached out to Mozart Management by email on Fri, Feb 10, 2023 to Jim V*** who handles move in/outs. I attached the email below from us to Jim and then his response on the same day. Per his email, we were under the understanding that as long as we were out before 03/29/23 and left the apartment "broom clean" that we would not be subject to the next lease as it had not started. On 03/31/23, my fiance noticed he had an email stating that April 2023 rent would be coming out of his account. He contacted Jim and was then told that he "didn't see the addendum" when he sent us the email telling us we were good to leave. He then stated that we would owe 3 months worth of rent for "terminating" the lease which would run from 03/30/2023-08/29/23 despite us reaching out in February. He also told us that we also would owe for April in addition to the 3 months for terminating. My fiance and I both spoke to him by phone, separately. I asked to speak with his manager and was told "no, they aren't in" and that "they don't speak with renters, that is what my job is for." He then suggested I send an email because they "sometimes" read them. I explained I was very unhappy with this, as we are now being told we owe $7,540 for the early termination. I said it was not my fault that he did not do his due diligence and told us by email we were good to leave. He told me that he did not have the authority to change a lease.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/19/2023

  
  The complainants had a lease for the period of July 30, 2022, through March 29, 2023. On November 28, 2022, the complainants executed a renewal lease for the period of March 30, 2023, through August 29, 2023. On February 10, 2023, the complainants emailed Mozart Management to say they found a house and were planning on moving into it and wanted to terminate their upcoming renewal lease commencing as of March 30, 2023.  The complainants were then incorrectly advised by our staff that their lease ended March 29, 2023, and all they would simply need to do is vacate the apartment on or before March 29, 2023, turn over the apartment in a ‘Broom Clean” condition and return all keys and parking permits. Due to our error, we did not take into account and address the termination of the renewal lease and the financial consequences thereof.
  
  Complainants next contacted Mozart Management on the morning of March 31, 2023, after receiving an email about a renewal offer with respect to their lease ending August 29, 2023 (we send out renewal offers 5 months in advance). Complainants were understandably confused as they had moved out and had no plans to remain in the apartment. A second call came in from the other complainant at a time when no managers were in the office. This caller wanted to know the most money they might have to pay to terminate their lease. In the absence of managers on site, the response was cautious and conservative. The complainant was advised of the fees set forth in the lease for a lease termination.
  
  The lease allows for an early termination if two actions are taken at least 45 days prior to the new lease end date.   First, all parties must sign a lease termination addendum changing the lease end date and second, the outgoing tenants must pay a fee equal to three months’ rent. In the case of the complainants, the monthly rent starting March 30 was set at $1,885.00.  This lease termination fee does not cover the last month’s rent which falls within the 45-day period between the payment of the termination fee and the new lease end date.  If the complainants were held to the lease terms, they would have owed the three-month lease termination fee, which equaled $5,655.00 plus a final month’s rent, an additional $1,885.00 for a worst-case scenario of a total payout of $7,540.00.
  
  Subsequently that same day (March 31), once managers were on site and made aware of the situation, they reviewed the situation and decided to waive these lease termination fees. This information was communicated to both complainants on March 31, 2023. Specifically, the complainants were advised a zero-fee lease termination addendum had been prepared for their signature. They were explicitly advised they would owe no additional fees on their lease. As of this writing, complainants have not signed the zero-fee lease termination addendum even though it would be in their favor. The complaint to the Better Business Bureau was also filed on this same date, March 31, 2023.
  
  For the record, had the correct information been supplied in response to the February 10, 2023, inquiry, the complainants would have owed March rent, which they did indeed pay, and a three-month lease termination fee over and above March rent in the amount of $5,655.00.
  
  However, because of the miscommunication to complainants on February 10, 2022, and the time that had elapsed since then without any further communication, Management determined to fully waive the entire amount of lease termination fees.  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Jim V***,
  Property Manager