Complaints

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

close

Find a Location

PURE Property Management of South Carolina has 2 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

• 

  PURE Property Management of South Carolina

  3790 Fernandina Rd Ste 105 Columbia, SC 29210-3864

• 

  PURE Property Management of South Carolina

  237 Old Summerville Rd Unit F Summerville, SC 29486-7871

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:07/17/2024

  Type:Customer Service 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.

  PURE Property Management collected fees for management services not performed. They have held my money without cause or explanation for three weeks. I have tried contacting PURE multiple times over the past few weeks - emails are unreturned and phones are not answered.
  
  I paid PURE Property Management a 15% fee to "manage" a small renovation project that they didn't actually manage. Twice I was told the project was complete; the first time the project hadn't been started and the second time the project was incomplete. Both times I had to notify PURE as my property manager was unaware.
  
  They took over a property with no active flea infestation. Due to their delays and lack of managing the property, they allowed a flea infestation to begin and persist which required four flea treatments at a cost of $150 to me each time.
  
  Items that I was charged for and was told were completed were not done. I repeatedly asked for pictures of work completed but these requests were ignored.
  
  After 71 days, the property was still not rent-ready and had not been marketed to prospective tenants.
  
  It's been 3 weeks since I cancelled the management contract with PURE and I have not received any sort of final statement or refund of remaining funds that have been paid to them. They had held my money without cause or explanation.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/23/2024

  Hi BBB - property management agreement attached. 15% coordination fee for the repairs completed were outlined in the PMA signed by the owner - agreement point #4.

  It would have been impossible for us to allow a flea infestation in the home, as we received the property vacant in significant need of repairs due to owner's previous resident move-out (outside of our management), and we have never managed the unit occupied. We have only managed the unit while vacant, and could not have possibly brought fleas to the property.

  The final statement and refund of remaining funds was provided - the owner noted 3 weeks since cancellation, but it is typically a 30 day accounting close-out to ensure no additional invoices for the work already completed and funded were pending final payment.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/30/2024

  The issue with the fleas is this - when PURE took over the property there was no active flea infestation. Payment for removal of carpet was sent April 18, 2024 but was not done until late May. Had the property actually been "managed" and repairs made in a timely fashion, there wouldn't have been time for flea eggs to hatch. 

  The act of managing is not letting a property sit while you do nothing. If actual managing was being done, you wouldn't need me (the owner) to tell you that the contactor you hired hadn't even started the repairs and then later for me to tell you that the repairs were incomplete. I couldn't get an update from any of your employees for weeks so I had to have a friend go to the property in order to get an update. PURE was clueless as to the status of repairs and would not return emails or answer phone calls. 

  I'm asking for the return of the 15% paid to you for the renovations made by the Tidelands contractor as you didn't actually manage anything. 

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/30/2024

  To clarify, I am asking for the return of $2,881.62 from PURE. 

  
  

  I paid the 15% maintenance coordination fee to PURE for the Tidelands invoice on 5/6/2024 (The total invoice was $8,987.50 and PURE was paid $10,335.62 - invoice amount plus 15%). Then again on 7/15/2024 the reserve account was charged for $1133.50 in additional maintenance coordination fees which are well beyond the 15%. Additionally, I paid $400 for PURE to remove the carpet on 4/18/2024 and this was not done by PURE; it was done by Tidelands. ALSO, according to your own accounting, Tidelands was only paid $8,494.63 of the $8,987.50 invoiced. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/03/2024

  Type:Customer Service 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.

  5 days prior to my move in, they delayed my move in date by almost 2 weeks due to an issue with fleas. On the day of my move in, I immediately noticed roaches everywhere, a non-functioning refrigerator and an issue with the AC. I reached out to Pure Property via the portal. Guess what? No response. I ended up handling the issue with the refrigerator and the pest control myself. Luckily, I ended up having a pest control company prior to move in, to help treat the infestation. Monday morning, I called Pure Property, regarding the lack of communication, and it was told to me that “there was a lack of staff.” I informed them that I didn’t need someone to come out to spray, because my pest control company informed me to not mix chemicals, because it can possibly cause a bigger issue. Monday afternoon, an HVAC guy was sent to my home who stated, that he cleaned the coils and that there were issues within the home, and that he would voice his recommendations to the property company. I reached out to the property company, and they said “no recommendations were made to them, but they would send another vendor and if nothing was found wrong, I would have to pay a fee.” I then contacted the HVAC company who previously came out, and they stated my attic isn’t insulated and that’s what’s causing my home not to cool properly. I informed Pure Property what was said, and they then said, “we will talk with the owner to fix this issue.” I reached back out today and there has still been no updates regarding my attic insulation.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/03/2024

  Hello, we are writing to respond to the complaint filed by ******* ****** regarding her recent move in on June 21, 2024. We take all tenant concerns seriously and make every effort to address these concerns. We do apologize for any inconvenience caused during your move in process. Regarding the delay in your move in, we reached out to you prior to the move in to have full disclosure of the delay. We do a walkthrough and prior to the move in to address any and all issues that present themselves. You told me that the delay was okay because the day that we had scheduled for your move in was not the actual day that you planned on moving your personal items into the property. You were very grateful that we were addressing this for you and not just moving you in with out resolving. We offered to send our pest control out for additional treatments and you denied us access to perform the service and stated you would take care of this yourself. With the non functioning refrigerator reported, we immediately jumped in to resolve and you came back and canceled the work order without updating us. I can attach our chat print to show the communications between you and the office, I can also present you a call ledger with your number documented and the length of time the agent spent on the calls with you. We did send Krantz out to address the HVAC concern. They reported that the unit is functioning to its full capacity and that there may need to be insulation added in the attic area of the home. This has been submitted and the vendor is working on quotes and solutions for the insulation. Please give us a call to discuss anything further. We addressed all your issues in a timely manner and we have addressed your concerns. We thank you for allowing us to assist you with your property management needs and we look forward to resolving all concerns to your satisfaction. Thank you  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/11/2024

  Type:Customer Service 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.

  To whom it may concern,
  
  I am writing to file a formal complaint against PURE Property Management of South Carolina regarding unjust charges and mishandling of a reported issue at my residence, 145 Rivendale Drive.
  
  I reported a leak in my residence promptly upon its occurrence, accompanied by video evidence showcasing the active leak. Despite my proactive approach, the response from PURE Property Management has been dismissive and unjust. The subsequent interactions with the management, particularly Kenyetta H., have been marked by a lack of sensitivity and a refusal to address the issue impartially.
  
  Despite providing evidence of the active leak and cooperating with the management's vendor, I have been unjustly charged for a service call without concrete proof of tenant fault. The management's assertion that the issue was tenant caused lacks substantiation and fails to consider alternative explanations, such as infrastructure issues, as initially suggested by confusion regarding the roof.
  
  In light of the aforementioned issues, I request the following actions to be taken:
  
  Immediate removal of the unjust charge from my account.
  A thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the reported leak, considering all available evidence impartially.
  Sensitivity training for staff members to ensure fair and respectful treatment of all residents.
  A formal apology for the mishandling of this situation.
  Failure to address these concerns satisfactorily will result in further escalation of this matter to relevant authorities and regulatory bodies. I trust that PURE Property Management will take swift and appropriate action to rectify these injustices.
  
  Sincerely,
  ******* ******

  Business Response

  Date: 04/11/2024

  Good afternoon. I have reviewed your email as well as the work order, the vendor invoice and notes. As you noted in chat messages with management section 20-B addresses maintenance. It states the tenant will be responsible for all non-necessary service calls. Per the plumber's notes there was no leak found and you explained to the plumber the toilet recently overflowed and they also noted water on the floor by the shower. The plumber explained the importance of ensuring the shower curtain is always inside the tub when showering/bathing to keep water off the floor. Failures of plumbing and other mechanical services are covered by owner maintenance but not non-necessary service calls. The owner is not responsible for service call fees when there is no issue or the situation was caused by misuse by the tenant. I understand not wanting to pay service call fees but this policy is clearly outlined and was agreed to when signing the lease. This provision is in all leases and enforced with all tenants. I apologize but after careful review we are not able to waive the service call fee. The decision is based on the plumber's findings when they arrived.  In the future please make sure there is an issue when reporting a service call and that it is not caused by misuse whether intentional or accidental. Rest assured going forward covered maintenance items will be handled quickly and professionally. Thank you. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/11/2024

  
  
  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  To Whom It
  May Concern,
  I am
  writing in response to PURE Property Management's position as communicated
  through the Better Business Bureau concerning the disputed service call fee at
  my residence, 145 Rivendale Drive. While I acknowledge the stipulations of
  section 20-B of our lease agreement, which delineates tenant responsibilities
  regarding non-necessary service calls, the particulars of this incident firmly
  establish the charge as unwarranted. The assertion of negligence or misuse has
  not been substantiated through an objective lens, warranting a detailed
  reevaluation.
  1.
  Immediate and Documented Reporting: The leak was discovered and reported without delay, a claim substantiated by
  video evidence that was promptly shared with management. This immediate action
  was driven not by convenience but by a pressing concern for the property's
  integrity and a desire to mitigate any potential damage promptly. The volume
  and nature of the water leakage led me to suspect a roof-related issue
  initially, a reasonable assumption given the circumstances. This rapid
  reporting contradicts any suggestion of neglect, highlighting instead a
  proactive and responsible approach to property care.
  2.
  Thorough Reassessment of Evidence: The video evidence crucially depicts a scenario far removed from what could be
  attributed to misuse of a shower curtain. I implore management to conduct a
  detailed and unbiased review of this footage, paying close attention to the
  water's volume and spread, which starkly contradicts the premise of a mere
  bathroom mishap. This evidence is pivotal and challenges the assumptions
  underpinning the service charge, necessitating a revised assessment.
  3.
  Discrepancy in Initial and Subsequent Assessments: The evolution from an initial
  suspicion of a roof leak to the plumber's assertion of a bathroom source is
  marked by significant procedural oversight. Notably, the first technician's
  inspection did not corroborate the later claim of water on the bathroom floor
  due to misuse. This glaring discrepancy casts serious doubts on the legitimacy
  of the service charge and underscores the need for a comprehensive review of
  both the procedural sequence and the factual basis of the assessments.
  4.
  Contradiction of Historical Tenant Behavior: Our history of diligent maintenance issue
  reporting and preventive action stands in stark contradiction to the
  presumption of misuse. The hasty conclusion drawn by the plumber, and
  subsequently accepted by management, disregards this historical context. It is
  imperative to question the acceptance of an unfounded assertion over the
  well-documented history of responsible tenancy. This oversight not only
  undermines the tenant-management trust but also calls into question the
  fairness of procedural application.
  The
  detailed points above elucidate a significant gap in the objective and fair
  assessment of the incident as required by the stipulated lease agreement.
  Therefore, a comprehensive reevaluation of the service call charge is not only
  justified but necessary. Such a review should incorporate all available
  evidence, consider the historical context of our tenancy, and rectify the
  procedural and factual inaccuracies that have led to this dispute.
  I remain
  fully committed to an equitable resolution and trust that PURE Property
  Management will approach this issue with the impartiality and thoroughness it
  merits. I am prepared to provide any further information or clarification as
  needed and anticipate a resolution that reflects both fairness and
  accountability.
  Thank you
  for your attention to this matter and for reconsidering the circumstances with
  the seriousness they warrant.
  Sincerely,
  Ismaeel
  Yunusa

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/11/2024

  I want to reiterate that this is an incorrect application of section 20-B, which the business continues to cite, because they have not established any neglect or carelessness resulting to the leak. We reported the leak as it occurred. Initially, we thought it was from the roof because it was raining and given the volume of water, as seen in the attached video. In it, you will hear an individual asking for a bowl to contain the water. Had we been careless, we wouldn't have considered that. If there was water sitting on the floor of the bathroom, why would we think it is the roof? The technician for the roof came and determined it likely originated from the bathroom and did not observe either water on the floor or curtain outside the tub while conducting his evaluation. The plumber arrived days later; thus, you cannot assert the leak was inactive when we reported it. The plumber arrived after it had stopped. The reported overflow incident did not lead to water sitting on the floor because it was contained and occurred after the leak was observed. However, the plumber, who seemed to look down on us upon noticing we are Africans, kept trying to establish that the overflow occurred before the leak was observed through his questioning. Even if the plumber's assertion—that the shower curtain was outside the tub, which is contrary to our practices—is true, it did not precede the observed leak to claim we were careless or negligent as per section 20-B. I am disappointed by the management's bias and unfair treatment, which was not the impression I had when I signed the lease 2 months ago.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/11/2024

  We do understand your dissatisfacton with the decision but please understand we must make our decision based on the licensed vendor's assessment when they arrive. It is not fair for an owner to pay for service that is not needed and that was the assessment of the vendor when they arrived. We dispatched the vendor quickly and the plumbing was tested, affected areas viewed and no active leaks were occurring. The provision is clearly outlined in our lease and was agreed to. We hope you can understand the reasons for our decision. We apologize we were not able to satisfy your concerns and appreciate the feedback.