Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Scott Properties of the Midlands, LLC & Scott Properties of Charleston, LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Scott Properties of the Midlands, LLC & Scott Properties of Charleston, LLC 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

• 

  Scott Properties of the Midlands, LLC & Scott Properties of Charleston, LLC

  PO Box 2125 Lexington, SC 29071-2125

  
• 

  Scott Properties of the Midlands, LLC & Scott Properties of Charleston, LLC

  PO Box 2047 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465-2047

  

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:05/03/2024

  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.

  I am disabled i rented a home from Scott properties of the midlands. I have a PSD-Service dog and an ESA dog as well. I was charged pet fees which is against the Americans with Disabilities, I provided Scott properties with documentation from my doctor, they have not refunded me the pet fees that they illegally charged me which was $350 per animal which = to $700. My lease was up the end of march their contract stated to have carpet professionally cleaned at the end of lease, I professionally had all the carpet professionally cleaned as per contract. I provided Scott properties of the midlands with the invoice showing i paid for carpet to be professionally cleaned after lease ended the took $230 from my security deposit and had carpet cleaned after i submitted proof that i already paid to have the carpet professionally cleaned. Scott property still ows me a refund of the pet fees of $700 and the $230 for charges that was already completed. I am disabled and on a fixed income so $930 is a lot of money to have a management company take from me. I have been discriminated against and I need help because they keep giving me the run around when pet fees were supposed to be refunded immediately per federal law under the ADA and HUD- Fair housing ACT.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/03/2024

  As always there are two sides to every story. What Mr. L***** fails to mention in his complaint are a few important happenings with his rental application and lease agreement. Mr. L***** moved into one of our rental homes in April of 2023 and put two pets on his application. Prior to moving into the property Mr. L***** paid $350 per pet for a total of $700. After Mr. L***** lived in the house for over 11 months he called Scott Properties right before his move out and stated "my pets are service animals and I need for you to refund my $700". Mr. L***** admitted that his pets were not registered service animals when he moved in but after going to the doctor 11 months after move in, the doctor approved his pets as service animals. On the call with Mr. L***** he also mentioned that finding a doctor for himself and getting his pets registered as service animals wasn't a priority until now. At the time of this phone call we explained Scott Properties internal process for getting his pets approved as service animals which he completed within a week or two of our conversation. Once the pets were approved we notified Mr. L***** and told him we would refund the $700 at move out with his security deposit which would have prevented us from cutting two checks. This wasn't good enough. He wanted his $700 refund check immediately. It wasn't a priority for Mr. L***** to find a doctor for himself or get the pets approved for 11 months while living in the rental home, but once the pets were approved they expected Scott Properties to make their refund check a priority. After much back and forth we agreed to cut Mr. L***** a check for $700.00. We called Mr. L***** and told him we had a check ready for him and we asked him if he wanted to pick the check up at our office or did he want us to mail it. He told us he was living in North Carolina and he asked us to mail the check to him. This phone call to Mr. L***** was made mid-day on May 2nd. This BBB complaint was written after we made the phone call to Mr. L***** about his $700 check being ready for pickup and him telling us to mail it to his NC address. Mr. L***** wrote this complaint in a way that would lead one to believe we have had no communication and nothing has been done on our end to help resolve this issue but he is simply wrong. Mr. L*****'s $700 check has been mailed as he requested yesterday, and as we mentioned to him again today, don't wait 11 months at the new place you moved into to let your landlord know you have service animals.   

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/01/2024

  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.

  Brief Timeline – 9/13/23 – 1/3/2024
  • 9/13/23–10/17 – Notice of Intent to vacate given; ongoing communication with various members of the Scott Properties Team, including the break lease fee and final payment amount
  • October rent paid in full; vacated property 10/17
  • November 28 – Break lease fee paid at Scott Properties Lexington office (check 4980 in the amount of $1,487.10)
  • 12/ 29 – 1/3/24 received settlement check (7433) dated 12/21/23 in the amount of $1,194.00;
  series of communications with Crissy C**** in response to my request for an accounting of the final amount sent. Received copy of ledger from Crissy C****
  ** See attachments
  
  Based on my communication with Crissy C**** on November 27, I expected to receive a refund of the final break lease fee of the $1,482.10. My purpose is to emphasize the importance of clearly written rental contracts that are in congruence with stated procedures and practices. May this help Scott Properties in future interactions with their Tenants, who by the way, are also their customers. My recommendations:
  1. 60 day notice requirement: Clarify terms of the tenant Lease, specifically, the 60 day notice requirement, particularly in the case of lease buyout. As explained to me, the lease buyout period starts with the notice of intent to vacate. In order to mitigate costs, I gave notice and vacated as quickly as possible to allow opportunities for re-renting. Should I have remained during the 60 day notice period? Would the break lease period start after that time? These terms need to be made clearer. 2. Tenant Portal – should be available to Tenant until all business is concluded. This allows for clear communications and accountability between the parties. 3. Accounting – Provide a written ledger along with the settlement check, clearly detailing calculations used in arriving at the final the settlement amount. This amount should be clearly communicated and agreed upon before the check is issued.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/01/2024

  As Crissy explained to Genova prior to her breaking her lease agreement, the break lease fee is collected to ensure there are no gaps in income for the property owner. This is spelled out very clearly in the lease agreement signed by Genova. As we explained, once the property is rented by another tenant the buy-out is reduced to the cost of vacancy in between tenants plus the owner's advertising fee of $500.00. Scott Properties was fortunate to find another tenant fairly quickly so we were able to reduce Genova's break lease fee from $2835 to $1641 and the difference of $1194 was refunded to Genova. Unfortunately, no more money is owed, and no more money will be paid out, to Genova.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/01/2024

  The lease buy-out clause / break lease fee reads as follows on Genova's lease.
  

  24. BUY OUT CLAUSE: In the event the Tenant cannot fulfill the Lease term obligations, the Landlord will release the Tenant provided that the Tenant satisfies all of the following conditions:

  a) Provide (60) day written notice of intention to vacate or terminate lease
  b) Pay rent and utilities through the notice period
  c) Pay a break lease fee equal to three month’s rent
  
  Furthermore, a proper 60 day notice per the lease agreement, not even a full 30 day notice, was provided to Scott Properties. Even though she did not fulfill the obligations of the buy-out clause, we proceeded to advertise property immediately in an effort to help save her some money on the lease buy-out. Once the property was re-rented, we reduced the cost and issued you a refund of $1194. The breakdown of costs and the ledger were provided to Genova.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/06/2024

  I am rejecting this response because: It is interesting to note the manner in which I was addressed (first name only) in this response from Scott Properties (SP). For me it illustrates the disrespect and absence of customer care on the part of the respondent. I hasten to add that every SP Team member with whom I conducted business – with the exception of Crissy C**** – demonstrated the utmost courtesy and professionalism. It it appears to me that my requests have been taken personally. That is why I emphasized the need to review the lease terms to better serve tenants in the future. It seems that SP is focusing on my lack of adherence to the 60 day notice. No one at SP raised this matter throughout our entire communications, and email thread makes it clear when I intended to move out. (In fact, SP wanted to begin showings before I moved out – this can be documented. Also, I left the unit in move-in ready condition.) There were also two other recommendations made that were completely ignored in the response. I did have an interest in allowing as much time for SP to rent the unit to mitigate my costs; my understanding was that SP had an interest in the same, and that we were working together for the best interest of each party. I expected that if there were any problem with me moving out when I did, SP would have raised objections at that time. As explained to me, the lease buyout period would commence upon my notice to vacate, and I took that to mean the 3 month lease buyout period commenced on October 18th. I paid the full month’s rent for October, because I resided there for part of the month. Therefore, I accepted that the 3 month lease buyout period commenced on November 1st. It was also explained to me that should the unit be rented during the 3 month lease buyout period, I would not be responsible for rent paid by the new tenant, as SP could not double charge for the unit. I proceeded with this understanding. It is clear even from these exchanges that the 60 day notice in the case of lease buyout is problematic for both SP and the tenant. And although a ledger was provided only after I requested it. Additionally, as for accounting practices, any reduction to the cost should have been made and communicated as an integral part of the process. I reiterate that Scott Properties would do well to review their lease terms, and consider making changes to better serve their customers. That would be time well spent, rather than continuing to place blame on a tenant who made every effort to comply with lease terms that lack clarity.
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Genova ********

  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/06/2024

  I'll make one last attempt to further explain. Our lease agreements are VERY clear. If a lease is terminated prior to the lease expiration date, the tenant is required to pay a break lease fee equal to 3 months rent along with a $500 fee to remarket the property. No where in our lease agreement is there a requirement for Scott Properties to refund any of this break lease fee back to the tenants but we do it because we feel it's the right thing to do. We could have kept 100% of the break lease fee and been in compliance with Genova's signed lease agreement. The break lease fee is collected for one reason and one reason only...to make sure the property owner never has a lapse in rental income. Tenant sometimes forget that property owners have mortgage payments to make so if the property owners are ever without rental income, it puts them in a bad spot. In this case we refunded a majority of the break lease fee back to the tenant, which we weren't required to do, and no further credits will be issued.      

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/06/2024

  
  I
  am rejecting this response primarily because the most recent response
  from Scott Properties makes any further attempts to negotiate
  reasonably futile. With each reply, Scott Properties adds yet ANOTHER
  detail, another explanation. I mistakenly thought Scott Properties
  had dealt fairly in this process, but once again there are new claims
  and differing explanations on their part. It is so disappointing
  because this makes it look as if Scott Properties is making up or
  adding new details and excuses as they go along, and uses
  questionable business practices. They seem to have lost sight of the
  reasons for this complaint: “...to emphasize the
  importance of clearly written rental contracts that are in congruence
  with stated procedures and practices, all provided with the utmost
  customer care”, and to provide what I thought were sensible
  recommendations to better serve future customers/tenants.
  There
  was NEVER mention of a $500.00 fee. Plus, I never disputed ANY
  amount that was provided as the break lease fee was being determined (and there was more than one throughout the process; However, I DID ask questions, which seems to be the triggering
  point for this continued dispute.) Additionally, how would a
  property owner lose if I paid the requisite lease buyout fee (which I
  did without argument), and there was another renter in the property?
  Are you suggesting that you are entitled to double charge?
  At
  the heart of the matter, it is an issue of hearing your customers
  (tenants), and making an honest and honorable attempt to resolve the
  matter. Each response seems to be an escalation of an attack on me.
  Please note that I chose the BBB Complaint route first rather than
  the Real Estate Commission in hopes that Scott Properties would be
  willing to look at their lease and business practices, and adapt as
  needed to serve ALL of their customers. Sadly, with each response
  Scott Properties seems to double down.
  What
  is the benefit or purpose in continuing this dispute? As I stated
  previously, this is not solely about the disputed amount.
  This
  is my last comment on this matter, however, I am politely requesting
  that the Scott Properties respondent refrain from disrespectfully referring to me by my first name only – I consider that offensive
  and it lacks courtesy – demonstrating a complete absence of
  customer care. It is Ms. ******** or Genova ******** to you.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Genova ********

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/09/2024

  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.

  I was charged a late fee from this company and I am filing a complaint to recuperate said funds. I paid an amount owed by me and the payment was returned to me with fees. I have had to resubmit the same amount plus a $35 fee and I want those fees returned to me.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/09/2024

  The $35.00 will not be refunded to this residents account. After Christen B****** made his February rent payment, when this transaction reached his bank for processing there weren’t sufficient funds in Christen’s account to cover the transaction amount. This payment was returned to us with reason “non-sufficient funds (NSF)”. Our bank charges us $35.00 for any and all NSF payments so we simply pass this charge along to the resident who made the NSF payment. As mentioned, the $35.00 charge will stand and will appear as an amount owed to Scott Properties until it is paid in full.