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:08/26/2024

  Type:Billing 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.

  I lived at State on Campus last year. Prior to signing my lease and moving in, I was assured multiple times by staff that I could put holes in the walls and would not be charged as long as I patched them. After moving out last month, I now have a paint fee charge in my resident portal. They told me it was due to the patched holes. This is against what they had originally told me and my roommate. I believe this company is taking advantage of college students by answering questions like this over the phone so that they can later charge them with no evidence of prior approval.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/17/2024

  Thank you for reaching out to discuss the complaint submitted to your office. I hope this email finds you well. 

  
  

  Proper care of our apartments is important in countless ways and our property's entire team takes pride in delivering a quality product to all of our Residents. On the other hand, we also want for our Residents to make their leased apartments feel like home because we know how this is equally important to our Residents, however this should be done reasonably and there is an expectation that damages or minor alterations of the apartments should not be done in excess. The Resident in reference exceeded what we believe to be reasonable. 

  
  

  After each Resident's Move-Out our team conducts a Unit Inspection and a report is then generated for that leased premises, this report is accessible by the Resident(s) themselves via their Resident Portal. The Unit Inspection Report for the Resident in reference includes numerous photos that show a large number of wall patches ranging in various sizes throughout the majority of the apartment they had leased. Our property's general paint policy is as follows: Any individual room that needs two or more walls painted, after a Resident has moved out, will receive a "Full Paint" within that room so as to keep the entirety of the room's walls consistent in color. This *does not* necessarily mean that the Resident will incur the full cost of the associated painting. Further, should an apartment as a whole require that 50% or more of all walls need to be painted, then the entire apartment will receive a "Full Paint," again, so as to keep the apartment consistent in color. Our Lease Agreement, including the Lease Agreement signed by the Past Resident in reference, does clearly state in Section 18.2 that "No holes or stickers are allowed inside or outside of the apartment. But we'll permit a reasonable number of small nail holes for hanging pictures on sheetrock walls and in grooves of wood-paneled walls, unless our rules state otherwise."

  To provide an example of what we do not find reasonable, I will reference the Unit Inspection Report for the Resident in question, who had more than 25 crudely-applied wall patches, ranging in sizes roughly equal to a baseball and as large as the rough circumference of a dinner plate. These few dozen patches were located in just three (3) of the six (6) rooms of the apartment. To circle back, the painting required in these three (3) rooms meant that the entirety of the apartment would need a "Full Paint." I understand that the Resident in reference has claimed that she was given verbal permission to hang as many items as she would like, however our Lease Agreement also states, in Section 26.2, that "Neither we nor any of our representatives have made any oral promises, representations, or agreements," not to mention that our Team in its entirety understands this exact subsection of the Lease Agreement to be very important, as it is not uncommon that Residents will wrongfully utilize this as a method of negotiation. We are happy to provide a copy of the aforementioned Unit Inspection Report should we receive written confirmation that this is permitted by the past resident in reference.

  
  

  The Resident in Reference was charged solely for the repainting of the apartment due to excessive wall damages, there were no other charges of any sort associated with their Financial Move-Out Statement. For reference, it is a fact that the vast majority of our Residents who have recently moved out, which was roughly 199 individuals, were NOT assessed charges for apartment re-painting. Further, only a small fraction of these same Residents were charged for the "Full Paint" of their entire unit, limited exclusively to the Residents with clearly excessive damage to the walls. To publicly claim that our property is taking advantage of Residents via correcting the damages caused by the Residents themselves, which to be clear is not all Residents, in fact only few, is not only an unfounded claim but also factually incorrect and defamatory by definition.

  
  

  Furthermore, I believe it is important to highlight that our property is measurably ranked at the top of our market with regards to resident satisfaction, in fact our property is #1 overall in our market (Morgantown, WV) in positive reviews, which is evident via the many publicly submitted reviews in favor our of property, across a number of public platforms. I also understand that the Past Resident in reference submitted their complaint to the BBB on August 23, 2024, which was five (5) days prior to them contacting our office to initiate their dispute of the Financial Move-Out Statement they received. I believe it is reasonable to assume that a proper dispute process and potential resolution was not the intent of the Past Resident in reference when their complaint was filed.  

  
  

  Please feel free to contact our office if you have any further questions.

  
  

  Thank you, 

  State Morgantown

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/17/2024

  Better Business Bureau:

  
  

  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

  
  

  Regards,

  
  

  ***** *****