Integrity is not something that this property management company has. In fact, they have anything but integrity. In the less than one year I have rented through this company, they have violated a minimum of six Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and unlawfully accused me of violating ORS 90.325 by classifying accidental damages as being intentionally negligent.
Potentially violated statutes include: 1.) ORS 90.300 - Security deposits and actual damages. This statute requires - Charges reflect actual damages, not speculative or inflated amounts, charges be supported by documentation of real costs and that tenants are not charged for betterment or improvement beyond the pre-loss condition. The landlord must provide an accounting showing what was actually incurred. How did IPM potentially violate the statute: Charging for removal and disposal of glass that were not performed, charging replacement cost without proof of pre-loss value, treating an invoice as conclusive proof instead of evidence and refusing to correct or re-account once errors were raised.
2.) ORS 90.130 - Duty of good faith. How did IPM potentially violate: Billing for services not rendered, refusing to provide itemization or valuation, using eviction pressure to enforce disputed charges, claiming "nothing further is required" instead of correcting known defects and relying on legal authority as a shield instead of addressing factual errors.
3.) ORS 90.315 and ORS 90.302 - Improper fees and charges. How did IPM potentially violate: Applying late fees to disputed charges, treating damage claims like rent, imposing penalties while insurance resolution was ongoing, and using fees and eviction proceedings to coerce payment rather than reflect actual contractual costs. Late fees are not permitted on charges that are not rent and not legally fixed.
4.) ORS 90.325 - Misapplication of tenant duties. How did IPM potentially violate: Treating an accidental incident as a statutory "violation", treating nonpayment of disputed charges as misconduct and using ORS 90.325 to justify eviction where no misconduct exists. They are not violating ORS 90.325 themselves, but they are misusing it as legal authority. That misuse itself contributes to: bad faith (ORS 90.130), and retaliation (ORS 90.385).
5.) ORS 90.385 - Retaliation. It prohibits termination or threats of termination because a tenant: asserted rights, requested accounting, disputed unlawful charges. How IPM potentially violate: Potential violations: Termination notice issued the business day following the day I: disputed charges, requested valuation, demanded lawful accounting. and the use of eviction to punish legal resistance.
6.) ORS 90.375 - Unlawful eviction procedures. This statute governs remedies when landlords: attempt unlawful eviction, misuse termination authority, engage in coercive conduct. Using a termination notice to enforce disputed billing falls into this category.
They don't understand the law and use intimidation and bullying to force tenants to comply, including attempted coercion to pay for services not rendered. read more
