My husband (Marcus C) wrote a negative review, which John Tiner just responded to yesterday trying to justify their business practices. I created this Yelp account today just to post this review.
THE FACTS:
A small claims suit was awarded in our favor for the full amount of security deposit withheld plus court costs. We believe penalties should have been applied on top of this, but were not. John Tiner indicates because they were not, he believes that is proof Tiner acted properly and not unethically as my husband described.
BACKGROUND:
Tiner withheld just over half of our security deposit after we went through and thoroughly cleaned the property. They did not provide us an opportunity to resolve any issues they might have found, per a preliminary walk through requested and agreed to in writing. There were differing opinions presented in court about the circumstances of the walk through, but ultimately, per our tenants rights, we were not provided a list of items to address and opportunity to resolve them. Additional points were made and defended for other issues, but ultimately Court found in tenants favor.
When the security deposit deductions were first withheld and a letter sent to us (tenant), we immediately disputed. Additional documentation and justification was requested and Tiner's response was only to cite portions of the tenant agreement. No further documentation was provided so we served a small claims suit. In the discovery process I requested addt'l information from the vendors Tiner used to perform cleaning and repair services they thought were necessary. Since it was our money they were spending, we wanted to understand what services exactly were performed and how they arrived at their charges (the deductions). Per a conversation with one of the vendors the day prior to the hearing, I learned Tiner had instructed the vendor not to provide any information to us. Tiner separately also advised that any records we had requested via subpoena would be provided to us the day of court.
On the day of the hearing I was provided my first opportunity to review photos they claimed showed the condition of the property when we moved out. One picture caught my attention as not being current to the property while I was there. It was of the backyard and showed vegetation on a gazebo. When I moved in the vegetation was dead and out of our pocket we later replanted new vegetation. This photo showed the old vegetation, but very green and alive. I pointed out this timeframe concern to Krystal Tiner who was representing that day and she advised it was one of the photos she had on file that was prior to my tenancy and used to advertise the property when I moved in. She didn't know exactly when it was taken. There was not a lot of time to keep going through her evidence, and that photo alone wasn't exactly a huge deal, so I let it go. Unfortunately there were other similar details I didn't connect the dots on until after the hearing had concluded.
What I call "the smoking gun" on this case and to me confirms Tiner's "unethical" behavior is a photo of one of the bathrooms. Tiner presented a handful of photos as evidence of the supposed poor and unclean condition we left the property in. One photo in particular was showing how dirty a glass shower door was, and Krystle Tiner commented to the judge on how much time was spent having to clean the glass door. The judge even directly looked at me and asked me to respond. Having only seen the photos just that morning and being extremely nervous having never been involved in any court process, I froze not having a response. I honestly couldn't speak to the condition of this glass door referenced in the photo. It was only afterwards did I realize I couldn't recall cleaning the glass shower door because there never was any glass shower doors while I resided there. In my move-in condition reports it was documented in several locations that there were holes in the bathroom wall from where there PREVIOUSLY was a glass shower door, but had been removed prior to my moving in. Also, when I moved in my first husband who was in end stage cancer had severe walking and balance issues. I specifically was seeking a property that had no glass doors or other features that would pose a safety risk to him before he ultimately passed. I know without any hesitation there was never a glass shower door in that property while I resided there. So, the fact that Tiner presented photo evidence taken from a prior tenancy and made a point to say how much time was spent cleaning this shower door because I failed to do so is an absolute lie. As a business, to present false evidence in court and accuse me in front of a judge is completely unethical (I think even illegal) and I have often debated on reporting Tiner to the Better Business Bureau for engaging in such practices. Had I made this connection in court, I am certain I would have been awarded full penalties. read more