The email that worked.

This is the email to the manager that ended up working. G- only contacted me once I'd filed with the BBB, prior to that they refused to talk to me because they didn't like dealing with someone who knew their tricks and the law. They lost their normal options to screw people and resorted to trying to wear me out. I did not give in.

===================================================

G-,

I appreciate you working with me to handle this matter.

The amount I calculated is $479.30 for the new check (I will destroy the old one, it has already expired many months ago anyway).

I've attached a spreadsheet with the breakdown. I left the $50 VIP credit in, since had the other erroneous charges not been there, I still would have been awarded that (as long as it didn't exceed the original deposit, of course) and just a show of good will on Richdale's part for how long they've dragged their feet.

Sorry I got a little curt on the phone, but it was a little shocking to hear you state that I had no ability to deduce that the previous tenant was not charged for damage to mini-blinds on move-out, since if they had been charged then the damaged items would have been replaced, right? Unless it is Richdale's regular practice to charge people for replacement, but not replace the damaged blinds so that they can charge the next tenant for the same damage. Is that what happened with the air ducts and why after many months no invoice could be produced that it was actually done? It'd be interesting to subpoena the previous tenant's move-out charges and see how many were duplicated on mine.

As for the comment about having to replace all the padding throughout the apartment, J- had already stated that it was only one small piece that was replaced but didn't know where other than it was in the front room (caused by the sprinkler solution), so I know your claim of pad replacement for the whole apartment is not true, and I don't particularly appreciate statements being made as fact when I've already been told something else by another employee, it forces me to question everything that is said. Also, the "excessive cat hair" as first described to me went along with the pictures from the front room, not from the air ducts. Again, had the employee waited until after the maid had come, that cat hair would not have been present. My thinking was "I'm paying $100 for the maid service, why would I vacuum first?"

If this works for you, I will remove my negative posts on my blog and add a new post indicating an agreement was met (with no specific $ amounts given). I feel that the level of treatment has been so poor that it's now approaching a year after moving out where legitimate issues have been ignored by the staff, requiring me to file with the BBB before I can talk to anyone that's serious about resolution, I'm at least owed the ability to say that much... that new blog post would be my final posting about the issue and I would stop my video interviews of previous tenants and I would consider the matter closed.

Based on my experience and that of other previous tenants (as well as direct statements made by J- that they automatically assume any damage was caused by the tenant), it would seem that Richdale's practice is to charge the resident without doing any research hoping they'll just accept the payment, ignore the resident if they pursue it until it escalates to the BBB, then attempt to gain their silence while only offering what they were already owed. Richdale wouldn't have to coerce people's silence and would also have much higher ratings on apartment rating sites if they just dealt with their tenants fairly from the start. The vast majority of the complaints published on the web by others are about how they were treated after they left.

It's taken a year of frustration to get Richdale's attention to get them to do what should have been done from the beginning, and in addition to all of the headaches, now I'm also being asked to also give up my ability to talk about it to let others know what problems they may encounter without being offered anything in return that wasn't already owed to me. The courts would allow me to get both the money and my freedom to warn others.

Imagine someone comes along and takes your wallet. After a year of hassles and being ignored, they finally tell you "OK OK, I'll give it back to you... but only if you don't tell anyone I took it." That's how Richdale sounds to me right now. That's a pretty shady business practice... it really either needs to stop or be exposed so others know to steer clear.

So to recap: You send a check for $479.30, I remove the negative posts from the blog (and revise my blog description that shows at the top of each page), I add a new post indicating we've agreed upon a settlement that we're both happy with and the matter would be closed. Sound good?

Thanks,
Paul

========
The check they sent was shy of my demand by a few dollars, thus releasing me from any moral obligation to hold up my end of the bargain. If X then Y. They chose to not do X, I therefore do not do Y. Very simple. I also stated that their practices needed to stop or be brought to light. Since they are continuing to deceive more renters after all this (honestly though, I expected that) then it must surface. I gave them their outs, they chose to not take them.