48M in Fines (by Deanna [TX]) Sep 27, 2024 10:32 AM
48M in Fines (by Sisco [MO]) Sep 27, 2024 10:40 AM
48M in Fines (by NE [PA]) Sep 27, 2024 10:51 AM
48M in Fines (by 6x6 [TN]) Sep 27, 2024 11:26 AM
48M in Fines (by 6x6 [TN]) Sep 27, 2024 11:29 AM
48M in Fines (by Oregon Woodsmoke [ID]) Sep 27, 2024 11:50 AM
48M in Fines (by 6x6 [TN]) Sep 27, 2024 11:55 AM
48M in Fines (by Scott [IN]) Sep 27, 2024 12:59 PM
48M in Fines (by John... [MI]) Sep 27, 2024 1:17 PM
48M in Fines (by Oreo [WI]) Sep 27, 2024 3:03 PM
48M in Fines (by WMH [NC]) Sep 27, 2024 3:15 PM
48M in Fines (by Ken [NY]) Sep 27, 2024 4:16 PM
48M in Fines (by Small potatoes [NY]) Sep 27, 2024 10:46 PM
48M in Fines (by MAT [PA]) Sep 27, 2024 11:19 PM
48M in Fines (by kevin [FL]) Sep 28, 2024 5:02 PM
48M in Fines (by Ray-N-Pa [PA]) Sep 30, 2024 6:44 AM
Click here to reply to this discussion.
Click Here to send this discussion to a friend
48M in Fines (by Deanna [TX]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 10:32 AM Message:
No word if blackmail was part of their strategy.
But, a word of caution to those for whom it's applicable---
Dallas landlord must pay $48 million for charging bogus fees to tenants
A Dallas-based company that rents out single-family homes will pay $48 million to settle claims by the Federal Trade Commission that it reaped millions of dollars via deceptive business practices — including forcing tenants to pay undisclosed fees on top of their monthly rent.
Invitation Homes, based in Dallas, is the nation's largest owner of single-family homes for rent. As of June 30, the company owned or managed more than 109,000 homes across the U.S. including numerous properties in Dallas-Fort Worth,
In the complaint, filed in federal court in Atlanta, the FTC claims that the Dallas-based company used “deceptive advertising and unfair practices” to charge millions of dollars in bogus fees that harmed tens of thousands of people.
These "mandatory" fees included charges for internet packages, air-filter delivery, and other services, and were not disclosed in the monthly rental rates that Invitation Homes advertised, the FTC claims.
The FTC alleges that between 2021 and June 2023, the company charged consumers tens of millions of dollars in junk fees as part of their monthly rental payments.
The agency also claims that Invitation Homes systematically withheld tenants' security deposits after they moved out, unfairly charged them for normal wear-and-tear, and used “unfair eviction practices,” including starting eviction proceedings against renters who had already moved out.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Invitation Homes also agreed to ensure it is clearly disclosing its leasing prices, establish procedures to handle tenant security-deposit refunds fairly, and cease other unlawful practices.
The funds from the settlement, which is subject to approval by a federal judge, would go toward customer refunds.
The company rents out homes in Atlanta, the Carolinas, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, Northern California, Orlando, Phoenix, Seattle, South Florida/Miami, Southern California, and Tampa.
In the Dallas area, many of the 248 homes they have listed are located in the 'burbs such as Rockwall, Keller, Forney, Grand Prairie, and range from $1,949 to $3,000, such as this 3-bedroom 2-bath home in Grand Prairie, available for $1,949 which includes $85 per month for internet, $9.95 per month for "air filter delivery," and $40 per month for a "Smart" doorbell. --137.118.xx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by Sisco [MO]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 10:40 AM Message:
I anticipate a new form to be signed by tenants, the form will be similar to a truth in lending form. --149.76.xxx.x |
48M in Fines (by NE [PA]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 10:51 AM Message:
How do you force that many tenants to pay undisclosed fees on top of rent? Rents $1,000, but you owe us $1,100? What? --24.152.xxx.xx |
48M in Fines (by 6x6 [TN]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 11:26 AM Message:
I believe I warned against junk fees?
Are tenants starting to wake up? Probably not.
NE, I presume this is incorporated at lease signing, and then the tenants are sort of stuck at that point and just agree. Also, tenants don't usually tend to read the ads, let alone the fine print.
I am guessing this company did disclose it, but in the fine print.
I have seen the air filter junk fee in my area before.
It might take a while sometimes, but at some point, some people do wake up and then push back.
I see this same type of concern for Brad's "rent lock fee". Although, I am sure Brad discloses his, some people will not see it that way. Not picking on you, Brad. --76.129.xxx.xx |
48M in Fines (by 6x6 [TN]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 11:29 AM Message:
All that said, I blame the tenants for this. They just love subscription base anything and love fries with that. So, who's fault is it really? --76.129.xxx.xx |
48M in Fines (by Oregon Woodsmoke [ID]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 11:50 AM Message:
Not disclosed in advertising? Oops. I would have thought that putting it in the lease might be enough, but yes, let them know before they pay their application fee. Perhaps put it on the actual application? That way they know for sure before they apply and they have signed it.
Its federal trade Commission so it is going to apply nationwide.
I always put my feeds in my ads, but I don't have any additional fees beyond deposit, application fee, and "tenant pays all utilities". Everything else I want is baked into the rent and everyone pays it whether they have pets or not.
It's not hard to put into an ad unless you have a huge list of fees that you are adding on.
--76.178.xxx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by 6x6 [TN]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 11:55 AM Message:
Oregon Woodsmoke, I do believe that these days that huge list exist. --76.129.xxx.xx |
48M in Fines (by Scott [IN]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 12:59 PM Message:
Agree that these "junk" fees are probably spelled out in the lease, otherwise they would be unenforceable, and no one would be complaining. --107.141.xx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 1:17 PM Message:
The items were in the lease, but not disclosed beforehand or in any advertising.
So, they would say "This place is $2000/month" and then the lease would stipulate that they also had to pay monthly fees to the landlord for internet, "air filter delivery", and a "smart doorbell." With no option to NOT have those things if you didn't want them.
Mandatory fees should either be included in the rent or listed in the advertising -- not only shown at least signing. Note that this was AFTER they had applied and been approved.
Also, more importantly... The media is concentrating on the junk fees, but the reality is that this was probably a bigger deal because they were keeping security deposits without cause.
Finally, to note it... These were not "fines" as mentioned in this post. No one was fined anything. This is an settlement where they admit no fault. This is basically them agreeing to settle and not do it any more. They haven't been fined anything really.
It's a $48,000,000 "warning." ;)
--107.181.xxx.x |
48M in Fines (by Oreo [WI]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 3:03 PM Message:
mmm...I tend to repeat important items and payments throughout what I do...when taking applications, when signing the lease, and at orientation. No matter how often or when or where, prospects aren't reading, listening or caring about the details. It's evident when after placing an ad with all details in it, if the first picture on the ad is attractive, it will be clicked on numerous times, with questions answered in the ad. --75.11.xx.xx |
48M in Fines (by WMH [NC]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 3:15 PM Message:
The SD info caught my eye too. That is way more of an issue that random junk fees, but adding them to the charges helps make the whole thing sound better...or worse, depending on your point of view.
Whenever I see folks here talking about "keeping their security deposit" it drives me nuts. --173.28.xx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by Ken [NY]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 4:16 PM Message:
Oreo, I agree no one reads the ads which is all the more reason to have put it in the ad. --45.55.xxx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by Small potatoes [NY]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 10:46 PM Message:
Maybe it will level the pkaying field for the rest of us --172.59.xxx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by MAT [PA]) Posted on: Sep 27, 2024 11:19 PM Message:
“Starting eviction proceedings against renters who have already moved out” is an “unfair eviction practice”? Obviously an accusation leveled by someone who doesn’t understand there are many reasons an eviction might be started after someone had moved out. --108.52.xxx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by kevin [FL]) Posted on: Sep 28, 2024 5:02 PM Message:
I have one near me and when I saw the add on Zillow last year I could not believe all of the extras they pile on. --94.140.xx.xxx |
48M in Fines (by Ray-N-Pa [PA]) Posted on: Sep 30, 2024 6:44 AM Message:
I had a rental where I was wanting $1,199 for the place. Now $1,200 is a tough nut for some folks to tackle. But the place also includes sewer, three units of water and the trash bill monthly. This takes the monthly rent down to about $1,030 monthly.
So when someone ask me what the rent is, I make sure that the folks know it is $1,030 with the tenant paying ALL utilities. I use the three times number as $!,030. Move in amount is $2,400. First months rent and security deposit.
Maybe I am just as guilty. --24.101.xxx.xxx |
Click Here to send this discussion to a friend
Report discussion to Webmaster
Reply:
|
|