Complaints

This profile includes complaints for St. Anton Multifamily, LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

St. Anton Multifamily, LLC has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  St. Anton Multifamily, LLC

  1801 I St Sacramento, CA 95811-3000

• 

  St. Anton Multifamily, LLC

  8000 Painted Desert Way Roseville, CA 95747

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:03/21/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore 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.

  Date of Transaction: Original lease signed on 01/22/2022; move-out on 01/31/2025 Amount Paid: $600 (original security deposit) Nature of Dispute: I am writing to file a complaint regarding an incorrect deduction from my security deposit after moving out of my apartment at Anton 1101. My original security deposit was $600, and I only received $28.71 back. I believe the deductions for carpet cleaning ($120) and labor for wall cleaning ($75) are unjustified. Under California law, landlords cannot deduct from security deposits for normal wear and tear. I believe the carpet cleaning charge falls under normal wear and tear. The property manager stated that the carpet needs to be professionally cleaned, but I believe its condition was acceptable and did not require more than normal cleaning. I also dispute the labor charge for wall cleaning. Business Attempts to Resolve: I have attempted to resolve this issue with Anton 1101. I emailed them on February 25, 2025, and March 7, 2025, requesting clarification and an itemized statement. The property manager provided a move-out statement on March 12, 2025, but the issue remains unresolved. I have since provided further clarification as to why I believe these charges are unfair. Desired Resolution: I am seeking a billing adjustment to my final account statement to reflect the return of the disputed charges ($195 total) that were incorrectly withheld from my security deposit. I am requesting that Anton 1101 refund this amount to me promptly.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/24/2025

  As indicated in the final move out statement the carpets needed cleaning, and the unit needed a full paint. Management provided the required documents. The charges stand. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/03/2025

  I am rejecting this response because:

  Hi, 

  This message is in reference to Complaint ID ********. Here's my response to the complaint:

  I am writing to reject your response to my dispute regarding the security deposit for the property at *************************************************** While you state that the charges stand and that the required documents were provided, I maintain that the deductions are unjustified and contradict California law.
  Specifically:

  • Carpet Cleaning: You indicate that the carpets "needed cleaning." However, California law prohibits landlords from deducting from security deposits for normal wear and tear. I contend that the carpet's condition fell under normal wear and tear, and the cleaning charge is therefore inappropriate. My position is supported by the fact that the carpet's condition was not noted as requiring more than "Needs Cleaning" in the inspection.  

  • Painting: You state the unit "needed a full paint." Again, considering I resided in the unit for over two years, deducting for paint is unacceptable. Assuming interior paint has a two-year life, there should be no deduction since I lived there for that duration.  

  Your response does not adequately address the points I raised regarding California law and the condition of the property.
  I reiterate my request for a billing adjustment to my final account statement and a refund of the disputed amount ($195). If this matter is not resolved, I will pursue further action, including seeking assistance from the *****************************************, as previously mentioned.

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/03/2025

  Normal wear and tear of carpet is when the carpet is matted down due to use. The inspection noted needs cleaning, that is not normal wear and tear. 

  You were not charged for paint you were only charged for labor. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/28/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore 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 am writing to file a complaint against the company regarding unreasonable move-out charges after my two-year tenancy. The property management has imposed multiple unfair fees, which I believe violate fair rental practices and may constitute fraudulent billing. I am seeking BBBs assistance in addressing these concerns.Key Complaints:Unreasonable Painting Charges I lived in the apartment for two years, and the walls had minor scratches and marks from normal wear and tear.According to California rental laws, tenants should not be charged for normal wear and tear. However, the management imposed painting fees despite these being standard signs of usage. This charge is unjustified.Excessive Cleaning ********************************** The property hired a cleaning service that charged far above market rates, which I believe is an unfair practice.More concerningly, the cleaning company was found to have an expired license on the Contractor State License Board (CSLB), meaning it may not be legally authorized to operate. Despite this, the apartment management proceeded with their services and passed the excessive cost onto tenants.Double Charges for Carpet ************************************* charged a carpet cleaning fee and then additionally charged for full carpet replacement, which constitutes double billing.Many of the so-called "deep cleaning" charges were simply for normal usage marks (e.g., minor floor scuffs, kitchen use marks), but the property exaggerated them to justify excessive charges.Requested Resolution:Refund of unjustified painting charges.Refund of excessive cleaning fees and an explanation for hiring an unlicensed cleaning company.Refund of double-charged carpet fees and a clear breakdown of the costs.I kindly request BBB to investigate ****** Station Apartments practices and help protect tenants from these unfair charges. I am willing to provide invoices, lease agreements, and photographic evidence to support my claim.

  Business Response

  Date: 01/28/2025

  Management conducted an initial inspection of the unit prior to residents vacating. During the inspection, management explained to Yuzhes roommate,Junlin, that the unit would require deep cleaning and that additional charges will be applied beyond the standard cleaning rate due to the condition of the unit.  
  
  Yuzhe and Junlin has since expressed concerns about the charges, claiming they were excessive and unreasonable. management addressed these concerns by explaining the following:
  
  Cleaning Charges: The cleaning required exceeded what is considered normal wear and tear. Specifically, there was excessive grease buildup in and around appliances, indicating a lack of regular cleaning during the tenancy. The bathroom and fridge also required a deep clean and trash was left behind. This type of buildup goes beyond standard use, making additional cleaning fees necessary to restore the unit to a suitable condition.   
  Carpet Cleaning: They argued that pet fur and minor stains should be part of routine carpet cleaning during standard turnover. Management explained that pet fur and stains require additional work and do not fall under normal wear and tear. Additionally, the carpet needed extra cleaning to address lingering odors and fur, which went beyond the scope of standard cleaning. They were not double charged for carpet. Statement attached. 
  Painting Charges: Yuzhe also disputed the painting fees, citing that tenants should not be charged for painting after two years of occupancy. Management clarified that, as per the lease agreement, painting charges are applicable if the tenancy duration is less than 36 months. Since Yuzhes tenancy fell within this time frame, the charges for labor and materials were justified.
  
  Management provided Yuzhe and Junlin with some photos documenting the units condition and reiterated that the charges were fair and in compliance with the lease terms.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/16/2024

  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 applied for a low income apartment on Friday 7/12 for myself, and my two children. Paid the application fee. Also paid the $250 holding deposit fee. I am a single mother of two, The leasing office is closed on Saturday and Sunday. On Monday 7/15, my application was still being processed. I emailed the leasing office and asked them to cancel my application at this time, and I asked them to refund the $250 holding deposit as I am no longer interested in renting with them. The leasing office replied to my email, today, Tuesday 7/16 and said that they will be keeping my $250 holding deposit because its been more then 72 hours since my interview with them on Friday 7/12. This is a government funded program for low income families. They kept the application fee. That is fine, that makes sense. The application fee is a payment - non-refundable, but the holding deposit is supposed to go towards the rental of the unit, should you get approved. IF you do not get approved, or decide to not rent... PRIOR to the application even being processed... the holding deposit should be refunded. I am a low income single mother of two, this is a program to help support families in our community. They are stealing and profiting off of the already struggling.. A GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES IS STEALING FROM YOUNG, SINGLE MOTHERS!!! I would like to be refunded my $250 holding deposit.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/17/2024

  Holding deposits are refundable if the application is cancelled with in 72 hours. You cancelled after the 72 hours but we will refund the holding deposit as a courtesy.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/05/2024

  Type:Sales and Advertising Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore 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 was told to bring a 500 holding deposit in order for them to move forward with my low income housing application which was not processed through any housing authority. I later called HUD and learned that this is an illegal practice and I also put a report with HUD. I was contacted through phone call on March 23 of 2024 to come in for an income interview and to bring all of my pay-stubs and my car registration my son's social security card, my social security card, my Drivers license, my certificate of citizenship and the 500 dollar money order, they also had me fill out an application online and had me enter both my checking and savings account numbers and routing numbers to proceed. I came in and brought everything including the 500 dollar money order and they took everything to the back to make copies they claimed that they gave back to me and they handed me some of my paperwork back. Then I noticed my son's Social security card had not been handed back to me, and I went back to the location **************************************, where they had done the interview and no one of the same people were there, I then got a phone call to bring another money order of 552 dollars to the ******************** location ******************************************* to bring my car registration again and my son *** and my drivers licence, my *** and a bill. and to Bring 552 dollar deposit and to sign the lease. I emailed her that I could not find my son *** since the last interview and that I thought that it had been left at their office, she told me to come and that I would have till tomorrow till 1 pm on phone to get the *** card of my son to them they had me sign a paper as soon as I got there and told me I was not getting my deposit back because I had come to the location without a lease in place and to leave the property. I made report with other government agencies HUD and was advised to report with FTC and Police and Better Business Bureau. I believe they took son's *** to carry Scam.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/08/2024

  ******** applied for an affordable housing unit that is part of the ***** section 42 program. After holding a unit for over two months, ******** cancelled on the day of her move in because she decided she did not want a unit on the third floor. Yes, she forfeited her deposit. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/08/2024

  I am rejecting this response because: I stated through email that my son's Social Security card was missing. It went missing since last time I had met with St. Anton Multifamily staff and I would not have enough time to get his *** and they wanted me to give them more money and sign a lease and give me till 1 pm next day to get the *** card which takes weeks to get in the mail, and I looked everywhere and when I went there to their appointment I definitely had it. Their statements are false and hearsay, based on assumptions but I was additionally told that they would not do any accommodations to the balcony for a special needs child and my son has a real diagnosis from **************** psychologist for children with neurodivergent conditions. But the main reason was the fact that they took my son's *** Card and never gave it back. If you go read the ****** reviews there is other people with similar accounts which makes me believe they premeditated this and scammed me on purpose. Someone needs to look into why they are taking documents then asking for them on the lease signing day but they have not given them back to the people. That is exactly what they did to my son's Social security they kept it. Also they take the top and bottom of a money order which is another sign of a scam since people are left with no proof of the transaction. 

  ******************************
  UCC 3-104
  UCC 3-603
  HRJ 192
  UCC 3-419
  UCC 1-308 
  Without Prejudice 

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/08/2024

  There was no request made for a reasonable modification.

  If you have proof of the staff stealing your son's social security card, please present it. 

  Yes, you were asked to bring in additional money at move in to cover the pro-rated rent and the remaining security deposit. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/09/2024

  I am rejecting this response because: I believe you should go ahead and watch your own cameras and see that you gave me only my SSN card and not my son's SSN card back. Either it was taken misplaced or given to some other customer with their paper work you guys were busy and doing too many things at the same time. You guys were the last ones to have it that's all I'm saying you either dropped it lost it or gave to someone else, or someone might have taken it who knows. All I know is I had it when I went there and when I came out it was not in the pile. 
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/13/2024

  Type:Sales and Advertising Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore 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 paid rent online to a St.Anton apartment complex on June 3rd. The same day I received a confirmation email from their website that the rent had been paid. Rent is due by June 5th. On June 6th, I was issued a notice that said my rent was late and that I had been charged a $25 insufficient funds fee and a $75 late fee, and that I needed a cashier's check in the total amount to be paid within 3 days. I sent the confirmation email to the property manager stating that I had paid online. I was informed that I had incurred those fees due to insufficient funds. This struck me as odd because I made sure to have enough in that account. It did turn out that I had assigned the wrong account to pay, and I admitted to doing so. However, my bank is usually on top of any transaction over the amount in the account and usually contact me regarding such issues. I got the cashier's check and paid it, but I also reviewed my bank account. There was no record of an attempted transaction taking place. I screenshot and printed out my bank records showing no transactions, my account with their website stating that the rent had been paid, as well as the confirmation email stating that the account had been paid on the 3rd. I included these with my cashier's check along with a letter asking to be contacted by management and explaining my concerns. I was never contacted despite giving them my email and phone number.I also called my bank and they confirmed that there were no records of an attempted transaction. In an email, I offered to do a three way call with the district manager and my bank so they could hear it from them rather than me. All through emails with the property manager, I have been told both there is nothing they can do and that their decision is final. Is it a glitch or a decision?Why I was not notified prior to the 6th that my funds were insufficient when there was enough money in the correct account. Why did I receive a confirmation of payment before money was taken?

  Business Response

  Date: 06/14/2024

  When a payment is made online the resident will receive a confirmation email of the payment they made. Once the system has a chance to process the payment, we are emailed a notification if the payment cannot be processed. The resident submitted payment on the 4th and we received the *** notice on the 6th. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/14/2024

  I am rejecting this response because: Why do renters receive a payment confirmation if no funds have moved? At best this is misleading and at worst this is fraud. In addition, I spoke to my bank again and confirmed again with them that there is no record of an attempted transaction. And they are usually on top of things like this. In the document provided by St. Anton, the confirmation number, transaction time, and the dollar amount (I had an extra $0.95 added by rentcafe) do not match the confirmation email I received.
  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/17/2024

  This is the same process as any other online payment system. When you pay online you receive a confirmation email. If your payment does not go through you receive an NSF notice. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/07/2024

  Type:Customer Service Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore 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.

  District manager is rude. I wasn't applying for this complex but another complex ran by them call ******* told I had to come here to do my intake. I come the 1st day told I had to come back because they needed a screenshot from their computer to show my payments from SDI/EDD disability. Although I included them already. It wouldn't let me log into their computer and the complex wouldn't wait the 10 minutes for it to reset. The managers asked me to come back the next day. Which I did only for them to have me log on their laptop which the manager said was a courtesy, something they don't do. This doesn't make sense because why did I have to come back in the 1st they already have screenshots from my Edd that I sent from my device. On Edd they seen my current open case, with payment activity everything they need but said they couldn't accept my application because there is an old 2016 case that didn't show closed. The case says I returned back to work 05/2016. I explained I no longer receive FMLA for that child since it was for pregnancy bonding. My daughter is almost 8yrs old. The manager said I need to contact Edd to close it for what? I don't receive it and most importantly nobody can get a hold of Edd for some information they don't need. She said its required although my current complex is also affordable housing. I moved in 2017 they never required it. I am expected to return to work 03/15/2024. They have my actual case and Edd information for this year, which shows my amount, return to work date plus I have them my pay stubs. Why does something from 2016 matter especially if I'm going back to work where *** doesn't matter at all. It cost over $80 in uber rides for 2 days. Plus the $54 application fee just for me to not get the apartment over income I no longer receive. Manager refused to help, didn't let me finish a sentence and didn't even support me with any other options then to leave. Housing is already expensive and my current apartment are under code enforcement. I provided granite city manager everything that need for the income I receive as 2024 but she received me. She spoke to me as if I was below her and causing emotional trauma. Not to mention they played with my application the entire time purposely didn't call me back and delayed my process several times. I asked if I could have more time to contact *** to have the 2016 case close because it's impossible to be receiving money from a pregnancy from 2016 she told me no and walked out. Part of the reason I'm on leave is to do anxiety and this was very triggering to my anxiety and I told her that I just wanted to let me ask questions on how I can still get the apartment she refused.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/12/2024

  ******************** is a new affordable housing property currently under construction. The lease up is taking place out of ************ Apartments. ******* applied for an apartment and paid the credit check fee and was invited in to complete an income interview as next steps. She was asked to bring in documentation so we could process her application and verify her eligibility for the affordable housing program she applied for. She showed up without the documents required and as a courtesy the staff allowed her to use their computer to log in and be able to provide the necessary paperwork. They should have turned her away since she showered up without the required documents but instead went above and beyond to assist her. She disclosed that her income was EDD Disability and when she logged in there were actually three claims. The staff explained that we need documentation for all open/pending claims. She felt that was "Stupid" and that we should ignore the 2016 case. In affordable housing, all income counts. If EDD has multiple cases, we need to either verify that she is or is not receiving income from that case. We did not take a holding deposit for the unit because she did not have all of her paperwork. She was NOT denied, we were simply unable to proceed with her application due to her not providing the necessary paperwork. It should also be noted that she has a spouse listed on her application and he also did not submit an application. For affordable housing, all income counts, and all adults must apply. This is all listed on our resident selection criteria when she applied online. As a courtesy, we will refund her application fee. Management is not responsible for her travel costs. She was advised of the items she needed to bring with her, and she came unprepared. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/16/2024

  I am rejecting this response because: I did offer prior to leaving the complex to show them the claim was closed. I had proof that the 2016 claim showed a return to work date as 07/2016. The required documentation they asked for. When I offered to show them in the lobby The manager refused to look at the documents while district manager sat in the lobby after refusing to assist me further. I did submit the  documents Edd claim for 2024 my only active claim. They have those documents in an email as of 03/07/24 on the first day I came. They printed copies that same day. There was no reason for me to come on 03/08/24 but I did. On that day  they forced me to use their device to log into Edd stating if I didnt I couldnt rent with them. As she stated this is not a normal procedure or any requirement they follow. So why did they refuse to take it from my device when my device is timestamped? Why did they coerce me to log onto their device, face their laptop away from me to log into my Edd account and go through a closed claim from 2016. It is unethical for me to log on their device onto my Edd account and for them to access my information. They searched through closed claim then try to use closed claims as a reason to refuse to continue the application. It is also discrimination to deny/refuse me based my SDI income it is also discriminatory to exclude me because Im on disability/ currently disabled. Per hud website and the law for them to refuse me base on income and based on disability. Again I am willing to show them the claim is closed with a return work date of 07/2016. The case was active beginning 05/2016 and closed 07/2016 its all one claim for fmla. My daughter is almost 8 years old. They have the only active claim that started 02/2024 printed and emailed to their email address and Im willing to show my only active case with amounts, dates for 2024. I can also show the 2016 amount and dates. Now this is just retailation  because still refusing to return my calls and emails. They are also still refusing to look at my documents for all claims 
  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/19/2024

  Applicant was not denied. Applicant showed up without proper documentation. Management tried to assist her and allowed her to use the computer as a courtesy because she showed up without the proper documents. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/19/2024

  I am rejecting this response because: I offered to show them the documentation in the lobby that day.The manager told me no she wouldnt look at it. I was refused while waiting for the Uber.  I have also emailed them all case documentations that show closed dates. I have followed up with an email of the documents that have 2 closed cases for the 2016 with date, and confirmation that I no longer received those benefits ,I called yesterday. If they would follow up confirming those documents are accepted and received that would be amazing. I would love to close this and be done. I still have my holding deposit 
  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/21/2024

  Applicant was not denied. Applicant showed up without her documentation and she was told via email that we would not be able to proceed without proper documentation. The staff went above and beyond by allowing her to use their computer. When they saw there was a second EDD claim they requested documentation because this is an affordable housing community and all income matters. 

  I do also notice on her application that she has a spouse who did not apply. All adults must apply. We count all income. Everything is listed on the rental criteria when she applied. 

  Application was cancelled at her request when she requested to be reimbursed for the application fee. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/18/2022

  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.

  Their quoted prices on apartments.com are misleading and caused me to spend $50 on the application thinking otherwise.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/18/2022

  This property offers an affordable housing program through the Tax Credit program, so the rates shown on Apartments.com reflect the affordable units as well as the market unit prices. 

   

  Marks application was cancelled and screening was not ran so the pending charge for the application he submitted will be refunded. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/18/2022

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/24/2022

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore 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.

  My dad passed away at their property Varenna Senior Apartments on Jan 19, 2022 owned by St. Anton . After he passed away I was harassed and the police was called on me when I went back to pick up his mail as directed by a supervisor at St,. Anton, Lusy Jubet. The management at Varenna intimidates the senior residents and the supervisors at St. Anton are aware of elder abuse and after I attempted to contact who I thought could take corrective action and found out these actions were condoned. I feel they discriminated against me because of race because of my hair and clothing also because some residents contacted me about their own abusive stories. During the move out inspection, the management agreed a few repairs/ cleaning would be deducted from the security deposit. I waited almost 2 months and after calling S. Anton 25 times, they finally issued me a refund of the deposit for only $139 out of the $770 without an itemized statement. When I attempted to deposit the check (which was issued in my dad's name) the check was returned for insufficient funds and that's the basis of my complaint. Monetary compensation/ethical violations.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/24/2022

  ***************** was provided with a final move out inspection where she was told what the charges would be on the final move out statement. She come back after turning in keys demanding a key to the mail box. She was instructed to put in a mail forwarding request with the postal service as we could not provide her with a key. She was furious and threatened the on-site staff. The staff locked themselves in the office as she shouted and slammed kitchen cabinets drawers in the clubhouse. Police were called due to her behavior as she refused to leave. Yes, check was made out to the resident not ***************** as we do not have a power of attorney or any documentation stating refund should go to her. The check had funds, it was most likely returned because it was not in her name. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/28/2022

  I am rejecting this response because: There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to call the police when I returned for the mail ********************* said I could come back to get. ********************* told me when I turned in my dad's mail key, I could come back. She should've just told me she just didn't care about me or my deceased father instead of setting me up for showing up again and yes I was upset. MY DAD DIED THERE! They all knew but never asked about an estate for my dad. i believe they weren't even going to return the deposit at all because it took 3 months, way beyond the 21 days, which by law is required in **********. I want an itemized statement from this company showing each deduction from the $770 deposit and the check reissued with available funds made out to the "estate of ***********************" which is how they should've done it by law in the ******************* in the first place. I want the details of my complaint to stand and I do not wish to withdraw this grievance.