Business Profile

Property Management

The Wooten Co., LLC

Complaints

This profile includes complaints for The Wooten Co., LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see

Customer Complaints Summary

25 total complaints in the last 3 years.
4 complaints closed in the last 12 months.

If you've experienced an issue

Submit a Complaint

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:01/01/2025
Type:Service or Repair 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.
Since I've moved into this apartment on October 1st, I've been told my microwave would be replaced. I've been given multiple deadlines that came and went without an update. End of the week, end of October, end of November, and finally Before January. As I've made the issue clear a number of times and have even been told that a new microwave was on its way weeks ago, I've no choice but to push the issue.
Business Response
Date: 01/07/2025
We are in receipt of your Better Business Bureau complaint dated January 1, 2025. After receiving your initial service request on October 5, 2024, our maintenance technician visited your apartment on October 30, 2024,and found that the microwave, although older, was still in working condition.However, following several additional service requests from you, a subsequent visit confirmed that the microwave needed replacement. Unfortunately, due to shipping delays, the replacement unit was on back order. In an effort to resolve the issue promptly, we contacted our vendor and secured an alternative microwave, which was successfully installed on January 7, 2025. While we always strive to resolve such matters quickly, there are instances where factors beyond our control, such as shipping delays, can cause unforeseen setbacks.
Customer Answer
Date: 01/08/2025
Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the business' response regarding complaint ID ******** and am satisfied with this resolution. I am disappointed that I was forced to take such drastic measures.

Sincerely,

******** *******
Initial Complaint
Date:07/17/2024
Type:Facilities 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 have submitted a work order 9 months ago for a hole in the roof and it still has not been fixed. The hole causes leaking and I&#**;m sure there is black mold growing in the roof. I also have issues with a burner on my stove that hasn&#**;t been fixed. I am very upset that this has not been addressed. I have to have a bucket on my floor to catch the water leaking and it is ruining my carpet and my $2,000 mattress.
Business Response
Date: 07/25/2024
We are in receipt of your Better Business Bureau complaint. In regards to the burner on your stove I did not see an open service request so I have opened one for you and the repair has been made. The leak was reported by submitting a service request through the resident portal. The current manager for Hillcrest 90 had brought to my attention that there was an open service request for your apartment for a roof leak. I asked her to contact you to be sure the leak had not been repaired and the service request was left open in error. During her conversation with you, you stated that it had not been an issue for a while but that it had started to leak again. I do see that someone came and looked at it based off the notes available for me to review. Once the manager contacted me to let me know this still needed addressed I contacted the roofing company and asked them to look at it. I am sympathetic to the situation however when I inspected your apartment ceiling there were no visible signs of a deficiency that would warrant a refund of any kind. The repair to the roof has been approved and we are waiting for the schedule date from the roofing company who is a 3rd party vendor.
Initial Complaint
Date:05/20/2024
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.
Formal Complaint Regarding Carpet Condition and Security Deposit Charges I am writing to formally express my dissatisfaction and refusal to accept the charges related to the carpet replacement in the apartment located at ************************************************* at the ********* Apartments, which I vacated on May 1st 2024.During my tenancy from July 2021 to May 2024, I maintained the apartment diligently, including regular shampooings and upkeep of the carpet. It is crucial to note that the carpet was not new at the time of my move-in and had been subject to use by previous tenants.Despite these facts, I have been charged $2,194.35 for carpet replacement and $124.88 for Flooring Kilz which is related to the carpet replacement. Attributing the current condition of the carpet solely to my tenancy and my pets is both unreasonable and unjust. If it was attributed to my pets this should of been detailed in the list and then ran through the pet bond they forced me to get, but that was not the way it happened and they just charged me as a "Move Out Restoration Charges". The wear and tear on the carpet is clearly a result of cumulative use over several years by various tenants, not just my occupancy. In light of this, I refuse to pay the previously stated charges for carpet replacement, as it is clear that the replacement was necessitated by the carpets age and prolonged use, not by any damage caused during my tenancy. Consequently, the claim that I have an "outstanding balance" of $1,486.51 is erroneous. My security deposit of $925 should cover all legitimate fees and deductions, and I should still receive a portion of my deposit back. I am formally requesting a detailed breakdown of all charges and an immediate revision of the outstanding balance. I expect a fair and prompt resolution to this issue and the return of the appropriate amount of my security deposit.Sincerely,***************************
Business Response
Date: 05/24/2024
We are in receipt of you Better Business Bureau Complaint Dated May 20, 2024 regarding your move out at ********* Apartments. In your complaint you are disputing the charges for the carpet and the floor kilz that was required due to pet damage and odor. The carpet was previously replaced on March of 2021 and you moved in September 24, only one resident resided in the unit prior to your tenancy. We have reviewed their move out and there were no notations made regarding damage to the carpet. We have also reviewed your move out inspection, performed by site staff, significant pet damage and odor was found on the carpet. The signed Pet Addendum states in the event of flooring damage related to pets the complainant agrees to restore the flooring to its original condition to include labor, pet odor treatment and replacement. The move out inspection attached reflects this damage. A financial move out statements was sent to you via e-mail and sent by mail to the address you provided on your 30-Day Notice Packet. Residents are not forced to obtain a FlexDeposit the pet addendum states that Residents are required to purchase and maintain an active $1,000 bond through FlexDeposit OR pay a $1,000 pet deposit. After Review the charges of $4,221.51 are correct and consisted of the Buy Out, vertical blind replacement, mini blind replacement, full carpet replacement, pet odor removal, and kilzing of all material odor in the future. Your non refundable reservation fee of $825.00 and the Security deposit of $100.00 were both applied leaving a final balance of $1,486.51. We are filling a claim on your Flex Deposit and once we receive payment in the amount of $1000.00, we will apply that to your balance.
Initial Complaint
Date:04/28/2024
Type:Service or Repair 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.
We contacted Wooten to tell them we had mold growing in the bathroom. They tested for it in October, but say they have yet to get the results back, meanwhile the mold continues to grow. Wooten has also claimed to be fixing the mold problem in the basement where the washer and dryer are located. We have not had access to them for months yet we still pay for the amenities. It's not only a waste of $840 a month, it's a health risk just living here.
Business Response
Date: 05/10/2024
We are in reciept of the statements by the complainant. We apologize for any inconvenice they may have experienced. A work order dated 10/19/23 was found regarding inspection and repair to the bathroom. During this inspection it was found the paint was pealing due to humidity from the use of the shower/bathroom. A mold test was performed and was processed by a 3rd party lab. The findings were returned non-elevated with no risk factor. During this process an error occured within our software and the work order was canceled the same day it was created. On October 26th 2023 the location changed supervisors. We believe the canceling of the work order followed by the changeover of staffing contributed to this not being identified within our software system. We appreciate the complainant bringing this to our attention. As a result we quickly altered operations and began extensive repairs to replace bathroom componants on behalf of our residents. This location was built in *********************************************************** the bathroom. The attached mold and mildew tip document from the lease agreement will provide assistance in the future to reduce impacting the drywall. We hope the current work in process will further reduce any impact to the complainant in the future. As a gesture of good faith we would like to offer the following options. Option 1: The complainant has renewed through 2025. We are willing to terminate the lease without penalty if they would choose to relocate. Option 2: In the event they choose to stay we would like to offer a tenant inconvenice credit in the amount of $850. If accepted we would apply this to June/2024 rent. We hope this gesture and work in process restores the faith within our management company. Regarding the laundry facility, this was located in the basement in the same region as the buidlings heating and cooling systems. We chose to close this as we have a newly renovated laundry room directly across the street where the ***************** is located. If there are any additional questions please let us know. Thank you.
Customer Answer
Date: 05/13/2024
Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Sincerely,

***********************
Initial Complaint
Date:03/15/2024
Type:Order 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, ************************* ("*******"), signed Lease as Grantor (co-signer) for two young men attending *********** because Briarwood/Wooten (Landlord) said they did not pass the financial background check. After first year, one young man stayed to attend another year ("Rayden") at OTC and one young man left with Certificate to pursue career ********** At the time ****** renewed the lease, I requested ***** be removed from the lease and Manager ("*****************************") stated he would be. After a few months (in November 2023), ***** commumicated to me that he tried to apply for an appartment lease in *******************, ** area and was denied because they told him he was still on a lease in ***********, **. I immediately contacted ***************************** and requested that ***** be removed from the lease and to advise me when that has been done. Since then, according to my records, knowledge and belief, *****' name still remains on the lease and ***************************** has insisted I may no longer communicate with him and ******** at The Wooten Company has only called me once and sent two e-mails but refuses to communicate. ****** was advised of an Early Buy-Out option by ******** early in 2024 and I and ****** have submitted our Notice to Vacate on 3-31-2024 (submitted via the Wooten/Briarwood Portal and e-mail on 2-20-2024) with the Early Buy-Out Option of 2 months rent and have had absolutely no communication. I would like to mention also that ***************************** and ********, between November and January 2024 were insisting that ****** and I had to sign a NEW full 12-month term lease from the date of signing or *****' name would not be removed from the lease. The last communication I have had from any representative of The Wooten Company was an e-mail on 1-30-2024 from ******** stating that the new lease they want myself and ****** to sign had been edited to show the original lease beginning and ending dates from the August 2, 2023 lease renewal as of January 15, 2024 and was ready for us both to sign. To date, *****' name still remains on the lease, even though he never signed or renewed any lease and has not been on or lived at the property since March of 2023. This refusal to remove ***** from the lease is unethical, unjust, harrassing, and causing harm. What's more, holding the threat of NOT removing his name from the lease over our heads to sign a new lease and pay additional fees for additional background checks to be run on us is blackmail and illegal and a new lease was and never has been required or necessary to perform the task and duty of the Landlord and Manager to remove ***** as a tenant and lease-holder.
Business Response
Date: 04/04/2024
We are in receipt of your Better Business Bureau complaint dated March 15, 2024. I will do my best to address all items in the compliant. Based on the documents that you have sent ***** should have been removed from the August 1, 2023 to July 31, 2024 lease and he was not. The lease was generated and only signed by ****** and ***** the Resident Manager. On 11/29/2023 ***** sent an email stating that he was not removed from the lease that started on August 1, 2023. In order to correct the lease and remove ***** we had to replace the current lease. As I stated in the email per company policy anytime someone is requesting to be removed from a lease the remaining occupants/guarantor have to be rescreened and qualify prior to removing anyone from the household.If for any reason they did not qualify or cannot meet the conditional offer then a 30 day notice to vacate would be issued to the entire household. That is why we require a 60 day written notice when anyone wants to be removed from a lease, that gives us 30 days to re-qualify the remaining occupants and if they do not qualify or meet the condition offered we issue the 30 day notice to vacate in the last month of their current lease term. I also stated in my email that we were not asking you to sign a new 12 month lease only modifying the existing lease the dates were exactly the same as the current lease August 1,2023 through July 31, 2024 at which time ******* would be placed on notice to be removed on July 31, 2024. Once the new lease was signed a roommate departure would have been generated and signed that would have removed ***** from the lease.However this was never completed due to the replacement lease never being signed. There were never any demands made by ***** or myself to sign a new lease past the current existing lease only the replacement of the current lease in order to remove *****. ***************** has no buy out option if a household moves out early they would be responsible until the end of their current lease period or until the apartment is leased. During this process I responded to the email you sent requesting your answers in writing and tried to reach out by phone and left messages. I did not receive any further contact from you until February 20th giving the 30 day notice to vacate and stating you were sending a 2-month buy out. While ***** would not be responsible for the remaining 4 months of rent Rayden and ******* would be. We have accepted the 30 day notice and the two months rent and will not charge rent for **** and July. All parties have been released from the current lease on 3/31/2024.A 30 day notice packet was sent on April 1, 2024 to all parties with a move out inspection date of April 4th at 3:00pm. The additional two monthsrent paid in the amount of $1435 will not be refunded.
Customer Answer
Date: 04/09/2024
Complaint: 21440679

I am rejecting this response because:

*****************************, *******************************, ************, **************************************** and The Wooten Company LLC are hereinafter referred to individually and/or collectively, as employees, employers, representatives and agents of The Wooten Company LLC (hereinafter Wooten/Briarwood).

***************************** was advised of a lease buy-out option when he contacted someone at a corporate office number on January 12, 2024. This individual advised him that he could use this option by giving his 30-day notice of intent to vacate, the date of his last day in the apartment as well as pay 2 months of rent in addition to his last months rent. He does not remember the name of the female individual he spoke with but can order his phone records for that date if necessary, but it will only show the date of his call, the corporate office phone number he called and the length of the call.
If the early lease buy-out option is or was not available,then why was it discussed with Rayden by someone at the corporate office? According to the document Wooten/Briarwood provided (one of only two documents of record (a total of 3 pages)); there is an option of buying out rental agreement. Again, their document shows that there is already an option to buy-out a lease, so if corporate discussed an early buy-out option with ****** as well, then that was also an option or we would never have known about it. Verbal agreements are acceptable and binding between parties in *********
Furthermore, I reject this record and claim it has been forged,falsified, manipulated and/or created by someone other than *****************************. Specifically, there is no date on this document, no digital signature, and no proof that ****** submitted this document. My records show a completely different Notice of Intent to Vacate (see attached 2-20-2024 E-mail confirmation of Rayden Frerkings 2-Month Early Buy-out Option and Notice to Vacate) and which shows a different Reason to move out and specifically states its a 2-Month Buy-Out Option, not breaking the terms of my Rental Agreement and understand there is no early termination option therefore I will be responsible for the monthly rent until the unit is re-rented. Should I dare to suggest that someone at Wooten/********* completed and submitted this document themselves and making it look like ***************************** checked the box and filled out the information underlined and/or added additional information (i.e. reference to there is no early termination option? The second document, the Acknowledgment of Departure, provided by Wooten/Briarwood as a document of record to BBB, also was not dated and/or created until April 1, 2024 and not provided until their response to BBB on 4-5-2024, with no prior notification to me or Rayden.
These are the only two documents (3 pages total) provided as records, proof or discovery from Wooten/Briarwood (which I claim are false,forged or manipulated). It appears that **************, Wooten/Briarwood has assumed they could create and/or manipulate evidence however they please; including deleting and/or destroying electronic/digital portal records, refusing to communicate in any other way except by ********* and intimidating tenants via phone calls and on the property, as well trails of documents previously available on their Portal (i.e. and prior December 26,2023 lease agreement via portal e-mail notification, of which that version of the Lease Agreement was never downloadable or printable unless I agreed to digitally sign it and is now gone), should speak for itself as to the lengths and disregard for any truth or accountability for their behavior. I can also say with certainty that either: 1) both ***** and ******* ; or 2) ******* was an unknowing accomplice being manipulated or utilized by *****; or 3) ******** advice to ***** on whether or not to remove ***** name from the lease and account records or to proceed with trying to get a new lease signed was ill-advised. Up until this BBB claim, I would also venture to claim that, most likely, ***** and ******* acted outside of scope and knowledge of their employer and perpetrated all of their behavior and decisions on their own and without forwarding or involving corporate or other higher officials (as I had requested on January 15th). They attempted to strong-arm and blackmail ***************************** and me into signing a new full-term lease with, pay additional fees, and jump through their hoops, all because they had the power to do so and didnt like me disagreeing with their decisions, actions and authority.

1.         I reject Wooten/Briarwoods statement of:
In order to correct the lease and remove ***** we had to replace the current lease. As I stated in the email per company policy anytime someone is requesting to be removed from a lease the remaining occupants/guarantor have to be rescreened and qualify prior to removing anyone from the household. If for any reason they did not qualify or cannot meet the conditional offer then a 30 day notice to vacate would be issued to the entire household. That is why we require a 60 day written notice when anyone wants to be removed from a lease, that gives us 30 days to re-qualify the remaining occupants and if they do not qualify or meet the condition offered we issue the 30 day notice to vacate in the last month of their current lease term.
Most of Wooten/Briarwoods response refers to the removal of someone from the lease and the process that is necessary for Wooten/Briarwood to go through. Wooten/Briarwood received proper notice for ***** to have been removed from the lease as of the last day of the lease on July 31, 2023. Wooten/Briarwood failed to do that simple task and has continued and denied such simple action since July 31, 2023 until their April 5, 2024 response to BBB although I still have no proof from Wooten/********* personally that ********************* name has been removed from the current renewal lease and their accounts and records as a current rentor or tenant.
********************* had provided the required 60-day notice via the 3-21-2023 Portal and e-mail Final Renewal Offer and Notice to Vacate, as well as the Notices to vacate via Portal and e-mail on 5-17-2023 and 5-19-2023 (attached),giving further notice that ***** would not be renewing the lease at the end of July 31, 2023. ***************************** and I performed and provided the proper fees and paycheck documents requested by ***** as of the date of Wooten/Briarwood and prior to acceptance of **************** ************* on August 2, 2024. If ***** had performed his duties properly, then he should have removed ********************* from the lease prior to ***************************** or I being required to sign it. In fact, I mentioned this again on the phone to ***** after receiving the portal link for signature of Raydens lease renewal in July 2023 and he said he would remove ***** name after it was signed digitally by ******. That was never done. That is all that needed to be done. That can be easily be done digitally on the record itself with a note or a redline with comments and initials approving the notations, or with an authorized agents statement/affidavit stating so and attached to the lease agreement. That can also be done easily in the records and accounting kept by Wooten/Briarwood so that when a potential new landlord contacts them in November 2023 for a prior rental reference on *********************,they are not told that he is currently a Rentor on a lease that will not end until July 31, 2024!
On December 20, 2024, ***** contacted me and requested that his colleague (*******************************) be on the phone call as well to discuss the issue of removing ***** from the lease. I agreed. I explained to ******* the situation and that everything ***** was requiring of Rayden and I was unnecessary and that all Wooten/********* had to do was remove ***** name from the lease and account and show me that it had been done so that ***** could apply for an apartment up in the ** metro area. She stated she and ***** would discuss it.
Since my initial contact in November 2023 with ***** about removing ***** from the lease, the lease generated by ***** and provided via the portal link sent for signatures by Wooten/Briarwood (and prior to any communication by ******************************* via her e-mail of January 30, 2024) stating that a newly-dated Lease was available on the portal to sign) was dated December 2?, 2023 through December ?, 2024. I was strangely locked out of the portal (which I had not been prior to October 2023). Once ***** granted me access again and corrected the error on their end, I was only able to view the first page and the document signature system would not let me view or download the document or proceed to the next page unless I signed the current open document page first. I requested ***** provide me with an alternative way to review and print the document and to ensure that the dates were the original dates of the lease terms from August 1, 2023 before I signed it (see e-mail of 12-29-2023).
***** never would provided me with a copy or any alternative access to the lease agreement and therefore, I was never able to capture or save that version of the lease he was insisting we sign and renew for a full year, before he would remove ***** name from the lease and account. The only version I was able to access and save was the updated version dated 1-15-2024 that was updated with the appropriate terms dates (ending on July 31, 2024), which I had been requesting all along from ***** and *******.
2.       I reject Wooten/Briarwoods statement of:
I also stated in my email that we were not asking you to sign a new 12 month lease only modifying the existing lease the dates were exactly the same as the current lease August 1,2023 through July 31, 2024 at which time Bronwen would be placed on notice to be removed on July 31, 2024. Once the new lease was signed a roommate departure would have been generated and signed that would have removed ***** from the lease. However this was never completed due to the replacement lease never being signed.
I assume I above is from ******************************* and not *************. Therefore, I will agree with what ******* states was in her e-mail dated 1-30-2024 and the document I found on 1-30-2024 on the portal (which was generated on January 15, 2024) did have those terms in it. However, I still reject Wooten/Briarwoods claim because it only refers to their actions as of Micheles e-mail on January 30, 2024 and does not show any proof or claims otherwise of how Wooten/Briarwood and its agents behaved and conducted themselves and the demands that were made verbally and prior to January 30, 2024 (except for the lease that was generated on January 15, 2024 in the portal after my last phone call with *****). Where are the draft leases for signature that were generated and notifications sent via the Portal prior to January 15, 2024 (whether they were executed or not)? I request those documents and records should be provided by Wooten/Briarwood, including any and all forms of communication between *****, *******, Wooten/********* regarding any party hereto. I have provided my text messages between myself and ****** already on record as well as multiple other documents.
3.       I reject Wooten/Briarwoods statement of:
There were never any demands made by ***** or myself to sign a new lease past the current existing lease only the replacement of the current lease in order to remove *****.
There were several demands made by **************** to January 15, 2024 (all verbally and on the phone because he would not put them in writing) that a new lease be signed or ***** name would not be removed as well as ******** e-mail itself stating that I must sign the lease replacement in order to be removed as a guarantor on 7/31/2024. The two combined also meant that if I didnt sign the new lease, Silass name would not be removed. Again, I never was trying to remove my name anyway until the end of the lease on 7/31/2024 (hence the 8/2/2024 letter giving my notice for the end of the lease).
I received another phone call from ***** on January 15, 2024 when he advised me that ******** and he had agreed they did not have to change the dates of the new lease agreement to end on July 31, 2024 and that ****** and I did have to sign the new lease regardless or he would not remove ********* and that I was no longer allowed to communicate with him and that I could only communicate with *******. Evidently, someone changed the lease agreement dates on that date to reflect they ended on July 31, 2024 (as I had originally requested), but I was not notified of this until January 30th e-mail from *******.
I believe *****/*******/Wooten/Briarwoods miscommunication initially arose from ****** phone call with me on December 20, 2023, wherein my only concern was discussing the removal of ***** name from the lease and their accounts/records as a current Rentor on the current renewal lease. Somewhere in the conversation, ***** mentioned that I am the Guarantor or Grantor (I dont remember which term he used) on the lease with ******. I questioned what the term Guarantor or Grantor meant, as I had always known myself to be the Co-Signer. ***** explained that my title was Guarantor or Grantor, which was the same as co-signer ultimately, and that, if I wanted to be removed as Guarantor and in order to remove ***** name, ****** and I both had to sign a new lease agreement and go through the background check and pay the fee for that again. He also stated that I would have to give him 60-days notice to be removed from the lease for that. This confused me because I explained that I had already sent ***** a notice on August 2, 2023 (after our discussion on the phone on July 31st about ****** wanting to stay and renew the current lease):
Previously, on July 31, 2023, ***** and I discussed the renewal process and I asked ***** to see if ****** qualified to rent on his own now, without me as a Guarantor (co-signer) on the lease. He said he would have to run a background check on us both again, we would have to pay the $60 fee ($30 each) and he was supposed to have had 30-days notice to do so. I went ahead and typed up a notice, in anticipation of the end of this new lease, just to cover my bases and have it done with. I e-mailed it to him on August 2, 2023. He, evidently, never saw it and only looked for it right after our phone call and only then downloaded my Notice into the Portal in December 2023.
Thats when ***** seemed to get all hung up on my being removed as Guarantor and stating ****** and I had to go through the same process again. I thought I had explained that I didnt care about the lease or changing it, I just wanted ***** name removed. I dont think he understands,to this day, thats all I wanted. Regardless, it is my belief that ***** got ******* involved and they both continued to be stuck on this issue of removing my name from the lease,which is not what I was wanting or requesting at all I wanted ***** name removed. ***** refused to communicate rationally with me rationally and calmly after I tried to explain we didnt need to do all of this. He continued to insist we did, so I relented and arranged to pay the fee, obtain and send him the paycheck stubs and do what he asked in order to remove ***** name. ***** also insisted that I explain my issue to his colleague, *******, on a phone conference. According to my last phone call with ***** on January 15th, ***** stated in his phone call that he and ******* had decided that ****** and I had to go through the whole process again and sign a new lease, ***** would not communicate via e-mail (as I had requested); that the lease on the portal was the only proof he needed to provide me and they would not make any changes to the terms. ***** then told ****** and ******* to advise me that he would no longer allow me to communicate with him at all and that I had to go through *******.
Wooten/Briarwood and its agents and employees, ***** and ******* had no right to demand that I sign anything because: 1) I was not legally obligated; and 2) it was never even necessary in order to remove ********************* name on the current lease. I further claim that ***** and/or ******* were aware of this fact and deliberately harassed, intimidated and harmed me in their pursuit and attempts to force me to sign a new lease agreement and in simply not removing ***** name.
Wooten/Briarwood and its agents and employees ***** and ******** demands that I sign a new lease was a moot point. As for ****** signing a new lease, ***** would not provide me with a document that had the proper date terms until ******** e-mail of January 30, 2024 advising me that the agreement had the corrected term dates. Sure enough, when I went into the Portal to look, there it was. By then, I was no longer interested in pursuing anything further with Wooten/*********, ***** or ******* and discussed this with ****** and he agreed because ***** staring him down, watching him and following him around and try to harass and intimidate him. ****** also stated that he was missing package deliveries at his door and was getting knocks on his door at all hours of the night, waking him up, but couldnt prove any of it.
Evidently, at this point of my contact with ***** in December 2023, ***** must have realized that I had never signed the lease renewal agreement, only ******.
Back at the end of July 2023, after our fees and credit checks were supposedly run by ***** (of which we never received any proof or documentation showing if I or ***************************** ever met the conditions of rental with Wooten/Briarwood or if ****** failed and why), ***** had called me to tell me ****** did not pass the credit check and that I needed to stay on the lease. I thought I had signed the lease digitally and had gone through the process. Evidently, not.
My claim now is that *****, in conduct that was despicable,malicious, willful, and in knowing disregard for the rights of others, refused and failed to take any action to correct his own mistake(s), and attempted to force ****** and myself to sign a new unnecessary lease,and was therefore trying to cover up his mistakes them by extortion, blackmail,intimidation, and ********** of ****** and myself in order to obtain new signatures from us and a new, legitimate, full-term lease signed by both of us. During my January 15, 2024 phone call, ***** also tried to claim that ***** had not provided timely notice in order to be removed. When I stated to ***** that he was wrong and gave him the dates and proof that ***** did provide proper notice, he started screaming at me and said he would not be badgered by me telling him to do his job and remove ***** from the lease like he was supposed to without us having to sign a new lease in our January 15th phone call.
Questions: According to ************* (or ********) response, if the current signed lease in effect was only signed by ****** and, and if ****** had not previously qualify on his own at the end of July 2023 to maintain the lease agreement, then why did Wooten/Brairwood not take any action to begin the vacate and eviction process based on Rayden not qualifying alone and the fact that I had never signed the new renewal lease? Why did ***** not identify and correct this if it at that time or shortly after the lease was signed by ****** on August 2, 2023was an issue? So why is it that ***** and ******* could not figure out how to simply remove or cross out ********************* name off of the contract digitally and approve that edit with initials or a comment (digitally also) and then correct their system and accounting records at the same time?
Answer: Because ***** probably had not even realized, until sometime after my communication with him in December 2023, that ***** was still showing on the lease as a current tenant and he had failed to take the necessary steps in July 2023 to remove ***** from the lease and their current records. ***** probably also realized at that time that he had failed to get my signature on the current lease renewal. He was trying to backtrack, cover his tracks and force a new lease to be signed.
4.         I reject Wooten/Briarwoods statement of:
While ***** would not be responsible for the remaining 4 months of rent ****** and ******* would be.
Still to this date, ************, *******, ***** and Wooten/Briarwood, even after admitting in their response that I, *************************, never signed the lease renewal agreement and am and never have been liable for any rents or fees owed since July 31, 2023 - are still insisting that I was and am still liable for any rents, fees, expenses due after July 31, 2023. Regardless,since July 31, 2023, *****, individually and as an employee, agent and representative of Wooten/Briarwood, has also maintained that I was on the lease (whether he realized or eventually realized I was not) and by hiding this fact and continuing to claim I was the Guarantor/Grantor on the lease and demanding I take action and sign documents, is easily described as willful and malicious conduct,negligence and misappropriation, extortion, blackmail, harassment, unjust enrichment, mal content, unfair business practices and many other forms of damage (both financial and mental). Specifically, ***** insisted that I sign a new lease (regardless of the term dates), provide him with my payroll information, a fee of $30 to run a background check on me, as well as calling me at 9:00 a.m. on September 7, 2023 and demanding that I pay Raydens late rent that was past due since September 1, 2023 (6 days) by noon that day and within 3 hours, or he would start an eviction action against us both. As well as ******************** me by only calling me on the phone, and by yelling at me when I disagreed or argued with him and trying to intimidate me by adding additional colleagues to calls to argue against me or on his behalf, and his refusal to communicate via e-mail after I specifically requested instead of the phone calls, and then outright refusing to communicate with me at all and forcing me to use another wholly-unrelated agent and employee of Wooten as the only form of communication for Briarwood (voicemail for ********* is and always has been full and you are never able to leave a voice-mail). This is the same person whom he tried to intimidate me with prior on the phone conference, *******, who is the property manager for another property in *********** and whose parent company is also Wooten.
5.         I reject Wooten/Briarwoods statement of:
A 30 day notice packet was sent on April 1, 2024 to all parties with a move out inspection date of April 4th at 3:00pm. The additional two months rent paid in the amount of $1435 will not be refunded.
To date, I have received no notification (neither via e-mail nor text) from the portal or other form of communication that this notice packet was sent to me. I only found it downloaded onto the Briarwood portal after I read this response. This document was not approved of nor generated by myself nor ****** and the information on it has been completed by a representative, employee or agent of Wooten/Briarwood. I deny and reject any information contained therein.
6.         I reject Wooten/Briarwoods statement of:
All parties have been released from the current lease on 3/31/2024.
Other than ************* response of 4-5-2024 stating that the lease that all parties have been released from the current lease on 3-31-2024, "all parties" were never parties to the current lease, only *****************************.
Question: So how is it that we can all be released from a lease early without signing anything? **************, ************, and Wooten/********* continue to assert their claim that no one can be removed from a lease, unless a new lease was signed? How can this be done? Im confused
7.         I admit Wooten/Briarwoods statement of:
During this process I responded to the email you sent requesting your answers in writing and tried to reach out by phone and left messages. I did not receive any further contact from you until February 20th giving the 30 day notice to vacate and stating you were sending a 2-month buy out.
I admit that I was not willing to communicate any further via phone with ******* again nor via e-mail, as the last time I did, and according to ****** last phone call to me on January 15th , ***** stated that he and ******* both agreed and had decided that there would be no changes made to the lease agreement that he/she demanded was necessary to be signed or ***** name would not be removed from the lease and current records. I had already communicated my issues to ******* once on the conference call with ***** in December already and, in her January 30th e-mail, she was still stuck on the same issue of removing my name as well, which was never the issue. Her statement that the lease now had the proper dates/term was a moot point by January 30th anyway, as I had already decided to take the early lease buy-out option that ****** told me he had discussed with someone at the corporate office. It was obvious to me at this point they were not going to remove ***** name from the current renewal lease and records as a current tenant or fix the errors themselves, which could have easily been done without a new lease being signed.
Wooten/********* admits that ********************* should have been removed from the lease and Wooten/Briarwood failed to do so. ********************* rights have been violated and continue to be violated because Wooten/********* has still not provided any proof that his name is off the lease and removed from their record as a tenant,other than ************* response of 4-5-2024 stating that the lease that all parties have been released from the current lease on 3-31-2024.***** suffers continuing damage until he has proof that his name is no longer on any lease or listed as a tenant, so he can attempt to apply for an apartment lease somewhere else as well as any negative credit report accounting or notations, including but not limited to, payment and rental history or lease issues after July 31,2023. ***** will suffer further damage as he will not be able to fairly utilize his rental/rentor history from ********* as a referral for any future rental history inquiry, which ***** knew was my intent from the beginning to establish some credit and rental history for ***** in the first place. Any inquiry made to Wooten/Briarwood will be tainted with unfavorable, if not malicious, remarks, comments and notations.
***************************** has also been damaged in that he was the tenant on the current renewal lease and was present and living on the property. ***** and *******, as agents, employees and representatives of Wooten/Briarwood, have damaged Raydan with willful and malicious conduct, negligence and misappropriation, extortion, blackmail, abuse of power, harassment, unjust enrichment, mal content, unfair business practices and many other forms of damage (both financial and mental) and ****** will suffer further damage as he will not be able to fairly utilize his rental/rentor history from ********* as a referral for any future rental history inquiry, which ***** knew was my intent from the beginning to establish some credit and rental history for Rayden in the first place. Any inquiry made to Wooten/Briarwood will be tainted with unfavorable, if not malicious, remarks and comments and notations.
There should be some proof provided that all of our names have been removed from the lease and from their accounting records. Also, proof that any and all negative notes,comments, claims and credit reportings should be recanted, removed and deleted from record for all parties. There should also be a tenant/rentor reference provided to both Rayden and ***** for their rental history without negative connotations, only facts of their rental history.
Punitive damages, even treble damages, should be considered in order to punish and deter any further despicable, malicious, willful, and knowing conduct and disregard for the rights of others, extortion, oppression, abuse of power,harassment and intimidation.

Sincerely,

*************************
Business Response
Date: 04/16/2024
We are in receipt of your response to the BBB Complaint. I will attempt to answer any questions you still have. Some locations within The Wooten Company do allow a buyout and some do not. The document is there for those properties that have that option however **************************************** is not one of them. In regards to the 30 day notice packet this document is available to review and sign in the resident portal. The new 30 day notice packet that was generated was to give the new inspection date and time. The roommate departure policy is as follows: A ************************************************************* parties who want to be removed. A modification of the current lease will then be started that will place them on notice. Policy requires that all remaining parties to be rescreened to be sure they meet criteria. Site staff will perform an inspection of the unit; it there are damages it is up to the roommates to decide who is financially responsible. All damages would need to be paid in full prior to removing anyone from the lease. A roommate departure with damages or without damages would be generated and signed by all parties. If the remaining parties qualify or meet the conditions then a replacement lease will be signed that replaces the current lease removing the roommate. All parties are notified of the lease replacement, all activity is IP and Date stamped to prevent any fraud. Neither The Wooten Company or **************************************** rent by the person or bed but qualify by unit. All parties are responsible and we do not get involved in roommate situations. We are only involved if there is a modification of the lease, renewal or a breach of policy. All parties receive notifications and any discrepancies on a lease would be caught at the time of renewal. In regards to the resident portal you have an option to reset your password;or we can assist you with that. The replacement lease was available to all parties though the resident portal to review and sign. Verbal notice is not accepted per the lease section 5 page 1 notice must be a written 30 day notice and it further states that verbal notice is not sufficient under any circumstance. The signed Guarantor Acknowledgement states: That the guarantee agreement shall extend to any and all extensions, renewals, modifications and amendments of said lease and Guarantors waive their right to be notified of any such changes or extensions or modifications. In regards to removing ********************* name from the lease we have explained this process and must have confirmation as we cannot perform your part of the process. A lease document cannot be manipulated as they are digital, the previously explained process would have be necessary to complete the removal of *********************. As a result of this complaint and in an attempt to find a resolution, we admit no fault but agree to return the $1435 that was paid.
Customer Answer
Date: 04/19/2024
Complaint: 21440679

I am rejecting this response because:
The prior response of ************ as well, as this 4/18/2024 response from whomever has not even identified themselves. There are no sworn affidavits or names associated with this latest response, nor any acknowledgement or signature that any of the claims and statements were made by ***************************** or *******************************, who were directly involved. Therefore,everything stated in these responses is hearsay. Even the business practices and procedures cannot be considered because there is no identification of the person or position held submitting the response. I reject all claims and statements made in these responses. For instance, the responder states:
As a result of this complaint and in an attempt to find a resolution, we admit no fault but agree to return the $1435 that was paid.
Who is this person making such a statement and what is their position with Wooten/Briarwood?
I reject Wooten/Briarwoods response of:
In regards to the 30 day notice packet this document is available to review and sign in the resident portal. The new 30 day notice packet that was generated was to give the new inspection date and time.
As stated before, Wooten/Briarwood received the required prior written notice, within 30 days and within 60 days (see attached 3-21-2023 E-mail Notice from *********), that ********************* would not be renewing the lease ending July 31, 2023. Wooten/********* also received the required prior written notice,within 30 days, that ************************* and ***************************** would be vacating the premises as of March 31, 2024. The 30-day notice packet should have been generated upon notice in February or, in the least, within a reasonable time frame; however, the only (not new)30-day notice packet was generated by Wooten/Briarwood after April 1, 2024 (after the move-out date provided to Wooten/Briarwood). Wooten/********* willfully, knowingly and purposefully conducted itself and constructed these documents and inspections this way, while also falsifying information on them to serve its own purpose and benefit, knowing neither I nor ***************************** would be available for their inspection and would have already vacated the property. As such, I greatly anticipate seeing their inspection report/results.
I reject Wooten/Briarwoods response of:
Policy requires that all remaining parties to be rescreened to be sure they meet criteria. Site staff will perform an inspection of the unit; it there are damages it is up to the roommates to decide who is financially responsible. All damages would need to be paid in full prior to removing anyone from the lease. A roommate departure with damages or without damages would be generated and signed by all parties. If the remaining parties qualify or meet the conditions then a replacement lease will be signed that replaces the current lease removing the roommate. All parties are notified of the lease replacement, all activity is IP and Date stamped to prevent any fraud. Neither The Wooten Company or **************************************** rent by the person or bed but qualify by unit. All parties are responsible and we do not get involved in roommate situations. We are only involved if there is a modification of the lease, renewal or a breach of policy. All parties receive notifications and any discrepancies on a lease would be caught at the time of renewal.
Fact - Back in late July 2023, all renewal parties were rescreened (myself and *****************************), background and credit checks fees were paid and screens were performed, an inspection was performed and no damages were reported and no requests for payments were made for damages. I received a Move Out notice / inspection notice sent out via e-mail on June 21, 2023 (see attached), but my Portal records are not complete and many of the documents provided previously (whether signed or not) are not showing or available. In fact, my payment history only goes back to April of 2023. Also, I do not have access to ***************************** or ********************* Portal records, unless they sent them to me via e-mail upon my request. Regardless, and as I previously stated, ********************* did provide adequate 30-day Roommate Departure via the Portal and e-mail on 3-21-2023 (see attached e-mail notification from *********). If there were to have been any forms signed at that time, they were signed by all parties, if provided via the online Portal and signed digitally. Wooten/Briarwood should provide any and all records and documents, whether drafts, signed or unsigned, as records and evidence. Otherwise, their statements have no facts and proof to back them up (kind of like all the actual phone calls and harassment that took place by *****************************).
On July 30, 2023 to August 2, 2023, the renewal lease that ***************************** provided via the Portal for ***************************** and I to sign did not remove ********************* name from the lease (see renewal lease signed by ***************************** previously provided). At the time, I asked ***** on the phone about why his name was still on it and he said it would come off after a new renewal lease was signed. According to Wooten/Briarwoods own response claiming:
then a replacement lease will be signed that replaces the current lease removing the roommate,
this was not the case and should have been done from the start. This has been my complaint all along!
***************************** never performed his basic job duty of removing ********************* name from the renewal lease, prior to providing the renewal lease for signature, performing the screens, inspections and requiring the fees to be paid. Then again in December 2023, ***************************** insisted ***************************** and I go through ALL of the same fees, document signatures and screens AGAIN or he would not remove ********************* name from the records as a current tenant or from the lease, nor was he willing to change the term dates until January 15, 2024 through an e-mail from ******* (the only person I was designated to communicate with from that point on). Wooten/********* still will not admit any fault or reckless negligence by their employee/agent, ***************************** and others, in their conduct, job responsibilities and performance.
We are only involved if there is a modification of the lease, renewal or a breach of policy
I dont have any response to this statement. This was a renewal and Wooten/Briarwood was involved.
All parties receive notifications and any discrepancies on a lease would be caught at the time of renewal.
Let us assume, for arguments sake, that no discrepancieson the renewal lease were caught at the time of renewal. Then why did ***************************** not follow through and remove ********************* name from the lease after he received the signed renewal lease from *****************************? Nothing was ever done or changed after all of Jareds processes and requirements were fulfilled and performed.
If ***************************** or Wooten/********* did, indeed, not receive the proper forms and signatures and if ***************************** did not qualify on his own credit (as ***************************** claimed in late July 2023 via telephone), then why did Wooten/********* and *************************** continue to maintain ***************************** as a tenant and accept rent and take no further action until my call and e-mail to ***** in December 2023? I would also like to state that this has now become a breach of contract and policy as of July 31, 2023, when proper procedures and job responsibilities should have been completed and ********************* name should have been removed in the first place.
I did receive an e-mail confirmation stating that both parties had executed the agreement as of July 31, 2023 (see attached).
I reject Wooten/Briarwoods response of:
The signed Guarantor Acknowledgement states: That the guarantee agreement shall extend to any and all extensions, renewals,modifications and amendments of said lease and Guarantors waive their right to be notified of any such changes or extensions or modifications.
The only additional documents provided (in addition to the 3 pages in ************* prior response) are:
a few pages from Rayden Frerkings renewal lease agreement highlighting the portion of Notice of Termination verbal notice is not sufficient portion; and
08-02-2022 Guarantor Acknowledgment personally signed by myself, *************************.
So, the verbal agreement is a moot point, as the required written,timely notices were provided by all parties, as I previously stated and provided records to prove.
As for the Guarantor Acknowledgement, why was this document not available in the Portal? I dont remember ever getting a copy of this document. According to my records (see attached e-mail to ***** dated 7-28-2022 and check dated 8-2-2022 regarding my trip to *********** on 8-2-2022 to pick up the apartment keys), I believe this document was placed in front of me just prior to handing over the keys and I was never provided a copy; and
Wooten/Briarwood cannot or refuses to provide records, factual evidence and communications to prove its claims and continue to deny any responsibility.
Wooten/Briarwood continues to show no concern nor remorse for their business practices or the conduct, actions and behavior of their corporation, employees and agents.
As a result of this complaint and in an attempt to find a resolution, we admit no fault but agree to return the $1435 that was paid.
I still demand the return of the $1,435 of 2-months early lease buy-out.
Further, I will not accept any resolution until after the inspection and refund/return of the deposit have been finalized. In fact, I add to my demand the amount of my initial deposit/down payment for the apartment (see attached 7-28-2022 Electronic Payment of $806.95 for Deposit/Down Payment), but not including the pro-rated rent check August, 2022 dated 8-2-2022 (see attached), which was handed over to ***************************** directly on 8-2-2022 when I traveled to *********** to obtain the apartment keys. I anticipate the finalization of the inspection and to receive a full refund of the deposit.
In addition, I also add to my demand the two $30 screening fees totaling $60 (see attached 12-21-2023 Screen Shot of the payment made on the Portal). These fees were already required by ***************************** and paid in July 2023 for the renewal lease screening and should not have had to be repeated. Again, if ***************************** had performed his job duties properly, none of this would have been necessary. ********************* name would have been removed nothing would have ever had to have been done.
$1,435 + $806.95 + $60 = $2,301.95
Renewed demand of a total of $2,301.95. Including a letter on Wooten letterhead from an authorized agent/employee stating full and final release of all parties to any and all leases, contract, debts, liabilities to Wooten and Briarwood.

Sincerely,

*************************
Initial Complaint
Date:03/05/2024
Type:Service or Repair 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.
Since last year I have been on ******** apartments or the Wooten company to find someone to get rid of the mold in my apartment. They have done a test and found out that it was black mold and have done nothing about it . Now every time I walk into my home Im breaking out in hives due to the mold and having other health issues . Originally they told me the mold was spreading due to the too much moisture in the bathroom so I ended up buying a dehumidifier and unfortunately the mold is still growing and spreading and I just need it gone and repaired correctly and completely .
Business Response
Date: 03/08/2024
We are in receipt of your Better Business Bureau complaint dated March 5, 2024 regarding your maintenance request at ***********************************************. In your complaint you stated that you had black mold in your bathroom due to moisture. On November 15, ************************** your apartment and sent it to Pro-Lab to be processed. We received the results of the test and it shows not elevated. In order to correct the mildew issue in your bathroom we have done the following. The grout was removed, replaced and sealed a new shower surround has been installed and the bathtub was restored. I have attached a portion of the Pro-Lab results that show there was no elevation you can review the full results in the leasing office at ***************************************. I have also attached pictures of before and after the repair.
Initial Complaint
Date:12/06/2023
Type:Service or Repair 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.
Me and my roomate moved into a 2 bed, 2 bath apartment in Building D of ********* apartments in September of 2022. There have been numerous issues with this apartment since the move in date. There were several instances of normal wear and tear/damage that should have been corrected before move in. The panels of the bathtub detaching from walls, sinks are rusted, plastic kitchen drawers are cracked and have missing peices, cabinets missing handles etc. We were told that corporate deemed most of these things to be ineligible for repair/replacement. These are all things that are only mildly inconvenient, so we let it go and went on with our lives. Fast forward to 3/2023. A notice was sent out that there was going to be "building improvement" construction beginning on 3/20/23. This notice stated that the construction would last ~ 2 weeks. On 3/31/23, another alert was sent out that they would have to close the back side of the building D parking lot "over the weekend and possibly all of the next." Construction lasted for weeks beyond what was communicated. Some of the parking lot was torn up in the process of this construction. A pile of gravel was left for months and it was eventually evened out, but never repaved. Sometime during this construction, they began to tear holes in the sheetrock of the hallways. Insulation has been left exposed ever since. Tarp was used to cover some of the damage, but not all. The next issue began on 08/22/23. A dangerous building warning from the city of Springfield was posted on the back entry door. It stated that the balconies were dangerous. It was also later added that the damage to walls needed to be corrected. They never communicated anyting regarding this to the residents. After ~2 months, balconies were torn down. We were only informed on 12/6/23 that they would not be replacing the balconies, but putting in a window, despite the fact that I had sent several emails about balcony construction that were responded to.
Business Response
Date: 12/16/2023
We are in review of the complainants statements regarding Building D of ********* Apartments. Records reflect the complainant occupied the building September of 2022 and recently renewed September of 2023 during the period claimed in this complaint. During this initial move in process items not replaceable were notated on the move in checklist to prevent any charges upon move out and consist of normal wear and tear. Records further reflect only 4 work orders have been reported since occupancy with none currently outstanding. This building was constructed in 1972 and has required recent improvements to properly maintain the community. This included extensive plumbing improvements Spring of 2023 to the city sewer and sanitization which is located below ground. Beginning late summer and early fall we began building improvements to the decks and exterior of the building. This process is dependent on the expertise of engineers, construction companies, and city approval with required building permits. During this review and repair process Scottsdale Apartments and the City have followed required code enforcements. Although notices were posted to the building by the City, this is required during this type of repair due to the extent of repairs in process. Due to significant code changes over the course of 51 years the buildings location and current set back ordnances required the balcony improvement to consist of removal and replacement with new windows. Significant improvements are in process and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We appreciate your patience and understanding on this matter.
Customer Answer
Date: 12/18/2023
Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:
The Missouri Landlord tenant law states that landlords should make and pay for repairs due to ordinary wear and tear. You’ve just stated that there is wear and tear in the apartment, so you are responsible for repairing/replacing said wear and tear. I would also like to know the specific city codes that prevented the balconies from being built, as I called the city and they stated the construction was approved for the new balconies. If new balconies are not to be built, I will be needing compensation for the items purchased for the balcony stated in the lease. This included several now dead plants, a table, 2 chairs with cushions, an electric grill, gardening materials, and lights totaling to about $600. Another option is you can pay for storage for the items since you have taken away the space they were purchased for. All other residents should be compensated as well.

Sincerely,

******** ******
Business Response
Date: 12/19/2023
We are in receipt of the additional statements by the complainant. The repair and improvement process related to the balcony replacement of this building began 9/1/2023 with the attached notice. All items on the balcony were requested to be removed by 9/4/2023 and the replacement process began with the City, Construction Company, Architects, and Engineers on 9/5/2023. This permitted project resulted in the replacement of the balcony with a window. Specifically regarding wear and tear, this was in reference to the original complaint regarding the move in condition of the dwelling. The move in inspection can be found within the complainants resident portal. Those items identified do not necessarily result in a replacement as it may be a cosmetic related note due to the age of the apartment location. By documenting this upon move in, this prevents charges for those items upon move out. In the event the complainant has a service request related to the ongoing maintenance of the dwelling they are welcome to notify management by portal, tenant email relay, or phone. Currently we do not have any open work orders related to this dwelling. Regarding the rental amount of the apartments those units on the 1st floor did not have balconies. This was specific to 2nd and 3rd floor apartments however additional rent was not charged for units with balconies. There is currently no rental reduction as the 1st floor units have the same base market rent. We hope this answers your questions as we continue to improve our community.
Customer Answer
Date: 12/19/2023
Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

Again I will state, the Missouri landlord tenant law specifically states that landlords should make and pay for repairs due to ordinary wear and tear. The cracks and pieces of the kitchen drawers missing are not cosmetic damage. They prevent proper functioning of the drawers. The rusted sink is a harbor for tetanus bacteria and could become dangerous. This is grounds for replacement. The plastic walls in the shower becoming detached from the actual wall make black mold more susceptible to growth. None of this is cosmetic. You are deliberately neglecting to replace it. I also requested the specific codes that prevented new balconies from being built and these were not included in your response. I suspect this is because you are lying. If this is not the case, please supply the codes so I can verify that this information is correct. Despite the fact that we are not charged for a balcony, it is included in the legally binding lease, so I will require compensation for the items purchased for said space that again, is included in the legally binding lease.

Sincerely,

******** ******
Customer Answer
Date: 12/20/2023
I believe the that The Wooten Co is misleading and lying to its residents. Their vague responses and lack of answering my actual questions lead me to believe this further. They refuse to provide me with city codes they say prevented them from building the balconies. I have contacted the city of Springfield who states that the construction was approved.
Initial Complaint
Date:12/05/2023
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.
I previously resided at *********************************************************************. *****. I moved out on 10/31/2023 and gave them the keys. I gave them the new address and by law they have thirty days to issue my deposit back. I have called and continued to give me the run a around regarding my deposit. I would like my deposit in the amount of $250.00
Business Response
Date: 12/08/2023
We are in receipt of you Better Business Bureau complaint dated December 5, 2023. You stated that you moved out of *********************************** on 10/31/2023 and had not received your security deposit refund of $250.00. I have reviewed your resident profile and it shows that the refund of $250.00 has been issued and picked up by you at the corporate office.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/02/2023
Type:Order 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.
Company is property management company whom failed to forward information about debts for apartment we resided for 6 years they failed to send information on damages to the address we left on the renters portal that I had complied with. There was no official contact other then one call about misdirected packages but no mention of anything owed they sent to collections prior to any official notice given for the items they expect us to pay for they iclude linoleum that was layered onto of old linoleum carpet that was 6 years old a non existing microwave plus more that the collection agency was ugraciously limitedly informing us of. I belive there should be a right to dispute that was never afforded to us. My fiance and myself on limited means, her being disabled, and in my experience they have redone the same to all the apartments in the same manner that were vacated in our stay there.l am feeling they are looking to pass the cost of upgrading the apartments and passing the cost to their former Tennants.
Business Response
Date: 11/07/2023
We are in receipt of your Better Business Bureau complaint dated November 3, 2023 regarding your move out at ******* Landing Apartments. You stated that we never sent you a copy of the charges for you to review. The resident activity shows we sent via email and mail the financial statement with all the charges to you on August 15th. We also sent a repayment plan offer to you via email on September 15th and the resident activity communication shows that you opened that email. You can clearly see that the full ledger and financial statement were attached. We did not send your file to collections until October 27, 2023 after the above listed attempts to inform you of the charges. Your complaint states you would like an explanation of the charges I will do my best to explain them for you. Several charges in the move out inspection were due to damages beyond reasonable wear and tear. The nicotine from smoking inside the unit was beyond cleaning which caused cabinet and countertop replacement, contract paint, and air ducts had to be cleaned. The carpet had to be replaced due to heavy pet stains and due to damage to the top of the carpet. The carpet charge was prorated due to age the total cost to replace is $2010.27 and you were charged $631.80. The pet addendum you signed states that In the event the flooring must be replaced due to pet damage, resident will be charged for all costs related to removal, kilz, or other treatment of subflooring and all material & labor related to flooring replacement. You specifically mention the charge for a microwave that charge is being removed we will notify the collection agency. If you need further explanation of the charges I have provided the move out inspection, move in inspection, financial statement, resident activity and pet addendum for you. You still have the option to dispute these charges. You could to this in writing with the collection agency.
Initial Complaint
Date:09/24/2023
Type:Service or Repair 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.
This company has been horrendous. I personally have lived under Wooten for 4 years at least, moved to ** ****** last year after moving out of *******. In my time they have gone through at least 3-4 property managers, which can only be indicative of their inability to have a good hiring process, much less do they seem able to find someone capable of dealing with their positions low pay rates/high responsibility. I have 4-5 work orders that are outstanding and have been for the last year. I have a door with a hole in it since I've moved in, my bathroom ceiling has mismatched paint due to patchwork the maintenance person had to do to cover up mold. My hot water in the kitchen runs incredibly slow and since there is no dishwasher or even a dishwasher hookup, this makes doing dishes a near Herculean feat to do in a tim**y manner. Also, the back door now leaks and has been doing so for months at least. The water comes in between the wood trim and our sliding door frame. So now we have to leave tow**s by the sliding door area to take care of the water that will inevitably ruin the carpet immediat**y next to it. I have been calling about these work orders for months and have only been told "they will get back with me" about everything. Not only has no one sent any form of communication, there has been nothing done. This is incredibly terrible management from the property owners end. I have pictures for everything. And I think I am owed not only compensation for the negligence and inability to take care of their own properties, but an honest explanation as to why they haven't even tried calling me back or why they keep pushing off work orders to just have maintenance work on moving people in as the first priority over people who have made every payment perfectly on time and never caused an issue.
Business Response
Date: 10/13/2023
We are in receipt of the complainants statements and reviewed the account. We apologize for the d**ay in repair as we recently experienced increased turnover while dealing with staffing shortages. Upon our findings we began repairs mentioned within the complaint to include the door, bathroom, paint, and water leaks. Improvements to the water in the kitchen have been made by replacing the plumbing fixture. This community is a historical project and located within a historical district. Although we may not be able to increase overall water pressure we have contacted a plumbing company to research this further. We are currently interviewing for a replacement Manager and during this transitional time have assigned (2) seasoned full time Managers on-site since August 3rd. We hope you see continued improvement in your satisfaction and will stay in contact until we have all concerns addressed.

BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.

When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.

BBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. If you choose to do business with this business, please let the business know that you contacted BBB for a BBB Business Profile.

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business. Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation. BBB charges a fee for BBB Accreditation. This fee supports BBB's efforts to fulfill its mission of advancing marketplace trust.

Complaints

Find a Location

The Wooten Co., LLC

The Wooten Co., LLC

The Wooten Co., LLC

Customer Complaints Summary

If you've experienced an issue

Sort by

Complaint status

Complaint type

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Customer Answer

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Customer Answer

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Customer Answer

Business Response

Customer Answer

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Customer Answer

Business Response

Customer Answer

Customer Answer

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Initial Complaint

Business Response

Initial Complaint

Business Response

The Wooten Co., LLC is BBB Accredited.

Cookies on BBB.org

Complaints

Customer Complaints Summary

If you've experienced an issue

Filter and sort by

Sort by

Complaint status

Complaint type

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Business Response

Customer Answer

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Business Response

Customer Answer

Customer Answer

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

The Wooten Co., LLC is BBB Accredited.