nat131 • Resident • 2009 - 2010 Not Recommended
My main concern is that while Zender is one of many Indy properties that rents to ex-cons and sex offenders, this is not a fact that is disclosed to prospective tenants. Upon touring the buildings prior to move-in, I was reminded of the importance of the credit check, but was not informed of their lack of restrictions for those with criminal backgrounds until I specifically asked. It was also not until my later employment working with ex-cons that I discovered the neighboring building is a work-release prison. Prior to this, I had made inquiries to the staff regarding the building (due to excessive instances of sirens and police vehicles), but was never given any answers. The option to disclose this should not be left at the discretion of the property staff, and should be mandatory. The front security door was repeatedly smashed or ripped off of its hinges, and would take many days to fix. Due to this, there were many occasions that I would come home to find various people in the lobby that had come in off of the street. Other issues include the basement laundromat, which consists of three washers and four dryers for a 100 unit building. Of these, there were only 2 washers and 2 dryers that were consistently functional throughout the year that I resided there. The staff was also given the liberty to make their own judgements regarding whether or not a maintenance emergency should be covered under the lease. For example, I once placed a request for an overflowing toilet, which was caused by flushing dog food that was spit up by a sick pet, and cleaned with paper towels. I never received a bill or statement for the maintenance, but was informed upon my lease renewal that I would be charged $50 for this. It is nowhere stated that the maintenance staff or property management team have the liberty of making this decision. After I vacated my apartment in the middle of September 2010, I was not notified until 38 days later via USPS that I was obligated to pay the company a sum of $1050.99. The reason stated for this was that several small areas needed to be cleaned ($65), and that the carpeting for the entire apartment had to be ripped up, floors sealed, pad replaced ($300), and carpet replaced (roughly $865). The carpeting issues were attributed to "pet damage and odor", of which there was none. I was not told of the flooring 'issues' prior to replacement of the carpeting, informed of afterwards until receiving an invoice, and had not had contact with Zender property until the end of October 2010, when I was able to speak to a representative on the phone. When voicing concerns over the large fee for the lack of damage, the only information given was "Those inspecting said there was odor", "It's already been replaced", and "There is nothing else that we can do". If I felt that there were legitimate problems with the flooring, there would be no issue. However, this is not the case. Upon review of filed or written complaints from previous tenants, many of them state that post-vacate balances requested are startlingly similar to the ones I stated above, for a variety of different reasons. It could simply be a coincidence, and many tenants may frequently engage in lifestyles that require the flooring be completely redone at move-out. However, I believe that a more likely cause is that the increased effort required to maintain historical buildings is not being put forth by the company. Unfortunately, this lack of upkeep and preventative care would not be obvious until a resident vacates, and is forced to foot the bill for the needed maintenance to keep these properties liveable.
How was this review?
Thanks for voting!