RE: Mischaracterization of Water Billing Issue as Lease Violation

Response: Chrissy Waters, Leasing Manager

Tenant: Thomas Coates

Property: Rose Hall Apartments

Protected Complaint: Mischaracterization of Water Billing Issue as Lease Violation (July 1, 2025)

On July 1, 2025, a formal complaint was submitted to Rose Hall Apartments regarding mischaracterization of a water billing issue as a lease violation, citing VRLTA §§55.1-1245(A), 1242, 1212(D), inconsistent notices, consumer protection concerns, long-standing payment history, community impact, and unsupported auto-conversion of notices.

Tenant Complaint Point	Management Response	Deficiency / Failure to Address	Consequential Violation
Late payments cured within statutory window (§55.1-1245(A))	Claimed water bill was a lease violation; referred to lease section 45	Ignored statutory right to cure	June 30, 2025 notice threatening eviction without proper cure (§55.1-1245(A))
Misrepresentation / bad faith (§55.1-1242)	Stated “haven’t misused any language”	Did not address eviction threat or escalation	Threatening eviction despite full payment (§55.1-1242; §55.1-1245)
Submetered water fee limits (§55.1-1212(D))	Claimed “do not use ratio billing”	Did not address statutory cap or misapplied fees	Imposition of non-statutory late fees (§55.1-1212(D); §55.1-1213)
Inconsistent notices	Claimed friendly reminders escalate	Did not resolve conflicting June 18 vs June 30 notices	Issuance of inconsistent/contradictory notices (§55.1-1245; §55.1-1247)
Misleading tenants / consumer protection (§59.1-200(A)(14))	Claimed actions are lawful	Failed to recognize eviction threats as misleading	Defective notices causing undue stress (§55.1-1245; §55.1-1247; §55.1-1251)
Longstanding payment history	Attached but interpreted as habitual non-compliance	Ignored 14-year payment record	Misstatement of prior compliance (§55.1-1247; §55.1-1221)
Elderly community impact	Not addressed	No acknowledgment or mitigation of risk	Failure to consider community impact (§55.1-1204)
Auto-conversion to 30-day notice (§55.1-1245(A))	Referenced prior notice of like nature clause	Did not correct misleading auto-escalation language	Improper conversion of partial payment into breach (§55.1-1245; §55.1-1247)

• Threats of 30-day vacate despite cured payment (§55.1-1245; §55.1-1251)
• Failure to correct ledger errors and misapplied late fees (§55.1-1213; §55.1-1221)
• Defective notices causing undue stress (§55.1-1245; §55.1-1247; §55.1-1251)
• Repeated failure to respond to verification requests (§55.1-1221; §55.1-1245)
• Use of misleading auto-escalation clauses (§55.1-1245(A))

Management’s response failed to address statutory rights, misrepresented payment history, and allowed misleading notices. These failures precipitated retaliatory actions directly traceable to the initial complaint, actionable under VRLTA §§55.1-1245, 1247, 1251, 1258.