| Tue, Jul 1, 1:39 PM | |||
| ||||
Thomas Coates
Conclusion & Purpose of This Letter
3416 Warren Pl., Apt 201
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
July 2, 2025
To:
Chrissy Waters, Leasing Manager
Rose Hall Apartments
3301 Eamon Court
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
RE: Mischaracterization of Water Billing Issue as Lease Violation
Dear Ms. Waters,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. However, I must be clear: Virginia law does not support treating a water bill payment—even if paid 30 days late—as a material breach of a lease, particularly when cured promptly.
1. No Material Breach for Cured Payment Delays (§ 55.1‑1245(A))
Virginia Code § 55.1‑1245(A) mandates that for remediable tenant breaches, the landlord must serve notice and allow 21 days to cure before issuing termination . Even a late payment within 30 days falls entirely within this cure window. Once the tenant has cured, no further lease violation exists, and rent termination cannot follow. Implying otherwise is inconsistent with the statute.
2. Repeated Misrepresentation Violates Good Faith Obligation (§ 55.1‑1242)
Landlords are required to act in good faith in enforcing lease terms. Misusing statutory breach language to threaten eviction—even after payment is fully resolved—is unreasonable and may amount to bad faith enforcement.
3. Water Utility Governance Limits Submeter Fees (§ 55.1‑1212(D))
Virginia Code § 55.1‑1212(D) allows the owner to charge a late fee of no more than $5, only after at least 15 days past due, and only when the delay is remediable within that bill’s cycle (law.lis.virginia.gov). There is no provision of the statute which transforms that delay into a lease-violation subject to lease termination.
4. Inconsistent Notices Cause Tenant Confusion
The June 18 reminder notice characterized the issue as a “friendly reminder” with no penalty language or threats, acknowledging resolution via simple payment.
The June 30 notice escalated dramatically, treating the same behavior as a lease violation and threatening eviction upon recurrence. This sharply conflicting messaging violates principles of consistency and fair dealing (law.richmond.edu).
5. Misleading Tenants May Violate Consumer Protection Law (§ 59.1‑200(A)(14))
Threats of eviction without legal backing can fall under unfair or deceptive acts under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. To assert a material breach without statutory or factual basis and to imply eviction is a pending result may be considered misleading and unlawful.
6. Fourteen Years of Full Payment History Should Be Considered
It is essential to note that my payment record with Rose Hall Apartments extends over fourteen years of full and complete payment history. If I were to furnish supporting documentation for every on-time payment, it would amount to more than 168 separate pages of receipts showing payments in full, month after month, year after year. It would be unjust to disregard such a long, consistent record of fulfilling my financial obligations in favor of narrowly focusing on isolated delays that were fully cured within the required time frames. To treat this situation as a lease violation is to ignore the overwhelming pattern of timely, good-faith payments that characterize my tenancy.
7. The Impact on the Community and Elderly Residents
I also want to emphasize a broader concern: many of my friends and neighbors in this very community are elderly. It pains me to think that they may also be subjected to threatening letters like this, which put the security of their homes in jeopardy over minor billing delays. This approach does not align with the spirit of community I see at Rose Hall Apartments. I have long admired the positive aspects of our community, including the pool, social events, and the community-building projects you sponsor. These efforts foster goodwill, but that goodwill is undercut when tenants—particularly vulnerable ones—feel that their homes are being routinely threatened over issues that are neither material breaches nor indicative of neglect or refusal to pay.
8. Auto-Conversion of Notice to 30-Day Vacate is Legally Unsupported and Misleading
Virginia Code § 55.1-1245(A) requires that lease termination notices be clear, specific, and compliant with the required cure periods. Nowhere in the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act is there any provision allowing a prior notice to “automatically” convert to a 30-day notice to vacate upon subsequent alleged infractions. Notices cannot self-trigger legal consequences without a new, proper, and specific notice being served for each instance.
Furthermore, this type of automatic escalation language appears to attempt to artificially create a heightened sense of legal urgency, which is not legally permissible. Such statements can mislead tenants into believing they have fewer rights and less time than Virginia law allows. Specifically:
Virginia Code § 55.1-1245(A) requires a new 30-day notice to be served for each occurrence, and the landlord must provide a full opportunity for the tenant to cure each alleged violation.
The Virginia Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that forfeiture of a leasehold must be strictly construed (see Lacy v. Arnett, 92 Va. 285, 1895), and a notice purporting to convert itself without due process fails this standard.
The VRLTA prohibits misleading or threatening notices that misrepresent the landlord’s actual legal remedies and timelines.
The attempt to circumvent proper notice requirements by inserting “automatic” escalation language is not only procedurally unsound, but also an overreach that erodes tenant rights.
The language in your June 30, 2025 letter—stating that a subsequent violation within 21 days would automatically convert to a 30-day notice to vacate—is factually and legally incorrect. Virginia law requires deliberate and sequential notices. It is the landlord’s responsibility to issue notices that align with statutory process, not to attempt to fast-track eviction proceedings through self-executing language.
The use of such misleading auto-escalation clauses serves only to create fear, urgency, and a false sense of diminished legal recourse, which is neither lawful nor ethical. I respectfully request that this specific assertion be immediately retracted and removed from your future communications.
In my view, it does not promote timely payments to issue threats. Rather, it erodes trust and disrespects the years of commitment many tenants, like myself, have shown to this community. I hope that you will reflect on this and reconsider the use of such punitive, aggressive approaches in favor of practices that truly serve the best interests of both the management and the residents.
Conclusion & Purpose of This LetterI appreciate the community at Rose Hall and the professionalism of your staff. That said:
Payment of the water bill—even if late—was cured within the statutory window, and therefore no breach occurred.
No adverse record or inference should remain where payment was timely cured.
Continued mischaracterization of payments as lease violations is legally unfounded and may expose management to liability.
Repeated threats of eviction undermine trust and community stability, particularly during challenging times.
My consistent payment history should be fairly considered, not ignored in favor of isolated billing notices.
The well-being of elderly residents and community goodwill should be prioritized over aggressive enforcement tactics.
Please take this letter as formal notice that unless the above is rescinded, I reserve the right to address it further—including pursuing remedies under the VRLTA and Consumer Protection Act.
Thank you for your time. I hope we can resolve this in a manner consistent with Virginia law and community respect.
Respectfully,
Thomas Coates
|  Wed, Jul 2, 2:36 PM | |||
| ||||
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for taking the time to review our notice and respond.
Please see our responses below.
- Please note that not paying your water bill in a timely manner is a violation of your lease agreement as outlined in your lease section 45. Submetering Water & Wastewater. We sent you the notice in compliance with the VRLTA, as per section § 55.1-1245 of the VRLTA entitled Noncompliance with rental agreement specifically (A) which entitles us to serve you with a notice of non-compliance with your lease such as the notice you were served.
- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, if there is a material noncompliance by the tenant with the rental agreement or a violation of § 55.1-1227 materially affecting health and safety, the landlord may serve a written notice on the tenant specifying the acts and omissions constituting the breach and stating that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than 30 days after receipt of the notice if the breach is not remedied in 21 days and that the rental agreement shall terminate as provided in the notice.
2. We’re not sure what you mean here. We haven’t misused any language and are simply following our companies’ guidelines while in compliance with the VRLTA.
- As it pertains to your mention of section 55-1212 (D), we do not use ratio billing.
- Yes, we send a friendly reminder and when someone doesn’t act on that reminder and we have to notify them again, the verbiage is stronger to enforce the lease.
- Again, not sure what you mean here, but in the event a violation is not cured under a 21/30 or a like breach happens during the remainder of the tenancy, we do act upon it in compliance with the VRLTA.
- We have attached your payment history with NES for your review. Please note that it shows over 100 late fees have been charged to you since 2013 which indicates habitual non-compliance with the section of your lease.
- Rose Hall complies with all fair housing laws and treats all residents the same.
- This is lawful as outlined in § 55.1-1245 Letter (E)
E. If the tenant has been served with a prior written notice that required the tenant to remedy a breach, and the tenant remedied such breach, where the tenant intentionally commits a subsequent breach of a like nature as the prior breach, the landlord may serve a written notice on the tenant specifying the acts and omissions constituting the subsequent breach, make reference to the prior breach of a like nature, and state that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than 30 days after receipt of the notice.
The purpose of our letter was to bring the terms of your lease to your attention due to the numerous reminders we have had to send each month regarding your water bill. Our hope is to prevent any further action being necessary by bringing the issue to your attention.
Chrissy Waters
Leasing Manager
Rose Hall Apartments
3301 Eamon Court Virginia Beach, VA 23452
(757) 463-0844 DIRECT
(877) 883-0790 TOLL FREE
(757) 498-7004 FAX