From: Thomas Coates <tdcoates@gmail.com>
To: RoseHall <rosehall@perrel.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 1, 1:39 PM
Subject: Mischaracterization of Water Billing Issue as Lease Violation

Thomas Coates – Complaint Letter

Thomas Coates
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

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.
  2. Repeated Misrepresentation Violates Good Faith Obligation (§ 55.1‑1242)
    Landlords are required to act in good faith. 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. There is no provision transforming the delay into a lease-violation subject to lease termination.
  4. Inconsistent Notices Cause Tenant Confusion
    June 18 reminder was a “friendly reminder.” June 30 notice escalated dramatically, threatening eviction. Conflicting messaging violates principles of consistency and fair dealing.
  5. Misleading Tenants May Violate Consumer Protection Law (§ 59.1‑200(A)(14))
    Threats of eviction without legal backing are misleading and may violate consumer protection law.
  6. Fourteen Years of Full Payment History Should Be Considered
    Payment record over 14 years demonstrates good faith. Isolated delays should not be treated as lease violations.
  7. The Impact on the Community and Elderly Residents
    Threatening letters undermine security, particularly for elderly tenants.
  8. Auto-Conversion of Notice to 30-Day Vacate is Legally Unsupported and Misleading
    Virginia Code § 55.1-1245(A) requires new notices for each occurrence. The June 30 letter’s “automatic” escalation is factually and legally incorrect.

💡 Conclusion & Purpose of This Letter
Payment of the water bill—even if late—was cured within the statutory window. No adverse record should remain. Continued mischaracterization may expose management to liability. Repeated threats undermine trust and community stability. My consistent payment history should be fairly considered. Please take this letter as formal notice that unless the above is rescinded, I reserve the right to pursue remedies under VRLTA and the Consumer Protection Act.

Respectfully,
Thomas Coates

From: Rose Hall Apartments <rosehall@perrel.com>
To: Thomas Coates <tdcoates@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 2, 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Mischaracterization of Water Billing Issue as Lease Violation

Response – Chrissy Waters, Leasing Manager

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for taking the time to review our notice and respond. Please see our responses below.

  1. Not paying your water bill in a timely manner is a violation of lease section 45. The notice was sent in compliance with VRLTA § 55.1‑1245(A).
  2. We haven’t misused any language and are following company guidelines in compliance with VRLTA.
  3. We do not use ratio billing (§ 55‑1212(D)).
  4. Friendly reminders escalate when tenants do not act; verbiage is stronger to enforce the lease.
  5. We act in compliance with VRLTA for subsequent breaches (§ 55.1‑1245(E)).
  6. Attached payment history shows over 100 late fees since 2013, indicating habitual non-compliance.
  7. Rose Hall complies with fair housing laws and treats all residents the same.

The purpose of our letter was to bring the lease terms to your attention and prevent further action. Please review the attached history and contact us with questions.

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
www.RentWithRoseHall.com

Submission Report: Retaliation Commencement – Water Billing Complaint

Tenant: Thomas Coates
Property: Rose Hall Apartments
Protected Complaint: Mischaracterization of Water Billing Issue as Lease Violation (July 1, 2025)

I. Background

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.

II. Management Response Analysis

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)

III. Subsequent Retaliatory Notices Triggered

IV. Conclusion

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.