Thomas Coates
3416 Warren Pl., Apt 201
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
Email: tdcoates@gmail.com
Phone: (757) 374-3539
Date: August 29th 2025
To:
Virginia Department of Housing & Community Development
Attn: Maggie Beal, Interim Director
600 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
Virginia Fair Housing Office
Attn: Lizbeth “Liz” Hayes, Director
9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400
Richmond, VA 23233-1485
Office of Eviction Prevention and Rental Assistance
tenantlandlordinfo@dhcd.virginia.gov
Re: Formal Complaint Regarding Statutory Misquotation and Defective Notice – Rose Hall Apartments
Dear Ms. Beal and Ms. Hayes,
I submit this complaint regarding a defective lease violation notice issued by Rose Hall Apartments (3301 Eamon
Court, Virginia Beach, VA 23452), signed by Leasing Manager Chrissy Waters, dated June 30, 2025. This letter
improperly attempts to serve as a 21-day cure notice and a 30-day notice to vacate, citing VRLTA §55-248.31, which
is legally inaccurate and misleading. I submit this complaint regarding a defective lease violation notice issued by Rose
Hall Apartments (3301 Eamon Court, Virginia Beach, VA 23452), signed by Leasing Manager Chrissy Waters, dated
June 30, 2025. This letter improperly attempts to serve simultaneously as a 21-day cure notice and a 30-day notice to
vacate, citing VRLTA §55-248.31—a section that is legally inaccurate, outdated, and misleading. I further note that this
correspondence follows my formal complaint letter of July 2, 2025, and incorporates prior communications with Rose
Hall, including the letters dated July 1, August 13, and both letters of August 29, as well as emails regarding payment
posting errors, human impact, and repeated administrative failures.
After careful review, this notice contains multiple legally significant deficiencies:
1. Invalid/Dead-on-Arrival Statutory Citation
● Claimed by landlord: VRLTA §55-248.31 as authority for a dual 21/30-day notice.
● Reality: VRLTA §55-248.31 does not authorize such notices in its current codification.
● Implication: The cited statute is non-operative for the purpose asserted and renders the notice legally
ineffectual.
● Classification of Defect:
1. Legal invalidity – the statute cannot support eviction procedures as cited.
2. Procedural defect – creates confusion about tenant obligations.
3. Enforceability flaw – cannot be relied upon in court or regulatory proceedings.
2. Misquotation / Misrepresentation of Statutory Language
● Excerpt from landlord letter: “Pursuant to VRLTA §55-248.31, this notice serves as a 21-day notice to remedy
and a 30-day notice to vacate should another violation occur.”
● Actual statute language (VRLTA §55-248.31, current codification): [Insert exact statutory text].
● Discrepancy: The landlord’s statement misstates and conflates statutory provisions, implying authority that
does not exist.
● Result: Tenants are misled about rights and remedies; notice cannot be considered a legal demand.
3. Technical/Graphical & Procedural Errors
● Examples identified in letter:
1. Misaligned dates (June 30th notice does not provide a correct calculation of 21 days).
2. Typographical errors in reference to billing account number and past due balance.
3. Ambiguous phrasing creates interpretive confusion for tenant and court.
● Impact: These errors further underscore the non-legal, defective character of the notice and the lack of
professional or legal diligence.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that your office:
1. Review the June 30, 2025 notice (attached) and confirm its invalid statutory basis.
2. Identify whether the misquotation constitutes a VRLTA or Fair Housing violation.
3. Issue guidance or corrective directives preventing Rose Hall Apartments from disseminating similar misleading
notices.
4. Ensure the defective notice is memorialized in regulatory files, available for reference in any future dispute.
I reserve all rights to use this notice as an exhibit in General District Court should enforcement action arise. Please
confirm receipt of this filing and advise of any further steps required.
Respectfully,
Thomas Coates
Taylor Coates
Enclosure: June 30, 2025 Lease Violation Notice – Rose Hall Apartments
Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
§ 55-248.31. Was REPEALED October 1, 2019
INCORRECT ADDRESS - 3437 Warren PL., Apt 104,
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
failed to satisfy the essential element of notice under the VRLTA,
thereby nullifying the enforcement attempt.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
Legal Status of § 55-248.31 of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA):
1. Repealed and Void: Virginia Code § 55-248.31 is formally repealed and no longer has any legal effect. Any
reference to it after October 1, 2019, is legally null and unenforceable.
2. Superseded by § 55.1-1245: The operative legal authority governing tenant noncompliance and notice
procedures is § 55.1-1245, which fully replaces the provisions of the repealed § 55-248.31. Any attempt to
enforce rights under § 55-248.31 is a direct misstatement of law.
Impropriety of Using § 55-248.31 in Lease Violation Notices:
1. Legally Defective Notice: A notice citing § 55-248.31 is invalid on its face. It cannot create any statutory
obligation, cure period, or tenancy consequence because the statute no longer exists.
2. Enforceability Nullified: Any conversion of a “21-day” notice to a 30-day notice to vacate, based on §
55-248.31, is entirely unenforceable. A court will reject any eviction or enforcement action that relies on this
repealed statute.
3. Misrepresentation of Law: Using a repealed statute constitutes a clear misrepresentation of legal authority.
This is a serious procedural defect that exposes the landlord to challenge and potential liability.
4. Violation of Tenant Rights: Issuing such a notice violates statutory standards under Virginia law,
undermining the tenant’s rights under the current VRLTA provisions (§ 55.1-1245 et seq.), and can be
documented as an intentional legal impropriety.
Directive: All landlord notices must reference current, operative statutes only. Any reliance on § 55-248.31 is legally
void, and all actions predicated on it are automatically null. The correct reference is § 55.1-1245, which prescribes the
proper notice, cure, and termination procedures.
Rosehall 08/13/2025 “Will be added to your next
month’s rent” (which would be due 09/05/2025)
TWO - Different Notices Issued on the Same Day
Issuing dual and inconsistent notices on a single date is a material
defect in notice, creating confusion that prejudices the tenant’s
rights and voids any claimed compliance with the VRLTA.
“The presence of two divergent notices dated the
same day constitutes procedural irregularity,
evidencing a lack of good faith and undermining the
credibility and enforceability of either instrument.”
Landlord’s reply email has 14 specific aspects that are incorrect, misleading, or legally questionable
under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) and basic contract/statutory rules:
1. Mis-citation of Statute
They claim compliance with “§ 55.1-1245 (A)” but misapply it. That section requires a material noncompliance; a single
late water bill is not automatically material.
2. Failure to Distinguish “Material” Breach
VRLTA § 55.1-1245 applies only if the tenant’s conduct is materially noncompliant. They do not explain how a water bill
constitutes a “material” lease breach, especially if it was already paid.
3. Improper Combination of 21/30 and Future Threat
They suggest the notice can both cure within 21 days and automatically convert into a future termination. Virginia courts
have rejected “dual-purpose” notices; each violation requires a fresh notice.
4. Use of Repealed/Outdated Language
Their original June 30th letter cited § 55-248.31 (repealed). The email does not acknowledge this error but instead shifts
to § 55.1-1245, showing inconsistency.
5. Inconsistent Statutory References
They reference “55-1212(D)” (nonexistent). This suggests either a typo or reference to an irrelevant section, weakening
credibility.
6. Misrepresentation of Tenant’s Payment History
Claiming “over 100 late fees since 2013” may be factually wrong or exaggerated. Even if true, that history cannot legally
convert a single water bill into a “material” breach under § 55.1-1245.
Unclear Source of “NES” Payment History
They attach NES records but NES is a third-party billing company, not a court or bank. Using it as “proof” of lease
violations is questionable.
8. Improper “Friendly Reminder → Stronger Notice” Progression
VRLTA requires formal statutory notice, not escalating informal “reminders” that become “legal.” Their description shows
they substitute company policy for statutory compliance.
9. Improper Reliance on § 55.1-1245(E)
Subsection (E) requires a subsequent intentional breach of a like nature after a prior notice and cure. Here, they are
trying to apply it retroactively with no proven intent.
10. Failure to Prove Intent
§ 55.1-1245(E) requires that the tenant intentionally commits a subsequent like breach. They have no evidence of
intent, making their claim defective.
11. Address Errors from Prior Notice
Their June 30 letter misstated your address (3437 Warren vs. 3416). Under Virginia law, a defective address can void
notice service.
12. Improper Threat of Automatic Eviction
They assert they “do act upon” a future like breach without clarifying that they must still serve a new notice. This
overstates their rights.
13. Failure to Cite the Correct Cure Period
Their language does not clearly state “21 days to cure, else termination after 30 days.” Instead, it confuses future
breaches with the current alleged breach — a fatal ambiguity.
14. Contradiction in Compliance Claims
They insist they “haven’t misused any language” yet admit their original letter cited the wrong statute. Contradiction
undercuts credibility and may support a finding of deceptive
