Geno
Professional Start, Unprofessional Exit!!
While our initial interactions with BeeJay suggested a professional and friendly engagement that made the move in process seamless. The subsequent reality of this management's conduct has been a study in incompetence and bad faith. Nannette's consistent pattern of rude and combative communication serves only to mask a failure to provide timely maintenance requests. Most egregious, however, is the move out process. Despite BeeJay's own admission that the property remained in 'excellent condition' after our five-year tenure, this company has attempted a transparent and illegal grab of our $2,500 deposit plus an additional $150 fee. By billing a long term tenant for a full repaint and carpet cleaning, actions that directly violate California's 'normal wear and tear' statutes. Mind you our tenure was from 12/30/20 to 1/31/25 and no paint or texture touch up was done prior to moving in, that was stated on our initial walk through. They have revealed a predatory business model that relies on exploiting the uninformed. Their inability to coordinate basic scheduling for final walkthroughs only further confirms their lack of operational discipline. For those who value their capital and their peace of mind stay clear of this rental company. If you decide to take that leap take many pictures, videos, and keep all documents of your initial walkthrough with BeeJay. Do not let the kindness fool you
Response from AmbatipropertiesApr 8, 2026
We’re disappointed to see this review, as it presents an incomplete and inaccurate picture of the tenancy and move-out process. To clarify the record: • The resident moved into the home in 2020 and remained for approximately five years. • The lease agreement, signed by the resident, clearly states under Section #22 – Repairs and Alterations that tenants may not make repairs, decorations, or alterations without prior written consent, except as allowed by law. • Shortly after move-in, the resident requested permission to paint the home and was explicitly told no, both verbally and by policy. Despite this, all four bedrooms were painted without authorization, directly violating the lease terms. At move-out, the walls required priming and repainting to restore them to their original condition, along with repairs to two interior doors that were damaged and required sanding, priming, and repainting. These charges were not for normal wear and tear, but for unauthorized alterations and damage, which California law allows landlords to deduct from the security deposit. Regarding the condition of the property: • The home was noted as being in generally good condition for its age, which is why the scope of work was limited to only the areas altered or damaged by the resident, rather than a full repaint. • Claims that no paint or texture work was done during the tenancy are contradicted by inspection records, photographs, and contractor documentation, all of which we are prepared to provide. All documentation—including the initial walk-through, move-out inspection, invoices, and photos—is available and was conducted in accordance with California law. We take compliance, documentation, and fairness seriously and stand by the accuracy of our records and the charges assessed. While we regret that the resident is unhappy with the outcome, we are confident that our actions were reasonable, lawful, and fully supported by the lease and documentation.