Disciple Property Management

Our experience with Disciple property management has been very good. The property managers there truly helped us, as long-​distance landlords, manage our house and make sure our tenants were satisfied and had what they needed. They helped us find tenants when our previous tenant left unexpectedly, and their review process secured us a family that has taken care of our home as though it’s their own. It’s extremely comforting to have people looking out for your home when you literally cannot!

Disciple Real Estate was our property manager for residential rental in Richmond Hill, GA. Our lease agreement with our tenants –as prepared by Disciple — prohibited smoking and pets. We were appalled when we learned that Disciple had not paid attention to the fact the tenant was smoking heavily in violation of the lease; had they ever inspected the property as they represented they would (and later even admitted they had been too short-​staffed to do so), this would have been obvious! Moreover, b) after vouching for the tenant and encouraging us to allow the tenant to build a fence by assuring us that they (Disciple) would certainly be aware should the tenant attempt to conceal pets (our concern in response to the fence request, to which the property manager stated in an email that she drove by the property daily and would know if such were the case), Disciple failed to observe that the tenant had been, in fact, breeding pit bulls who ruined the yard. Even worse, the tenant built the fence on the neighbor’s property (despite that we had also asked the property manager to ensure the fence was built within the property line). Had Disciple set foot on the property, it would have been obvious that, the fence was so far on the neighbor’s (unoccupied) property line that the neighbor’s sprinklers were inside our yard! When the rent was late for the very first time in years, the property manager did not act promptly within the time period specified in the tenant’s lease to contact the tenant to learn they had in fact vacated! This caused for us loss of rent. Though we cooperated fully with Disciple and strived to pay for the repairs quickly (repairs after tenant move out were executed and managed by Disciple’s own sister repair business) so that the property could quickly be re-​occupied, Disciple was extremely slow to submit the final bill, and unresponsive to our requests to return to us the key to the property. These delays resulted in further unnecessary loss of rent. After we retained a new property manager and finally received the key from Disciple, we learned there were even more repairs necessary. We learned about the presence of the prior tenant’s dogs only when the new property manager inspection of the property after Disciple’s repairs were completed! Therefore, Disciple did not inform us of this even after the tenant moved out! Moreover, in response to our inquiries upon multiple annual lease renewals regarding the acceptability of nominal increases in rent, Disciple discouraged any increase, always advising that the rent was commensurate with other properties. To the contrary, our new property manager had no difficulty in increasing the rent by $ 100 per month. Finally, our chances of collecting for property damages and lost rent from the tenant who vacated and defaulted on the last month’s rent are virtually nonexistent because, at lease signing, Disciple fell short of protecting us in that they obtained the signature of only one occupying party. That party’s income is of a nature we will be unable to attach for damages and lost rent. Had Disciple been thorough to obtain the spouse’s signature (employed elsewhere), it would have made a significant difference in our ability to collect. This kind of blatant management neglect and tenant leniency unfortunately cost us into five figures in combined lost rent and property repairs. We can only conclude that Disciple had their own — and not the landlord’s — best interest at heart. After finding a tenant, they did little more than collect the rent. This is in stark contrast to our good experience with attentive property managers for our property in another state. We can only conclude that we would have better protected our investment and fared far better financially to save the property management fees and have the rent paid directly to us.