TC Comments
Protected Tester told no units available
PT could not contact anyone for appt, instructed to drop in. After first call attempt, CT was instructed to drop in to match PT.
PT incorrectly marked Transgender Male on her application. PT is a transgender woman.
TC accidentally made a change on the PAF after report forms had been submitted, which deleted everything and testers had to resubmit. Original assignment form called for an appointment, even though it says drop-in now.
Testers were asked to make appointments.
Due to CODE error, when TC selects "make an appointment," CODE automatically reverts this to "drop in."
TC failed to select the appointment call tab on the assignment form. Testers were instructed to make appointment calls.
Control tester did not obtain the unit number for one available unit.
Protected tester did not ask the unit numbers of the available units. Addressed this with them.
Control tester was told to follow up with the questions regarding date(s) of availability, unit numbers and rent rates for a 12 month lease for the 9 apartments.
DC067 tester did not obtain the non-special price for two of the units. During debrief I reminded tester to obtain the non-special prices in the future.
Agent told protected tester about a 3% age discount for tenants over 55 that would take rent from $1150 to $992. This amount is documented in tester's notes. However, this $158 discount is not equivalent to 3%. This discount was not mentioned to control tester at all.
Agent told PT they had just rented the last available 2 bedroom earlier that day. PT asked if there was anything else available. Agent asked if PT had a budget. PT said it was $650. Agent said she had a 3 bedroom for $714 available but nothing else in her price range and time range. PT stated that I could do as far out as December 6th. She looked at the calendar and said she might have one by December 10th. PT again asked, if she had anything else, even a 1 bedroom or studio. Agent said the soonest available in her price range would be December 10th but it might not be available that soon.
Control tester was able to set an appointment on Sunday 1/25. Protected tester was told apartment complex was closed on Sundays.
DL936(CT) was told that security deposit was dependent on credit. When tester asked for a starting point or price range, agent told tester there was a "complicated formula" management uses to determine the deposit amount, based on former bills, and that she did not know how they determine deposit amount. Confirmed with DL903(PT) that she was told the security deposit amount was #150. Additionally, DL936(CT) was told unit #337 was only available for a 10 month lease, and unit #1036 was only available for an 11 month lease, and are priced as such. Confirmed with DL903(PT) she was priced for 12 month lease terms.
Agent would not give testers unit numbers.
Confirmed with CT DL936 that $75 application is total for household, not per person.
CT was told they had system failure and could not print plans or show units. Three units CT told about were three of the 6 PT was told about. Rent differs on only one - CT $25 more. CT was told $99 application, no deposit or admin fees, while PT was told $99 was a special this month and gave "normal" fees for deposit, application, admin. CT reports some buildings on property were 3 story, some were 2 - since agent told her all units were townhomes, she thought they were all in two story buildings. Agent said first floor entry for townhomes, but PT reports different floors for units.
CT shown 2 units different from 4 PT saw. Recorded 4 of the same units as PT, 1 different. Of the same units, 2 rent prices same, 2 were higher for CT by $50 and $35. All fees same except PT also offered waived deposit. Brand new complex. CT was encouraged by agent to talk to partner and return and she could offer other unit options based on what they liked - too many to record right now.
PT entered information on two 3-bedroom units over the price maximum (AUFs deleted). CT was offered these, declined due to budget, and then was offered 2 bedroom option. One 2 bedroom unit identical except lease lengths. Both testers volunteered familial status with children - have been advised against doing so in the future.
Testers told about same units, same pricing. Only difference was in the application fees.
CT told $200 deposit, PT told $100 and up PT not told about admin fee
New complex - both testers told more units were being finished out daily. PT recorded one unit over rent maximum price, therefore only had one applicable unit. Neither of these were the same as the three units offered to CT. PT asked about other fees, but was not told about trash or pest.
One unit testers told about is alike; different rent amount (CT +$89) CT told about trash and pest, PT told no other fees CT told application fee x1 since married, PT told per person
Testers told about same unit, same pricing - only difference was that PT was told the trash fee was allocated with the water and CT given exact cost.
CT understood lease lengths were for 6 or 12 months, PT understood anywhere between 6 to 12 months.
PT practice test - she did not get unit numbers, but did get floor plan numbers, which match numbers given to CT. CT asked to see a unit - has been advised against dong so in future. Information same except lease lengths differ.
PT was told nothing available. Since it was her practice test, TC had her complete Available Unit Form based on one of the units she was told about just for practice - marked to delete. She did not get unit numbers since they did not meet her requirements. Other fees testers told about same. PT advised not to ask to see anything.
CT failed to ask about credit check, but did collect form stating they check payment history. Has been advised to always ask. CT was told trash was included in water bill, PT told separate amount paid with water bill. None of the units testers were told about were the same. Both asked different agents if there was anything else available.
Both testers were told on appointment call the day before that a three bedroom unit was available. PT went to site first, was told nothing available. Proceeded with CT test, who was told the same thing when she arrived that afternoon.
CT asked about viewing a unit and if there were any two bedroom units available. Has been advised against this for future tests. PT forgot to ask about unit numbers. Other details match CT unit. CT given price for trash and for pest each month, PT only given price for trash fee.
During PT visit agent was having computer problems. Unable to access unit number. Lease lengths offered differ.
Offered same units, same pricing - viewed one unit in common. Leases offered differ. CT told app fee $75, PT told $100. PT offered waived admin fee incentive CT was not.
All three units different. Fees the same, lease lengths differ. Assignment forms say to request 0 br, accept 2 br minimum. Testers were briefed to ask for a two bedroom unit, as confirmed by their narratives. TC error on re-saving PAF and assignments with a "0" after making a correction.
Slightly different lease options. One unit in common; same pricing on all. CT told married app fee $75, PT told $50 each.
PT told about completely different unit that "should" be ready by 7 days after assigned move in date. CT told higher administration fee, and then incentive to waive admin fee. PT told different amount for admin fee, no incentive.
CT told about 2 large one bedroom with den units, same plan, felt agent really pushing her towards more expensive upgraded one. PT told about six units, 3 each of two different floor plans, all smaller and cheaper than those offered to CT. CT told about amenity fee that PT was not.
CT was told last unit fitting her time and budget qualifications was leased just prior to her arrival at complex. Told about one other unit $903, but CT declined - over budget by $3.
PT was told they had two units, but they were $1010 each. Also told if she put down a deposit today, then special for rent was only $999. $1010 was over $1000 price limit. CT told about same units, but was just told rent prices, not that it included an incentive amount or that price was only good with a same day deposit.
Offered the same units and same information, only CT went on a Saturday and said it was busy in the office and she was not offered to be shown anything.
Told about different units; shown different units.
CT given 12-15 month lease option, CT told 12 months
Amounts are the same, but unit numbers off by one digit, plus CT told lease length was 12 and 13 months while PT told anywhere 3 to 13 months.
All four units different. CT told app and admin and deposit fees, then told incentives for each. PT given same rates as CT after incentives, but not told there were incentives on app and admin.
All seven units they were told about are different. Different agents, different units, different prices. Both asked about anything else. PT told about monthly pest, trash and electronic statement fees that CT was not told about. PT told about $150 administration fee, CT told it was a $150 processing fee.
CT told about same two units PT told about; rent on one unit higher for CT. PT told app fee $100, $50 off incentive. CT told app fee $50.
PT rent +$5 CT told 12 month leases, PT told 3, 6, 12
Both testers were told on the phone a 3 br would be available 5/15. PT visited first, told nothing available. Same agent - manager - told CT the next day 3 br available 5/15.
PT was told administration fee was $50 each, CT told $55 total. PT told application fee was $55 each, CT told $50 total. Each tester told one unit was half off admin and app fees, so differing totals affect incentive amount understood as well. CT trash & pest = $9, PT trash & pest = $7
Agent would not give either tester unit number. PT told this was the unit they had available - same floorplan and pricing as CT, but CT told had one on each floor available. PT told 12 month lease, CT told anywhere 6 to 12.
Testers both told on phone unit available; PT told upon arrival that had just been leased. CT went next day and was told last unit rented the day before and nothing else available.
When CT arrived, she had to wait at locked door. Agent finally answered door after another guest called office - agent said he had fallen asleep. CT noted he seemed tired and uncommunicative throughout her visit. He said he was uncertain of unit number and whether upstairs or down, that he could find out from manager if she brought completed application back the next day. Lease lengths slightly different. PT offered one month free.
Unit numbers not the same. PT rent amounts higher. CT told $700 off rent incentive one time. PT told $100 off rent every month.
Rent amount for PT on same unit was higher. PT not told about trash or pest fees.
PT was offered a one br unit CT was not. PT told about trash fee CT was not.
Both testers told about different units. Pricing structure for deposit, admin fee, app fee completely different, but with incentives, works out to almost same ($99 vs $101) out of pocket for each. PT was told about trash and pest fee while CT said she was told no other fees.
Rates PT were given were slightly higher than CT. PT offered incentives that CT was not. CT said only 12 month lease offered. Bad storm this weekend - PT suffered power outage and could not complete forms on time. She did complete paper forms and then entered into CODE.
CT told about same unit as PT, same rent price, but date available differs by 5 days. CT offered $500 off rent incentive PT was not. CT told about trash fee PT was not.
PT was told there were only 2 bedrooms available, CT was not offered any 2 bedrooms. PT told about "remote deposit fee" that CT was not. PT offered 6 month option CT was not.
Reminded PT not to ask for business card - only take what they offer.
Both testers saw same agent. Both testers were told all 2 bedrooms were being renovated and wouldn't be available until the end of May. When testers asked if anything else was available, CT was given one bedroom with den option, PT told nothing would be available until the end of May.
Heavy rains when CT went - could be why she was not shown unit. CT told about monthly processing fee not mentioned to PT. CT believes agent told her 3 OR 13 month lease, PT believes agent said 3 TO 13 month leases.
All four units different. CT offered monthly discount off rent PT was not.
Both testers were told about same unit; both testers met with the maintenance man instead of a leasing agent and got the impression there wasn't much turnover in the complex. CT was told rent amount $30 less than PT. PT offered 6 month lease option CT was not. CT told app $45, PT told $35, both mention maintenance man wasn't certain about it and suggested calling agent for clarification.
Testers not told about same units. CT told slightly different lease options.
PT was told on the phone there 3 available units. Met with a different agent in person and was told only one and viewed virtual tour, not offered physical tour. PT said she felt agent was not very enthusiastic about helping her. PT given 6 month option CT was not. CT told about admin fee that PT was not.
Both were different units although same price. CT offered rent incentives PT was not. PT told about 5 month pest fee CT was not.
Different lease lengths - PT understood 2 to 15 months while CT understood 12 to 15 months. CT was told prices she was given included a $30 per month discount (which she adjusted and included as an incentive), PT was just told the same reduced price without the explanation that it included $30 off per month. PT was not told about a $2 per month administrative fee that CT was told about (recorded in forms with 9.97 trash fee due to limited space).
Both testers told about different unit, same rent price. CT saw model, PT saw actual. CT offered waived deposit PT was not. CT offered additional lease term options.
Testers given the same information except control tester told about one additional unit.
Both testers told about one same unit, same fees. Lease terms differ slightly. CT may have only been told about additional units after inadvertently discovering a water leak in closet of available unit. Uncertain because she had not asked about any other available units prior to discovery.
Testers told slightly different lease lengths. PT met with a current tenant who also said she was a leasing agent, and knew general fees, but did not know exact unit number for the single unit she said was available because she wasn't "allowed to lease any units" and tester would have to call a different agent the following week. It appears testers met with same agent, who was able to tell control tester later that day about two units available - exact unit numbers - and never said anything about not being able to lease them. PT had issue with cable connection and was slightly late entering forms.
Testers met with same agent, but CT told $100 higher administrative fee and given different lease terms.
One of CT's unit was same as told to PT, but PT told move in date 6/12 while CT told 6/20. PT said several people waiting for office to open, so could be why she wasn't offered to be shown unit.
Testers were given slightly different deposit and deposit incentive amounts, but works out to same out of pocket expense. PT also offered 6 month lease option.
Testers told about same unit by different agents. PT told rent price for this 3 bedroom unit that was listed on brochure as the 2 bedroom unit price ($255 less than CT told). PT not told about trash, pest fees. PT had mentioned agent said she was new. TC confirmed same agent wrote price on each brochure for same floor plan for each tester at reported pricing.
CT was given one time rent incentive PT was not. Different lease lengths. PT given 2 options of 1 br plus study that CT was not. Rent amounts on comparable units vary.
PT was told about 3 available two bedroom units. CT was told by the same agent that she could not give information on available 2 bedroom unit numbers or pricing because units were on notice, but did offer 8 three bedroom units. CT was told this was an income controlled complex. Agent gave CT amount of income for two people, which tester exceeded, but agent never asked how much she made. PT was not told or asked anything about income. PT offered 14 month lease CT was not. PT offered monthly rent incentive CT was not.
Rent amount differs by $5 CT late entering forms due to power outage with bad weather
Application fees differ - CT told 75 for married couple; PT told 60 each.
Could not tour due to thunderstorms. One unit number testers told about is one digit off, but rent amount and floor number same. CT told about trash fee and given different lease options.
CT was 20 minutes late due to thunderstorms and flooding - was unable to be shown units for same reason. 3 of 4 units same, CT offered slightly lower rent amounts App, admin and trash fees differ for both. PT substantially higher application fee, but lower admin and monthly trash fees.
PT was late entering forms due to storms and power outage. CT told only lease option was 11 months, PT told 11 month was best price but 1-12 available. PT recorded 12 month lease rent amount, but 11 month noted in comment section. CT offered $250 off rent incentive PT was not. Only one unit number identical.
CT could not view due to weather issues. PT was told complex internet was down so agent could not reference exact unit numbers. Testers told same pricing on one unit. PT had internet connection issues due to weather. Said she completed forms earlier in day, but realized they did not save until later. Time stamp one hour late.
PT was told they had nothing available in her time frame - they had rented last one.
TC mistakenly completed assignments to say Wed., 5/12, when correct day was Tues., 5/12. Was not caught until after testers entered forms. Both testers called and went on correct date, Tues., 5/12. CT given unit numbers, lower price on one unit. PT was told they don't give unit numbers; same price on all three units.
CT was stuck in meeting and unable to place appointment call in privacy until an hour after appointed time. She called TC and TC confirmed she could still call (since within 24 hours of pair's call). CT was told she could lie on app and put "married" and app fee would be $25 less since married couples have different last name all the time. Forms note full price for unmarried couple. PT was not offered lower rent amount units CT was. PT was not told trash/pest rates, nor offered incentives CT was.
Testers told different lease terms. Two units matched unit numbers, but $5 rent difference on each. CT also offered incentive for moving to third floor PT was not.
All information matches with the exception that PT was told about a utility reconnection fee of $25. PT understood a remote key fee was mandatory at $25 and CT understood it to be an optional expense.
PT was not told about trash or pest fees. Testers told about different units, different lease terms. Only units available for CT were 7 days past assigned move in date.
Control tester called to let me know she would be 15 minutes late in making her appointment call.
PT's test assignment was unassigned due to a CODE error and she submitted paper forms, which were then transferred by TC. DL920 had to reschedule twice due to work demands.
DL935 made an error: she called outside of her time range and didn't let TC know.
This was a practice test for PT and she forgot to ask about utilities, credit check, lease lengths, and the unit and floor # of 2nd unit
DL910 filled out one appointment form and one AUF form incorrectly and added another of each with the corrections. I marked the first two for deletion.
DL920 had trouble saving the forms and saved 2 units twice. Ignore #2 and #4 AUFs.
CT submitted forms a few hours past the 24-hour mark. PT said "girlfriend" instead of "partner", called to tell the apartment that she would be very late because she got lost, and filled out an AUF for a unit outside of her date range.
PT submitted her forms several hours after the 24-hour mark.
DL960 made a bathroom preference and asked to see units.
DL931 arrived 20 minutes late but it did not affect the 2nd tester. DL1007 did not get the unit number for the last unit.
DL912 did not get unit #s. DL921 was told pest control fee was optional.
DL908 submitted her forms several hours past the 24-hour mark.
I accidentally assigned the test as Boyfriend/Girlfriend when I meant Husband/Wife. Both testers used Husband/Wife anyway.
DL882 doesn't know if app fee is per person or per household.
DL920 was told $45 application fee is per household. DL977 was told it is per person.
DL931 arrived 20 minutes late but did not affect pair.
DL917 was told $50 application fee was for the entire household.
DL908 arrived 20 minutes late but it did not affect pair
DL960 was told the $50 app fee was for the entire household.
DL1008, a new tester, was told there weren't any units within her time frame. I had her fill out AUFs so she could get practice.
DL1008 was told there were 4 units available but was only given information on 2 of them.
DL908 claims she tried to submit forms on 1/16 but CODE was down. The forms were submitted again on 1/22. She was not assigned any other tests last week and has not been assigned any tests this week. I think it is unlikely that she would enter incorrect information.
Both testers were told of available units over the phone but were told there was nothing available during the site visit.
Both testers asked about 2-bedroom units. DL977 asked if there were any specials.
Confirmed with testers that DL909 was told there was a background check and DL960 was not.
DL912 said her agent did not mention a surety bond, just that the deposit ranged from $87.50 to $500 depending on credit. DL921 was also told cleaning/pest control was separate from rent and DL912 was told it was included.
DL921 did not get street addresses of units
Confirmed that DL958 was told of a $50 admin fee and DL916 was told $100. DL958 did not get street addresses or lease lengths.
Confirmed that DL919 was told of a background check and DL935 was not. DL919 was also told no admin or app fee.
Confirmed that DL916 was told of a background check and DL917 was not.
Confirmed that DL911 was told that water, sewage, and trash fee is combined and is always $70 per month.
Confirmed that DL977 was told $100 and DL882 was told $50 for app fee.
Confirmed that DL909 was told $50 per person app fee and DL960 was told $75 per household.
DL935 submitted her forms under a cancelled control # but within 24 hours of the test. She was unable to fix the error until the following week because she went out of town right after her test.
DL917 was told no app fee, DL916 was told $35.
DL1008 was told no credit check, DL907 was told there was. Also, DL1008 was told app fee was $50 per person and DL907 was told it was per household.
DL921 was told $75 app fee is per household, DL910 was told per person.
DL909 was told $90 app fee is per household. She also forgot to ask for the unit #
Agent did not say her name to DL960. DL960 was given the $40 per person app fee instead of the $50 married couple fee. Agent was in a rush and might not have realized she was married.
DL1007 put this test under the wrong control # the first time she entered the form.
DL916 was told app/admin fees were per person and that the security deposit was $131.
DL916 had her appointment confirmed by a centralized leasing office for 1pm, but no one showed up until 3pm. DL916 was told $50 app fee was per person, DL917 was told total.
DL1020 did not ask for rent amount for unit #6304
DL935 was told of a background check, DL967 was not.
DL917 was told $50 total, DL916 was told per person
When 919 called, she was told that they weren't open on Sundays. She made an appointment for Saturday afternoon, which was still in the assigned sequence.
DL1021 did fill at her forms within 24 hours, she forgot to select 'Yes'.
DL958 did not ask if trash and pest fees were included in the rent. She was also not told of a background check.
When T2 arrived for site visit on Saturday office showed they do not open on Saturday even though she had made appointment.
This test had a CODE issue where PT (T1) was removed from assignment after PAF was done. Thus, he could not access CODE after his test and had to do paper forms which were entered the following week once the issue was resolved. Therefore, 24 hour time stamp did not occur.
This test had a CODE issue where PT (T1) was removed from assignment after PAF was done. Thus, he could not access CODE after his test and had to do paper forms which were entered the following week once the issue was resolved. Therefore, 24 hour time stamp did not occur. CT (T2) told about 4 one bedroom units. PT (T1) was told about one 2-bedroom unit after requesting a one bedroom, that no one bedrooms were available. Confirmed PT use of term "boyfriend".
according to 875, agent was asking if it was a corporate apartment or if they lived in Dallas. 939 indicated discount was dependent on quantity of toy donations and applied to either or both application and administration fees
PT expressed extreme discomfort with agent that flustered him and his responses. PT felt agent was very terse with him and really flustered him with her awkward responses in regards to bedrooms and bathrooms.
PT did ask if anything else was available
Same info, different units PT told about discount CT was not
CT told only 13 month leases available; PT offered 3-16 month leases. Rental prices reflect CT 13 month, PT 12 month.
Protected tester offered 1 bedroom plus den as a second bedroom option for child; included in reports despite 2 bedroom minimum since agent initiated option. Option was not presented to control tester.
Different pricing on two of same units accurate - CT higher on one, lower on other. Agent gave computer generated printed quote to each tester. Both testers commented agent said pricing can fluctuate many times daily.
First unit testers were told about has same floorplan although they were offered different unit numbers (similarity in numbers reported not an error - agents wrote on brochures). Only this unit for each tester had an incentive. Second unit that testers were offered differ - CT was told about a unit with less square footage than the one PT told about.
CT offered lower rent amount but not told about incentive. PT given higher rent amount, but told about incentive that makes the rent amounts equal.
Protected tester was given rent incentive on first unit only; control tester was given discounted rent amount with no mention of it being an incentive
PT annoyed that agent kept referring to his "roommate" and he would gently add a comment with "my partner"
CT not told about pest fee or township fee - only admin fee and insurance when he asked about "other fees"
Second unit testers told about differs Both told app fee $75 per lease signer; CT offered married couple discount but PT was not
CT told about 9 one bedroom units. PT told about 3 one bedrooms and 3 two bedroom units
Both testers told about same units by same agent; PT offered higher rent amount and no incentives
Discrepancy in rent amount for same unit (CT $775 and PT $755) not tester error - verified on notes written by agent.
PT told no 2 bedroom units available, only one 3 bedroom. CT told about three 2 bedrooms and the same 3 bedroom at a lower rent. PT also told would have to pay $50 plus additional $25 app fee for second person, CT only told $50 total.
PT said office very busy - met with assistant leasing agent, Erin, who he said was not confident in what was available, but told him about three units. She could not tour yet so he went with Jessica, who he said was annoyed Erin had asked her to take him on tour. Jessica showed two units, but said she thought she only had #227 available for his move in date. PT included the other 2 units Erin had told him about on forms. CT only met with Jessica, who told him about the same one unit she confirmed with PT. CT said office very busy and she did not offer to tour.
CT not told about pest fee and not told about incentives
CT (DL930) had two tests over the weekend and entered the information under the wrong control numbers (second test DL-RC-1437-1). Delete available unit forms 3 through 13 on this submission. Time stamp is previous to this test time due to his submission error.
CT not told about bond; PT not told about trash fee
PT never got return phone call; no answer second call. CT had appointment time scheduled prior to PTs second call.
Both testers had to leave messages on initial call. PT left message in morning, CT in afternoon. CT got call back within 2 hours, PT did not get call back and got answering machine again on 2nd call the next day.
CT (DL930) had two tests over the weekend and entered the information under the wrong control numbers (other test DL-RC-1426-1). Time stamp is based on his second test time due to his submission error. Told different monthly trash fees, different deposit amounts (PT offered deposit or bond), and PT given much higher rent amount on one unit (#1414). Confirmed in notes. PT made appointment call outside of assigned time; got stuck in work meeting, contacted TC prior to calling to ask if ok to still make appointment.
Delayed time stamp - PT had computer issues after entering appointment forms and one available unit form. Submitted paper forms for remainder.
CT only told one unit agent knew for sure; agent told him computer was down and she would be able to check what else would be available once it came back up.
Difference in recorded application fees is correct - agents hand wrote different amounts on brochures as well
CT called TC immediately after test and advised he could not obtain exact information on unit number, floor, fees, etc. from agent who was "filling in" during Cowboy playoff game. PT went later Sunday afternoon and was able to get this info from same agent, the only one in office at both times. My impression from speaking to testers is that agent must have obtained details between the visits - CT had arrived immediately upon office opening. CT said in comment section knew there was a unit around $1300 but did not have exact info on it. PT was able to collect exact information.
Told about different units, different rent amounts. Other fees equal. CT offered incentive, PT was not.
Both testers told about one available unit on phone, both testers told unit was rented that day. Both testers told no other units available until one 1-br on 3/28; PT told that unit would be $649, CT told it would be $609. CT told deposit fee $100, administrative fee $100; PT told deposit $200, not told about administrative fee.
Morning of CT visit the temperature was uncharacteristically in the teens - agent made reference to the cold and although not directly stated, could be the reason she did not show CT units. He was told to bring girlfriend back and she would show units. Difference in lease terms accurate - agent offered CT single month lease option. PT offered higher rent amounts and admin fee incentive, CT was not offered special.
PT was told there would be 2 more units (both larger - a townhome and a 2 bedroom with a den), available for him in February if he could wait.
Testers told about same units, same pricing. PT not told about pest or trash fee.
PT given higher rate on same unit 2nd unit number differs between testers but rent amount is same
Both testers told about units that fit budget with longer than 12 month lease terms, but outside budget with 12 month lease, causing deleted available unit forms. Single available unit for both testers differs in unit number and price, although one of deleted forms matches. CT offered deposit half of PT. PT felt he was getting good deal from "fellow gay boy".
CT waited over an hour in leasing office and no one ever came. PT had been there two hours prior and met with agent.
This office provided information on 4 different attached communities. Agents told testers different lease lengths. CT was told no 12 month leases, and was only given pricing for 6 and 14 months. PT was able to get 12 month lease price from different agent.
CT told deposit or surety bond, PT only told surety bond. CT told app/admin discounted, PT only given discounted rate PT not told about pest fee
CT mistakenly entered specs for DL-RC-1816-1 under this control number before correcting. Thus, timestamp inaccurately premature to appointment. CT told 12 month lease length and PT offered 3, 6 or 12.
PT was told (by same agent as CT) that the last one bedroom unit had been rented. He asked if she had anything else and she said no. Told him they were a small community and apartments there lease really quick. He said she seemed overwhelmed and told him the other agent had gone on vacation and it was just her. There were 4 people in the lobby waiting at the time. She gave him a brochure and wrote the next available dates for a one bedroom were 2/21 and 3/23.
CT initially entered forms into DL-RC-1814-1
PT told about three units, CT told about two with same unit numbers. One unit higher rent for CT, but offered $500 off rent incentive while PT was not.
CT could not get address or unit numbers. PT reports feeling rushed and like agent didn't want to show him anything.
Offered same units, same price. PT told about 1-6 month lease option at upcharge amount, CT was not. CT told application fee was per person, PT told was total price. PT said he saw actual units, CT said he was told no actual units to show, that he saw a model.
Agent wrote $199 move in special (administration, application and first month rent) on PT floor plans while same agent did not write this amount on CT floor plans (and did not offer). Instead, CT told incentive was half off application fee. Both testers given monthly reduced rent amount due to units sitting vacant for extended time.
CT entered forms just over 24 hours - six week old baby suddenly sick and delayed forms. Agent told CT he didn't know unit numbers. PT and CT told about slightly different incentives.
PT completed paper forms as internet service was down until Sunday night.
PT was told about a reservation fee of $350 to hold the apartment that was waived. CT was not told about reservation fee.
New complex having first renters move in March 1 - testers wore hard hats to view units. Told same information (rent, deposit, fees, lease), but shown and given different units as options.
CT was told about 3 units on phone, during visit agent said one of 3 just rented. One unit number same. CT told one application fee since married, PT told app fee x2.
PT was told no units available for move in date. CT told one unit available 2/23.
Different agents - CT told app fee $45, PT told $35 each and then agent reduced to $50 (still +$5) when he reminded her they were married. PT told trash/pest $5/month, CT told bundled with cable (cable same price for both). CT told 6,12,14 month leases; PT told 6 & 12.
One unit told about completely different CT & PT CT given incentives not offered to PT
CT told second unit wouldn't be available until the middle of March. CT offered 2-14 month lease lengths; PT 3, 6, and 12. CT rent $5 less. CT administration fee $25 less. CT married app fee $35; PT told $35 per person- when he reminded they were married, was told then only $50 total. PT told water/sewage/trash fee included pest for $40 per month, CT told water/sewer/trash $40, plus additional $3.85/mo for pest. CT also told maintenance fee $3/mo that PT was not told about.
Testers saw different agents, slight differences in move in date, address, floor, unit number confirmed. CT told only 14 month leases; PT 1 to 14 with altered rent CT $3 less/mo pest and trash fee PT told one app fee; CT told same amount per person CT given rent and administration fee incentives that PT was not offered
CT mistakenly said "Partner" instead of "Girlfriend". TC called PT prior to site visit to have him refer to significant other as "Partner" as well. PT could not get answer or leave message on initial call and called TC - unable to call again within time frame. TC allowed second call outside of assigned window. CT told trash fee $5, PT told $5.09
Testers told different lease length options and different monthly trash fee amount.
CT failed to get unit numbers CT was also told there would be a 2 bedroom available and he did not get details. Has been advised of necessity and will go through additional briefings prior to being assigned another test. PT told higher rent amounts.
Confirmed with CT he asked about anything else and was told there was only one unit in his time frame and budget. Unit CT told about completely different from the four PT was told about - (two one bedrooms volunteered as well as assigned 2 bedrooms). PT and CT both confirm the total floor numbers when asked - PT admits might have crossed into different building when looking at units.
Caucasion PT reported feeling very out of place in a predominantly African American complex. Says he saw over twenty residents on property and 6-10 in office, all African American, and that he felt agent was very uncomfortable with his presence (although he feels this was due to race, not orientation). He feels certain agent was not going to show him a unit, but he asked if he could see it because there was awkward silence and it "just came out." CT told about 3 units; only one unit within budget.
Testers offered different lease options. CT was not told about a hold fee; PT not told about gas/trash monthly fee Only one unit same for both testers
Both testers informed upon arrival that the unit they had discussed on appointment call had already been leased (in process during PT visit). They were both referred to sister property, but available unit above rent price maximum. PT was offered to be put on waiting list and was told he would be called if something became available, CT was not.
Offered and shown same unit by same agent. CT was told lease lengths 3 to 13 months and quoted rent prices for 12 months. PT was told only 13 month lease available and given rent amount based on 13 month lease ($76 less than CT 12 month lease rent price). Same agent handwrote these rent prices and lease term on floor plans.
CT told app fee would be waived with approved credit and PT was not offered discount.
PT told app $90, CT told $50 CT told about $100 admin fee PT wasn't CT told 6 month lease, PT told 7 month CT offered $150 off rent on one bedroom units that PT was not offered
Told about same units. PT told $2 per month higher rent than CT. CT offered incentives PT was not. Leases offered differ slightly.
CT was told rent +$2, but was not told about $2 pest control fee. CT was told they couldn't give unit number for safety reasons, only that in building 5. PT given unit number (in building 5) by another agent.
PT told $10 higher rent on two of the units than CT. PT offered shorter lease terms CT not offered.
CT was told on the appointment call they would have a couple units available and made appointment. PT was told they had nothing available for his time frame, nothing on notice, and there was no reason to come out because they had broken models down and rented them out.
Apparently same agent (testers differ only on her age) gave dramatically different accounts of availability. The one unit CT was told about was not one of the 9 PT was told about.
New construction; 51% vacancy. PT called TC to let know he was going to miss assigned appointment call window by 30 minutes - TC told him that was fine. Testers each saw the same agent, who only told them about one unit in common - #2150. However, they were given different rent amounts for #2150, and upon checking their notes in regards to the different rent pricing, they were each told #2150 was a different floor plan (an "A2" for CT, an "A5" for PT). The price each tester was told for this unit is properly reflected on a preprinted brochure with price ranges for the A2 and A5 floor plans.
Told about same units; PT offered higher rent amount and security deposit discount that CT was not. PT also offered 13 month lease option CT was not.
PT told about units on third floor; CT about units on first floor - same agent - and CT charged "first floor fee". PT deposit $150, CT $50. PT offered incentive, CT was not. Doors were locked when CT arrived - agent by pool - she came and unlocked after ten minutes, reportedly seemed to be in a hurry, and then relocked doors after CT left and went back out to pool area.
Timestamp on PT forms wrong - entered different test under this control number accidentally prior to test. Testers saw same agent. PT saw several more units, but was not offered deposit incentive nor told about pest/trash fees. One of the two units CT was told about not offered to PT at all - less expensive unit than any offered PT.
Testers told about one unit same (rent slightly different), and one unit different. CT told app fee $50 married, PT told $50 per person. Different lease terms.
CT was actually told about one more unit that PT was not, but unit was $40 over budget.
Same units, but available dates and rent differ for testers. CT not told about pest fee.
When asking if there was anything else, CT was offered a 2 bedroom option (that was over his price limit). This was not mentioned to PT when he asked.
Testers were told same unit was on different floors (#832) Testers given different lease terms. PT offered rent incentive CT was not, plus different starting rent price. CT was not offered "couple" discount for application that PT was. CT told $350 deposit was based on good credit, PT told $50 deposit based on good credit.
CT told app fee $65, PT told $100 Different lease lengths
PT waited an hour and a half before meeting with agent. Lease lengths slightly different. PT not told about trash/pest fees.
PT told about pest, trash and sewer fees, CT was only told about optional parking fee when he asked. PT told $60 application fee per person, CT told $60 total
CT said agent was rushed - dealing with broken water line at same time as his visit. PT only offered 12 month lease, CT 6 and 12. CT told deposit based on credit, anywhere from half month to full month's rent. PT could not obtain deposit amount even by volunteering he had excellent credit. CT told about pest and trash fees, PT was not.
Testers told different lease terms. CT told app fee would be $50 per person or $75 if married; PT only told $50 per person PT submitted forms late.
PT offered 12 month lease, but told they could discuss what options needed once signing lease. CT 3,6,12, and 14 offered.
PT only had narrative and appointment form submitted within 24 hours, though he says he did Rental form and AUFs as well. Submitted the 2 AUFs on 2/23 and swears he did the rental form again, although nothing shows on TC end. On 2/24, TC filled out the rental form via phone with him. Does not show a submission time. PT did not get agent's name. Agent "did not know" unit numbers. Told him he could call back for more availability.
PT made appt call 1 hour late - ok'd by TC - TC made sure CT called over hour after PT call PT input forms over 24 hours after test Only one unit same between testers; told slightly diff available date (3/1 vs 3/8) Lease terms offered to each differ
Testers only told about 2 of the same units. CT offered incentive that PT was not. CT also offered 6 and 12 month lease while PT only offered 12 month.
PT told about three one bedroom options (all same floor plan), CT told about one of the one bedrooms and a two bedroom plan. different lease options CT told deposit $300, PT told $150 CT told look and lease special move in rate $99 total (deposit, admin and appl fees) PT told look and lease special $99 movie in rate for one tenant, $149 move in rate for 2 tenants
PT told about different unit than the two CT told about. Different lease lengths
Both testers were told no one units available, but both testers offered same 2 bedroom unit. CT forms submitted a little over an hour after the 24 hour limit.
The one unit PT told about different from the 3 CT told about. PT also given 13 and 14 month lease options CT wasn't.
Only told about one identical unit. CT told about admin fee and admin incentive, admin fee listed on his preprinted quote from agent PT specifically told no admin fee, plus admin fee not listed on his preprinted quote from agent CT told $100 deposit, waived deposit incentive PT just told no deposit
PT offered price $37 cheaper than CT PT not told about key fob access fee
CT arrived 30 minutes late due to excessive weather related traffic. Both testers commented they felt awkward looks since no caucasions in vicinty. CT could not see anything, offered 2 smaller units (a studio and one bedroom); PT offered one 2 bedroom. CT app $45, PT told per person for $90. CT told no deposit, PT told deposit was waived as a special.
Testers told about one unit same, one different. For unit that was same, CT offered rent $18 cheaper and alternate lease length. PT was told app times two tenants - CT offered married rate
PT was offered $500 one time rent discount that CT was not offered. PT not told about trash fee. PT spent night before appointment in hospital with family member - he called and got permission from TC to call apartment complex and move appointment to outside assigned time.
PT four hours late entering forms. CT told app fee 75, PT told 100 CT & PT told about one unit differing.
CT could not view apartments due to ice on walkways. CT price $5 more than PT. PT offered one 1 bedroom unit CT was not.
PT was offered option of deposit or bond, CT only deposit Testers not told about same unit, offered different lease terms PT application fee $55 per tester, CT $55 married couple
Only difference is that CT was offered choice of deposit $1000 or bond of $175 while PT was only told about the bond.
CT inspected model, PT inspected similar unit Testers told about three units identical, two different CT told married app fee $40, PT quoted $40 per tenant PT told about trash fee, CT was not
PT told app fee was per person, CT told $20 less for married couple. (verified in agent's handwriting on floor plan) PT not told about admin fee - agent wrote admin fee on CT floor plan, not on PT floor plan CT could not get unit numbers CT given two 2 bedroom options in addition to 3 one bedrooms options; PT told nothing else until April.
T1 (DL951) the PT was told about 2 unit renting for $895 and $865, both above budget. T1 was quoted $200 deposit, admin fee of $50 each, app fee of $45 each.
From DL899 (PT): On December 10, 2014 at 12:54pm I arrived at Stone Ranch Apartments. I was greeted by Eunice at 12:54pm. I told her I had an appointment with Marlene to discuss renting a two bedroom apartment for myself and my boyfriend Eric. She said Marlene was still at lunch and would be back within 5 minutes. I sat down in the waiting area and waited for about 4 minutes. I was then greeted by Marlene at 1:02pm and we went to her co workers desk. She stated that technicians were working on her computer and that we could start talking about the property at this desk. She asked me what was I looking for. I stated that I was looking for a two bedroom for myself and my boyfriend Eric. She then pulled out the two bedroom floor plans and then she asked me when was I planning on moving. I told her I would like to move around December 20th. She stated that there would be no units available until January 1, 2015. I stated that I talked with Mariana yesterday and that she said she had two units that may be availabl
Both testers were told there would be no units till august.
T2 told no units available on the appt call.
T1 (PT) was told on site visit that they had just rented out all units, nothing was available and he was referred to a sister property down the street. T2 (CT) the next day was told about 2 available units at the original complex.
PT told app fee was $120 ($60pp); CT was told app fee was $75 (which is for married couples) even though he referred to Ann as his partner.
DL993 did not obtain the floor number of the second unit he was told about. DL978 please delete last FUF as it was entered in error.
DL978: Tester forgot to cancel his appointment.
DL974: Scheduled an appt. even though he was told it was a walk in situation. Tester did not make a cancellation call.
Please delete DL970's second FUF as it was entered in error.
Tester calls are within minutes of each other.
Please delete protected's DL971's available unit form as the unit did not meet his move-in date.
Both testers were told there was no need for an appointment and therefore neither canceled their soft appointments.
TC manually assigned test as 'partner--no children.'
Please delete 980's second f/u form as it was entered in error.
TC assigned children but didn't provide names. Neither tester stated they had children and the question of how many people are moving did not come up on either side of the test. Both testers scheduled a soft appt and therefore did not cancel.
Both testers scheduled a soft appointment and therefore did not cancel.
971 forgot to cancel his scheduled appointment and 990 scheduled a soft appointment.
Both testers scheduled soft appointments and therefore did not cancel.
981 did not cancel--soft appt. Test calls made 26.5 hours apart.
981 was told 'He said there were no 2 bdrms available to show at this time and so did not schedule an appt.
Max rent exceeds MSA limit as does rent amount quoted to testers.
Please delete 970's last AUF. 970 forgot to cancel appointment.
Please delete 981's 2nd AUF as it goes beyond move date bracket. 981 made soft appt--no cancellation call.
981 made soft appt--no cancellation call.
Tester calls are 29.5 hours apart. Assignment form states partner but both assignments were manually corrected to 'married.'
986 (PT): after leaving a voicemail with address of advertised then speaking with agent about advertised housing the following day, tester was told to text agent the questions he needed answering about the advertised. Six days later the agent texted there was a pending application on the advertised and on the 7th day, agent texted tester some info about another available home. The agent did not provide lease options, security deposit, other fees, utilities, credit check and did not volunteer whether there were more homes available. 986 did not obtain an appointment.
First tester stated 'partner' due to TC error in briefing. TC advised second tester to state partner in briefing.
993 scheduled soft appt. TC wrote in 1/4 as move-in date. Test went out of sequence.
Please delete 981's 3rd test contact form.
Tester calls are 25.75 hrs apart. 979 was told about 'several' 2 bed and 1 bed units, when he pushed back for the exact number of available units, the agent was unable to provide it.
Neither tester remembered to cancel appts.
988 was told app fee of $25 per adult and 981 was told $50 per adult.
978 forgot to cancel. 990 scheduled a soft appt.
Both testers scheduled soft appts because he was told it was a lockbox situation.
Please delete 990s 2nd f/u form. 978 forgot to cancel appt.
991 was told no app fee but there is a credit check. 991 scheduled a soft appt.
978 was recommended a home that was not the advertised, thus the difference in address on AUF. 978 was not able to obtain an appt.
1000: A credit card number was required in order to schedule and apt and receive a lock box code for key.
Both testers scheduled soft appointments.
1024: Tester forgot to cancel his appt. 1034: please delete last f/u form.
1028: Please delete AUFs 2,5 and 6 as they don't meet needs. Tester did not cancel appointment.
1024's agent did not know security deposit amount or floor numbers.
Test went out of sequence. 1027 scheduled a soft appt and 1032 was unable to obtain an appt.
Please delete 1027 2nd f/u. Control did ask about other units.
Please delete 1028's 3rd AUF. Agents for both testers did not know security deposit.
Neither tester could obtain all rental information because agent insisted on providing rental details in person.
Both testers scheduled a soft appointment.
Protected tester told no 2 bedroom units available and was told about a 1 bedroom. Control tester was told about a 2 bedroom unit. Please delete 1033's 2nd & 3rd f/u form as it was entered in error.
Protected Tester was told on the first call (after disclosing sexual orientation) that the Agent couldn't help him and the manager would call him back. The manager never called. 24 hours later, Tester called again and got the same agent as the day before. She said the manager was not in and she could help him.
Protected tester did not make appointment because there was no unit to show.
Check out comments on SVRF from protected tester
Protected Tester unable to get fee and deposit information from Agent over phone. Was told he would get that info at the site visit.
Protected tester did not schedule appointment because no units were available to view - even though Agent offered to show him others.
Protected tester was told about a unit that was 44 above his max price - but I thought it best to leave it in because the Control tester was told about a unit below the max rent price. I thought it would be good for analysis because of the differences in what both testers were told.
Protected tester TRF passed 24 hours. No computer access.
Tester LA072 tester was told over the phone there were 2 bedrooms available. When she arrived, a different agent told her nothing was available.
LA072- TRF is passed 24 hours because since she initially thought since there weren't any one bedroom available units, the rule didn't apply.
LA072- TRF passed 24 hours. Power was randomly shut off due to Metrolink Goldline installation.
LA124-TC marked #2 AUF for deletion. It was for the model unit.
LA124-Deleted AUF #2 because it was the one she was shown, but didn't meet her needs.
LA144-Agent that she was scheduled to meet with had something come up and she had to leave. She briefly met with another agent who was on his way out.
LA153= Late TRF- She had a family emergency come up and was unable to input.
Tester LA144 AUF#1 marked for deletion, unit over price max. Tester LA148 AUF#3 marked for deletion, unit over price max. Tester LA148 AUF#4 marked for deletion, pass move in range.
LA072-TC marked FUF #1 for deletion. Tester had completed this form.
LA067-TC marked AUF #1 for deletion. It was available too soon.
LA080-TRF is passed 24 hours. Tester had a family issue and was dealing with it beyond the 24 hours.
LA153-TC marked AUF for deletion. She created a form based on the little information given via phone. Tester was stood up.
LA148- TC marked AUF for deletion. It was above max rent.
both testers were told of different application fees, both matching their notes.
tester LA144 could not get an appointment
LA157-TC marked AUF #1 for deletion. It was above her max.
The floors and address were the same on the Appointment form, TRF, AUF and in narrative. LA151-TC confirmed with notes and deposit could be one months rent, but OAC could ultimately make it $500.
tester LA124 FUF#2 marked for deletion, tester inputted incorrectly
Tester LA099 TRF late, tester did not select "yes" when saving.
LA173-TC marked FUF #1 for deletion. It was meant to be an appointment form.
tester LA182 TRF late, tester forgot to click save when done, all other forms were inputted. LA186-Incentive is for no rent till May 1st. Amount in incentive box accounts for the pro ration.
LA190-TC marked Appt Form #2 for deletion. It was a duplicate.
Tester LA186 TRF late, tester's computer malfunctioned unable to input
LA179-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester forgot to click "yes" before saving.
LA144- Was told that no appointments were available until 5/18/15.
Both testers were told no 3 bedrooms were available. The next 3 bedroom wouldn't be till late June.
LA186- She wasn't shown the unit because the agent was alone and could not leave the office unattended.
TC forgot to put in GF name, but filled it in a briefing. She was told her girlfriend was Sonia.
Time stamps are passed 24 hours because they didn't have access to login, due to CODE assigning errors.
Protected Tester forgot to push yes & save. Controlled tester left for a long Columbus weekend to LV and didn't input till she got back.
PAF was accidentally touched by TC (EC). Testers forms were erased. Rental Test Form will have different dates.
Protected Tester had didn't press yes & save Protected Tester AUF #2 marked for deletion. Model unit and given going rate for 2 bedroom.
Controlled Tester never received appointment.
Protected tester TRF passed 24 hours due to internet access issues.
Controlled Tester's TRF passed 24 hours. She had a family member get sick and she had to take them to the ER.
TC confirmed the difference in utility costs. Controlled Tester stated that she told him her max and he still quoted her about the unit over her max. AUF marked for deletion.
Protected Tester TRF passed 24 hours immediately went to work and pulled double shift.
Protected tester passed 24 hours because didn't have immediate access to computer. Confirmed with Controlled tester that she asked for a one bedroom. Tester stated the agent encouraged the 2 bedroom based on her budget.
Protected tester TRF was passed 24 hours. She stated she didn't have computer access. Tester has been warned about possibly not getting more tests due to this issue. TC confirmed with notes and hard copy forms about the difference in application pricing.
Confirmed with notes and hard copies about unit rent prices. LA069-TC marked FUF 1 & 2 for deletion and completed 2 Appt Forms. LA114- TC marked FUF 1 for deletion and completed an Appt Form.
LA121- TC marked AUF for deletion. It was shown to her, but rented the day before. TRF & FAF have been corrected.
LA130- Deleted AUF because unit was over max. Late TRF. Tester wasn't debriefed due to weekend and job conflicts. When debriefed, TC realized information wasn't saved. LA111- Deleted AUF because unit was over max.
LA104-TRF passed 24 hours because she went straight to work after her tests and had no computer access when she got back.
tester LA103 was unable to make contact within two attempts.
LA125- Tester inspected 4 units, but only one met her needs.
When tester one called, she was told the property address was 635 Hobart Blvd, not 335 Hobart Blvd. TC made sure tester number 2 confirmed the 635 Hobart Blvd address.
Both testers were told about units that we over their max. AUF's have been marked for deletion.
LA071-TC marked AUf #2 for deletion. It was passed her time frame.
tester LA076 was unable to schedule appointment.
tester LA116 was told there was no units available
LA104-Tester went straight to work after and covered another shift.
tester LA125 was unable to make contact in two attempts, unable to schedule appointment
LA097-TC deleted AUF #2 because it was for model unit.
LA076-Tester was told about 4 units, however none met her move in timeframe. All AUF's have been marked for deletion. Confirmed with tester that she disclosed the desired move in time frame.
tester LA069 was unable to attain appointment
tester LA120 TRF late due to traveling for the holiday and was unable to get to a computer until 12/23
tester LA097 TRF late. Tester moved and internet was not set up until 12/30
LA120- TRF is passed 24 hours. Tester states she's been having issues with her laptop and was booted out while trying to input. She finally got it fixed and inputted.
LA097-TRF is passed 24 hours. Tester states her internet is unreliable sometimes and she's forced to wait until its back up.
LA114-TC deleted AUF #1 as it was for model unit. LA139 was given costs that did not meet its needs.
LA125-TRF passed 24 hours. She had a family emergency and had to fly out of state. Tester only had time to input one at a time. Also, deleted AUF #1, it was above max rent.
LA125-TRF passed 24 hours. She had a family emergency and had to fly out of state.
LA126-AUF #2 marked for deletion. It's a duplicate.
Both testers were told the unit that was available was rented over the weekend.
tester LA125 AUF#1 marked for deletion; unit available after move in range
LA069- The agent would not disclose the unit numbers after the tester requested them.
Address on PAF was incorrect; both tester confirmed actual address matching ACE form TC confirmed with notes; regarding application fee difference between testers Tester LA125 AUF#1 marked for deletion; pass move in range
tester LA162 was unable to make contact in two attempts.
LA126-TC marked AUF #3 for deletion. It was completed to reflect the model unit.
tester LA122 AF#2 marked for deletion, duplicate of AF#1. AUF#1&2 marked for deletion, available out of time range
Both testers were told about a unit that was outside their max rent.
LA122-Tester inputted passed 24 hours. Tester forgot to click yes.
LA122-TRF is passed 24 hours. Tester didn't click "yes" before saving.
Both TRF's are passed 24 hours b/c CODE would allow us to assign tests and TC didn't have login information. LA100- He arrived at his appointment time, but no one was there. He attempted to call, but there was no answer.
TRF passed 24 hours due to CODE glitch with assigning testers.
Time stamp is over 24 hours because testers were not able to log in. CODE was not allowing assignment of tests.
Controlled tester's TRF is passed 24 hours. He informed TC he had a family emergency and was unable to access a computer. TC confirmed that Controlled tester was told $35 for couple and Protected was told $35/per.
Protected tester was unable to get an appointment after 2 attempts.
During debriefing I confirmed with Protected tester that he asked about other available units. He was told just the one.
LA077- AUF#2 is marked for deletion. It is outside the date needed for move-in.
LA077- Tester arrived at the location and no agent was present. Tester called the leasing office and no one answered. Tester waited about an hour and left.
LA077-TC marked #2 for deletion because the unit was available that day. Far outside his move in time frame.
LA077-Tester was told no 1 bedrooms were available and given information on 2 bedrooms that were outside his max rent. TC marked AUF's #1,2,3 for deletion.
tester LA086 was unable to make contact in two attempts
LA077-TC marked AUF #2 for deletion. It was above his max rent.
Both testers were told about a unit at a property different than the site on the profile shows.
Tester LA158 TRF late, went out on unplanned Valentines weekend; no internet access
Tester LA158 TRF late, went out on unplanned Valentines weekend; no internet access.
TC confirmed with testers and notes regarding floor numbers.
tester LA158 AUF#2 marked for deletion; form is for model unit
Tester LA078 AF #2 and #4 are marked for deletion, tester inputted duplucates
tester LA158 was told no units were available
Both testers were told about a sister property and visited that location.
LA169-TC marked AUF for deletion. It was outside his time frame.
tester LA178 AUF#3 marked for deletion, unit available after tester's move in range
tester LA188 AUF#2 marked for deletion, unit over price max
tester LA078 AUF#2 marked for deletion, unit over price max
tester LA078 AUF#2 marked for deletion, over price max. tester LA185 AUF#2 marked for deletion, over price max.
LA178- AUF#1 marked for deletion; it was over the max rent amount.
LA169-TRF passed 24 hours tester forgot to press "yes". TC failed to notice the "yes" was not clicked.
tester LA184 AUF#3 marked for deletion, unit over price max
Phone number on profile was off by one. Both testers were instructed by TC to call 213-384-5800
tester LA178 AUF #2 marked for deletion, over max rent
tester LA188 AUF#2 marked for deletion, over price max
LA188-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester inputted information into the wrong control number.
tester LA078 AUF#1&3 marked for deletion, both over price max tester LA185 AUF#3 marked for deletion, over price max
LA188-TRF is 5 days sooner. He initially inputted for another test. There is also an additional AUF that was meant for another test- TC marked for deletion.
LA196 - AUF#1 is marked for deletion. Tester inspected a model unit, but no units were available.
LA169-Tester was told about a second unit but it was $20 over budget.
LA193-TC marked AUF for deletion. It was for the penthouse suite shown.
LA193-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester took last minute trip to Vegas. Inputted when he came back.
Both testers were told that nothing would be available till July 2015. LA158-TC marked AUF for deletion. It was for a unit in July.
tester LA169 TRF late, tester was having internet issues tester LA169 AUF#1 marked for deletion, unit over max rent and after move in range
LA196-TC maked appointment form #2 for deletion. It was a duplicate.
LA169-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester was having internet issues
LA196-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester went away for Memorial Day.
LA193-TC marked AUF #2 for deletion. TC double checked application amounts.
LA193- Could not get a hold of someone to schedule an appt.
LA169-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester was having internet issues.
Controlled Tester filled out an AUF for a unit that was out of his range. He also filled out a FUF. Advised for future reference.
Controlled Tester LA109: Filled out AUF for model unit. Marked for deletion.
Both tester were told about 1 unit and it was over their price max.
Protected tester was getting an error code with AUF. It saved 3 different times. 2 are marked for deletion. Controlled testers assignment didn't have GF name. However, he was briefed with the same name he always has for a wife or girlfriend, which is Lauren.
LA112- stated that weekend he couldn't get to a computer. Reason for TRF pass 24 hours.
Protected tester's TRF passed 24 hours. He has no computer at home.
Protected Tester filled out 2 AUF's for the same unit. 2nd one marked for deletion.
Both testers were unsuccessful in obtaining unit number information.
LA084- TFR pass 24 hours because he doesn't have computer at home and it was a Saturday test. Tester is looking into getting one. Assignment form is assigned H/W but in the bottom states boyfriend. Tester was briefed husband and put that he stated that in his narrative.
tester LA084 was unable to make contact with property within two attempts
TC confirmed with tester LA127 there was availability over the phone but was told no units were available onsite.
LA084- Tester was told about 3 studios, but they exceeded his max rent.
LA112-TC marked 3rd AUF for deletion. It was for a unit outside the timeframe.
Both testers were told nothing was available when they needed it. LA109- Both AUF's marked for deletion. Both units were far outside time frame.
Tester LA107 was unable to make appointment
Tester LA084 was stood up Tester LA084 AUF#1 and #2 marked for deletion; tester got confused when inputting. FUF#1 marked for deletion; tester inputted by mistake
LA084-Tester does not have a computer at home. Had to come into the office.
LA079-TC marked AUF for deletion because it was slightly above his max rent.
LA115 TRF late input due to internet issues
LA084-TRF late because tester doesn't have a computer at home. He comes into the office. Also, deleted FUF #1 and created an Appt Form.
tester LA073 TRF late, tester forgot to select "yes" for form complete when saving.
LA073-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester didn't hit yes when saving TRF.
Tester LA079 TRF late, personal issues, was stuck at hospital with partner Also upon arriving to site tester LA079 was told the last available unit was just leased
tester LA115 was unable to schedule appointment
LA156-TRF passed 24 hours. He abruptly left for the weekend and didn't have access to a private/approved computer.
LA101- TC marked AUF #4 for deletion. It was passed the allowed time frame.
LA156-TC marked AUF for deletion. Unit was above his max.
tester LA079 AUF#1 marked for deletion, unit available after move in range AUF#2 marked for deletion, tester inputted incorrectly
LA156-TC marked AUF #1 for deletion. It was for the model unit.
Tester LA156 TRF late; was away for long weekend had no access to computer.
LA163-AUF #2 has 9 floors because it is a different building.
LA163- TC marked all 4 AUF's for deletion. They were passed his move in date LA154- TC marked both AUF's for deletion. They were passed his move in date.
tester LA091 AUF#2 marked for deletion; model unit
LA154-TC marked AUF #2 for deletion. It was above his max.
LA163- Tester was told only a 1 bedroom available.
Both testers were told that nothing was available within their price range at the property on their profile. They were both told and visited a sister property.
LA202-TRF passed 24 hours. He forgot to click save. LA204- TC marked AUF #2 for deletion. It was about testers max.
LA203- TC marked AUF #2 for deletion. Unit was over max. LA201- LA203- TC marked AUF #2 for deletion. Unit was over max.
Units are within walking distance of each other.
tester LA201-TRF time stamp is prior to actual appt time. Tester previously inputted for another test.
LA203-TRF passed 24 hours. Tester thought because no units were available that he did not need to complete the form.
Both told about the same unit- different available dates.
LA203-TRF slightly passed 24 hours. It was entered at the midnight mark.
TC forgot to fill how tester should refer to their partner on PAF. TC wrote 'spouse' onto assignment. TC wrote in LA089's husband occupation as 'Manager. Call times as assigned are more than 24 hrs apart and call times are more than 24 hours apart. Please delete LA089's last two test contact forms.
LA061 clicked no to 'this form is complete' so the timestamp was only engaged when I accessed it although she did enter her forms immediately after the test. There was only 34 minutes between tester calls.
Agent told LA063 there were 'many' units available on three levels but told LA055 there were 10 units available. Per RC instruction, LA063 has 3 AUFs to represent the 'many' units on the three floors. Please delete 063's 3rd test contact form.
Test calls are out of sequence. LA062 referred to sig. other as wife although she was assigned 'partner.' Tester also didn't refer to wife's name until toward the end of the conversation and she stated a different name than what was assigned--Sara versus Pamela. LA133 referred to her sig. other as husband.
Agent did not know floor numbers for any units recommended to both testers.
058 P was not able to reach housing provider
LA149 (T2) had a family emergency and made her call 6 days late.
TC mistakenly assigned 'unmarried household composition' but married composition was written in. 142 was unable to make her cancellation call to the agent.
Please delete 54's second F/U form and 065's first F/U form.
Although both testers asked if other units were available, agent would only give info on one unit, despite 'many' being available.
Agent number on PAF and assignment is different than the number in the ad. Testers were instructed to call the number in the ad. Please delete 056's first FUF.
065 Please delete last 2 TC forms and first 3 f/u forms and 2nd AUF.
Please delete 143s second AUF. 149 forgot to cancel appt.
063 Agent did not know the floor number for the unit.
Both testers were asked to attend an open house and neither of them completed a cancellation call for this reason. 142 attempted to call and reschedule for a private appt and completed f/u to reflect that.
149 Protected was told there were no units available to show.
One minute between test calls. 055 forgot to cancel her appointment.
Neither tester was able to obtain an appt. but rental information was obtained by both.
The testers were assigned boyfriend but incidentally both stated partner. Both testers forgot to cancel their appointments
FAF Note: TC wrote in 12/27 as move-in date. LA142 was told two of the units were on the 'upper floor' and marked that as 3rd floor on her AUFs.
Neither tester cancelled because they both scheduled soft appointments.
Tester 164 did not complete narrative but test not affected.
Please delete 166's last test contact form.
Please delete 057's first AUF as it was entered in error.
Protected 180 was told there were more units available but was only given information regarding one unit.
Protected Tester was able to reach HP to get information, however, after she revealed her sexual orientation, was told no units would be available until 30-60 days out, which was out of her time frame. Control Tester was told about 3 units that met her needs.
Control was not able to get an appointment as was told nothing avaiable to show.
168: The original listing I called about (621 N. Market St., Inglewood CA 90302) was not available until June 15. When I asked if she had anything else available besides this unit, she recommended a unit at another building.
Agent cancelled appointment with 165 because the owner accepted an application.

If Other, specify
058P was not able to reach housing provider

RC Notes
Single visit test. Control tester stood up.
**Protected tester was turned down after conveying, as the agent said that nobody could apply with a name that is not their given name.**
TC note: PT could not contact anyone for appt, instructed to drop in. After first call attempt, CT was instructed to drop in to match PT.
Protected tester was turned away by office staff member, and told to make an appointment for the following weekend.
Assignment form indicated Ts were to drop-in, but they were verbally directed to make appointments.
Despite the protocol issues, I'll be able to approve. While the T should not be late, his lateness didn't affect a previously scheduled appointment, nor did it cause the test spacing to be outside of the dictated protocol guidelines. The additional units for which DC080 failed to get unit #s didn't seem to cause a problem either, as the three that he did get unit #s for were the same three that DC078 received info about as well. Thanks for addressing the issues with your testers. 12/1 SS
Appears that both testers had difficulty getting specific information for each unit. For both, agent indicated there were multiple units, but neither tester got unit #s or specifics.
**This is one of the tests where the protected tester, Casidy (DC047) was greeted by the receptionist, but the agent never met with her, despite waiting over an hour at reception**
**Testers were required to make appointments, despite the assignment form saying "drop-in".** **DC047, protected tester, was not able to meet with agent. Agent first told her to wait 20 minutes, as agent was with another customer. Then after 20-30 mins, agent informed tester that meeting would have to be rescheduled, since it was Friday and the office was closing early. (Advance contact did not capture an early office closure. T left at 3:30pm, and office was supposed to be open until at least 5 or 6pm.)**
**DC047 (Casidy) did not get to meet with agent. She waited over an hour after checking in at reception, but no agent met with her.**
Test assignment form was incorrect. Testers were briefed to ask about 1br units instead of studios. While DC073 did not ask about housing properly, both testers were told about the same units. I will approve.
Test assignment was not set up correctly, but both testers were told about the same unit of housing. I'll approve.
Testers advised to call ahead before coming in, just in case. Appt. was not necessary, though. Appears that protected tester did not get appt, but tester did go on site visit.
*Protected tester arrived and was immediately told that agent was busy, and told not to wait*
Single Site Visit - control T received appt, protected did not.
phone test - DL898 got appt, DL888 told nothing available
Tester got nervous and gave Nashla's phone number out to agent when the agent asked for a secondary phone number (she first gave her Google Voice number as per protocol). I advised TC to review this issue with tester, and discuss ways around giving out two phone numbers.
DL1007: was not able to get rent amounts for two units.
DL1008 referred to "boyfriend" instead of "partner".
DL926 - failed to get unit #s for units listed in ARUFs #4 & #5. Seems that tester did get floor #s, and got enough info to determine that they were different units than the other tester was told about. DL884: tester called a different phone number in order to reach housing provider than what was assigned and on the ad. Was able to schedule appointment at the correct test location, though. Got number from brochure.
See TC notes. DL875: RC notes -"Agent asked if my husband and I would be sharing the apartment or was it only for me." (recorded on SVRF).
DL943: did not get unit # for unit represented in ARUF #4. This was an additional unit that other tester was not told about.
DL950 did not receive unit #s. This is test where tester was asked if he was legally married. Also, tester wrote this in narrative: "We went to go look at the Model Unit which was in the very very back of the property. When viewing the unit, she stressed to me that there were lots of children in the complex and that they were always playing around. I informed her that, it would not be an issue since we were always working and we would come home late at night due to us being busy. She made this comment about 3 times."
After disclosing s/o by indicating "husband" several times during convo, agent quoted protected T two amounts for application fee - for married rate and single rate
TC Note: DL974: Scheduled an appt. even though he was told it was a walk in situation. Tester did not make a cancellation call.
Protected tester was not able to obtain housing info.
Test spacing off - calls are two days apart.
TC note: TC assigned children but didn't provide names. Neither tester stated they had children and the question of how many people are moving did not come up on either side of the test. Both testers scheduled a soft appt and therefore did not cancel.
CT was told there was nothing available for her requested move-in date, but did obtain appt to see housing.
Both told about 0 units. Won't count as completed test, but will be included in analysis.
DL1015 told about 0 units. Won't count as completed test, but will be included in analysis.
DL979 told about 0 units. Won't count as completed test, but will be included in analysis.
DL1038 told about 0 units. This won't count as complete test, but will be pulled in for analysis.
DL979 told about 0 units. Won't count as full test, but pulled in for analysis.
Both testers told about units outside of their price range. Will not count as full test, but pulled in for analysis.
DL1030 told about 0 units. Won't count as complete test, but pulled in for anlaysis.
DL1033 told about 0 units. Won't count as full test, but pulled in for analysis.
see TC note about experience of protected tester.
Won't count as complete test, but testers were both told there were no avail units. PUlled in for analysis.
Neither tester told about units within their time frame. Pulled in for analysis, even though this doesn't count as a complete test.
Protected T said husband instead of partner.
DL1034 wasn't told about any units. Not counting as a full test, but pulled in for analysis.
Comments that TC was referring to: IN MALE VOICE I TOLD HER MY HUSBAND BILL AND I WERE LOOKING FOR A PLACE FOR OURSELVES AND OUR TWO GIRLS. SHE ASKED ME MY NAME. I TOLD HER TONY. SHE ASKED IS THAT WITH AN
Incomplete test - DL1017 wasn't told about any units, but did speak with an agent. Pulled in for analysis.
Not a complete test. DL979 was told there were no units available. Will pull in for analysis.
Not a complete test. DL1032 was told there were no units available. Will pull in for analysis.
Protected 124 was told no units were available while Control 148 was told of 2 units.
LA148- TC marked AUF for deletion. It was above max rent by $35.
Control tester 151 was stood up by agent.
Protected tester LA144 could not get an appointment
170 was shown units in two buildings with differing heights hence the difference on the AUFs.
Differing addresses are correct for the large complex.
AUF2 for Control 190 does not have rental amount as the agent told the tester it had not been determined but that she could get back to him with the amount later if tester was interested.
Protected LA144- Was told that no appointments were available until 5/18/15.
Control Tester 120 did not get a return call from the agent while Protected tester 69 was told about 3 units.
TC forgot to put in GF name, but filled it in a briefing. She was told her girlfriend was Sonia which the tester used in executing the test.
Control Tester never received appointment.
Protected tester TRF Time Stamp passed 24 hours due to internet access issues.
Time Stamp off: Protected Tester TRF passed 24 hours immediately went to work and pulled double shift.
Protected tester TRF was passed 24 hours. She stated she didn't have computer access. Tester has been warned about possibly not getting more tests due to this issue.
Control tester LA103 was unable to make contact within two attempts.
Control tester LA076 was unable to schedule appointment.
Protected tester LA125 was unable to make contact in two attempts, unable to schedule appointment
Protected tester LA069 was unable to attain appointment
TC confirmed that the incentive for Tester 121 was only for AUF 3.
TC confirmed that incentive for 138 applied only to AUF1 and not to AUF2 or 3.
tester LA125 Protected AUF#1 marked for deletion; unit available after move in range by one day
Address on PAF was incorrect; both tester confirmed actual address matching ACE form and TC confirmed with notes regarding application fee difference between testers Tester LA125 AUF#1 marked for deletion; pass move-in range
Protected tester LA162 was unable to make contact in two attempts.
Protected LA122 was unable to obtain appointment
No units were available within tester's time frame for move-in.
Control tester LA092 was stood up by agent
Tester calls were made of out of sequence but did not affect test results.
Protected 078 did not get a return phone call from the agent.
Control tester LA158 was told no units were available
Both testers were told about a sister property and both visited that location.
The agent told tester 169 only one unit was available which was also beyond tester's move in date. Tester 185 was told about 3 units within the move in date protocol. The addresses vary but they are within the same complex.
Tester LA188 AUF#2 marked for deletion, unit over price max
Tester LA078 AUF#2 marked for deletion, unit over price max
Housing area is comprised of 2 and 12 story buildings, so AUF's vary between testers.
unit in different building has different street address
Testers have two different address for the same unit 88.
The unit that 196 Control asked about on the phone was available on the phone call but was rented per the agent when the tester arrived for the site visit, so nothing was available.
The unit shown to each tester was above their maximum.
Both testers were told that nothing would be available till July 2015.
Protected tester was told of a unit that was above his maximum
Control LA193- Could not get a hold of someone to schedule an appt.
169 used the term RSO which means Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The prop was under rent control.
The protected tester could not get an appointment. Even after two attempts.
Protected tester LA084 was unable to make contact with property within two attempts
Tester Control LA107 was unable to make appointment
Protected tester LA115 was unable to schedule appointment
Protected tester was told about 2 units that would fit its needs after the discount was applied wheres Control was told about units that fit its needs without a discount being applied, so Protected was noted as not being recommended any units that fit its needs.
Protected Tester was quoted for the same unit a price that was above his max while Control was quoted for the same unit a price below his max.
Both testers AUFs: this unit is located in a different building but it has the same address and one bldg has 3 and the otherbuilding was only 2 floors
Both testers were told that nothing was available within their price range at the property on their profile. They were both told and visited a sister property which were each different properties adjacent to the assigned property: one at 12600, the other at 12000 versus the assigned address of 12021.
Both testers were told at the site visit that the unit was no longer available.
Contact Call more than 24 hours btw testers; out of sequence as noted by TC but test was otherwise executed well. 062 did not call to cancel appointment but did not affect test.
The space between the tester calls was less than one hour but the test was otherwise well executed and there was no detection issue.
RC allowed this test to be approved although initial calls were not in sequence.
Both testers told about available units, but P was told it was too far in advance to make an appointment so no appointment was made.
LA149 (T2) had a family emergency and made her call 6 days late. Test was not affected.
142 was unable to make her cancellation call to the agent but test was otherwise well executed.
062 forgot to cancel appt. Test was otherwise properly completed.
Protected Tester 166 was told that there were no units that met the tester's needs. The Control tester was told that there were two units that met the tester's needs. Phone Test
Control Tester 061 was not able to reach the housing provider.
Tester Protected 058 was not able to reach housing provider
149 forgot to cancel appt but the test was not affected and was otherwise well performed.
147 forgot to cancel appt but the test was not affected and was otherwise well executed.
Protected tester 059 was told there were no units available while Control was told there were.
Both testers spoke with agents and were both told that there was nothing available.
055 did not cancel appointment but the test was otherwise conducted within protocols.
149 Protected was told there were no units available to show and could not get an appointment with the agent but was given full information on two available units. The units met the tester's needs but she was told they were not available for inspection.
055 forgot to cancel her appointment but test not affected and was completed satisfactorily otherwise.
.149 forgot to cancel appt but test completed otherwise correctly.
Protected Tester Could not reach housing provider
Testers were to indicate "boyfriend/girlfriend" but indicated "partner"; 089 did not disclose marital status and household composition.
Control 054 did not get a return call from housing provider while Protected 065 did and was told of 2 units.
Protected Tester was told nothing available until February whereas Control was told about one available unit. Phone Test
Protected Tester 149 was told last unit was rented but 143 was told about 2 units. Phone test
061 did not make cancel appointment call as was soft appointment with just show up during agency open hours.
Protected Tester did not get a return call from the agent and could not reach the agent.
Protected Tester did not get a return call from the agent.
Leasing agent has limited information regarding available unit. she is only able to tell me the number of bedrooms, rent amount and availability. She suggested to call manager or check website. . But tester who was control was able to get some information. Protected tester received full information.
Protected tester did not get a return call from the agent. Control learned of 2 units.
Protected Tester 059 did not get a return call from agent but Control 061 was told of 4 units.
Control Tester 149 was told housing was rented. This was not told to Protected Tester 143
Protected Tester 143 did not get a return call from the agent while Control 149 received information on 3 units.
Control Tester 061 did not receive a return call from the agent. Protected Tester 059 did and was told of two units.
Agent had properties at different addresses. 054 did not cancel appointment but test results not affected.
Protected Tester 058 did not get a return call from the agent while Control 055 did get a return call and was told of one unit. 055 has an adequate narrative.
Control 061 did not receive a return call from the agent; Protected 062 learned of two units.
P062 did not make an appointment as the agent said that there was a code for access to the house. The test was completed in all other aspects.
TC erred in creating PAF and Assignment for Unmarried, but giving references and characteristics for Married. The test was conducted well in all aspects.
061C was referred to a sister property which had more availability per the agent.
Appointments were not necessary. Cancellations were not necessary.
Agent refused to provide Control with any housing information.
Control Tester 083 did not get a return call from the agent. The Protected Tester received information about one unit.
Control 142 was unable to reach housing provider. Protected 058 was able to obtain information on 4 units.
Control 056 did not get a return call from the agent. Protected was told about one unit.
059 did not call the agent to cancel the appointment but the test results were not affected.
Neither tester had an appointment so no TC cancellation forms.
059 did not contact agent to cancel the appointment, but the test results were not affected.
Both testers were given only partial information on the available units. 149 was give information on 3 units at the same address. Although full information was not provided, the test fit within the Remote Scenario approvals.
Protected Tester 059 did not get return call from agent. 083 Control was told of 2 units
Tester 142 did not call the agent to cancel the appointment but the test results were not affected.
Control 149 was told by agent to call back if wanted to make an appointment so one was not made after information obtained and hence not cancellation TC form.
The same agent refused to provide Control Tester, #2 in sequence, any information about the unit stating that he would provide it at the in person appointment but provide Protected 058 with information about the one available unit.
Protected Tester 159 did not get a return call from agent while Control 054 was told of two units.
Protected Tester 159 did not get a return call from the agent while Control 054 was told of one unit.
Protected Tester 165 was not given an appointment as agent said unit could not be shown as tenant still in it. Control 164 did not ask what floor the unit was on but there was only one unit in the building available.
164 did not cancel appointment with agent but the tests results were not affected.
Tester 149 cancelled the appointment when the agent called as a Follow Up to confirm the appointment.
Protected 165 did not get a return call while Control 164 was told of one unit.
Control 056 was told last unit rented. Protected was told of one unit.
Tester 059 did not call the agent to cancel the appointment but the test results were not affected.
Protected Tester 062 did not receive a return text as indicated by the agent. Control obtained information on one unit.
062 did not call agent to cancel appointment but the test results were not affected.
Agent did not show the unit as it was occupied, so neither tester made an appointment and neither completed at TC cancelling form.
Neither tester was able to get an appointment as unit was not ready to be shown.
Control 083 did not get a call back from the agent and did not get any information on housing.
Both testers were told the unit was not available
Agent was very rude to Control 164: When I asked about lease options, Agent said " I don't have time to discuss all 15 properties I manage." When I asked if a deposit was required agent responded "I don't have time for this, bye" and hung up. When I asked I asked if utilities were included, and Agent said "you, your husband, boyfriend, wive or who ever lives here pays for them. It's not going to be Mickey Mouse free. It's going to be a legally binding contract." Tester was given sufficient information to be approved per the Chart of Scenarios for Remote Testing.
Neither was given an appointment as it was required to do a driveby and qualify online before an appointment could be made but both obtained information required by the protocols. There is no TC form cancelling the appointment as there was none made.
Protected Tester 165 was not given an appointment and there is no TC cancellation form.
Protected Tester 165 was not able to reach the agent while Control 164 was told of two properties recommended by agent.
Protected Tester 159 was told of 3 units including 2 at sister locations while Control 149 was only told of the one unit at the assigned location and told to call elsewhere for others. Control has not TC cancel as no appt made.
Control Tester 149 did not get an appointment as agent said to make it same day as coming and hence no TC cancellation form.
The agent(s) were very reluctant to give the testers any informationa and the testers each obtained partial information but not information regarding fees and costs.
Protected 159 did not get a return call from the agent while Control 149 was told of 2 units.
Control 177 was not given an appointment but was told to call back the next day. No Test Contact form cancelling appointment was completed.
Control 167 did not get an appointment and hence no Test Contact form cancelling an appointment.
Agent would tell the Control tester information on the 3 other units so only 1 was shown.
166 Protected did not get a return call from the agent.
Protected Tester 172 did not get a return call from the agent.
P 181 did not obtain agent's name on the phone call, was told to call another agent to make an appointment which tester did not do and which did not affect test, and agent did not know the sec deposit amount but told tester it depended on the credit report.
Tester 181 protected was told to call on another day for an appointment.
Tester 057 has a very poorly written narrative and it is confusing until you read the notes on the AUF, and the TC did a second review of the test and only two units were recommended.
Weak narratives but the test was not affected. TC advised.
TC assigned profile as Partner to 176 but tester referred to "wife" which is correct and test was not affected.
Tester calls were too far apart but did not affect test.
Protected tester 057 was told no units were available while Control 183 was told of a unit that met her needs.
Tester 180's narrative is lacking but the test was conducted well. Agent did not allow either tester to make an appointment as both were told to call the day they were coming or just drop in, so no TC form cancelling an appointment.
Agent recommended sister properties to Tester 057 which were deleted as there were units at the assigned site and the other locations were too remote.
Protected Tester 057 did not get a return call from the agent while Control was told about one unit.
Protected 180 was told there were more units available but was only given information regarding one unit. Tester 083 Control received a FUF call from the agent regarding making an appointment and then had to call the agent to cancel the appointment that the agent wanted to make as no appointment was able to be made on the TRF when that call was made.
Tester Protected did not get a return call from the agent and could not get any information.
Tester 183 did not see any units as the unit recommended by the agent was $3010 vs $3000 maximum.
168 did not call agent to cancel appointment but test results were not affected.
No Test Contact form cancelling appointment as Control 172 was not given an appointment as nothing to show.
Protected tester did not get a return call from the agent but Control did and was told of one unit.
Protected 165 did not get a return call from the agent.
Protected 166 was told no units available at assigned site but was referred to a sister property near by. 167 was not given an appointment.
Control 183 did not get appointment as agent said to call for appt 1/2 hour before coming over.
Both testers were told to attend a group showing and hence no cancellation call was necessary
166 did not contact agent to cancel the appointment but test results were not affected
Protected tester 197 did not get a return call from the agent while Control 194 was told of one unit.
Protected Tester 195 did not get a return call from the agent while Control was told about one unit.
Both testers were told the unit was a lock box and to driveby. No appointment was made and hence no TC cancelling was made.
Tester 176 Protected was given some information about specific housing but not all that was given to the Control and was told that more information could be obtained at the site visit. The missing information is the security deposit and any mandatory or other fees. Tester 174 created to TC Cancelling because the agent called between the calls with a follow up.
Tester 197 Protected did not get a return call from agent.
Tester 168 Control was not given an appointment by agent as agent said tester had to be approved first. 168: The original listing I called about (621 N. Market St., Inglewood CA 90302) was not available until June 15. When I asked if she had anything else available besides this unit, she recommended a unit at another building.
Agent would not make appointments with testers citing come to open house or call back when closer to available dates.
194 did not cancel appointment but the test results were not affected.
194 did not call the agent to cancel the appointment but the test results were not affected.
Agent hung up on Tester 183 after she disclosed her sexual orientation.
Control 191 did not complete a TC cancelling the appointment but the test results were not affected and the agent did receive the call as it was acknowledged in a Follow Up by the agent.
Unit not available to be shown so neither tester got an appointment.
200 did not cancel the appointment with the agent but the test results were not affected.
Deleted AUF2 for 168 because it was a sister property that was too far removed for the assigned unit which had a unit that met tester's needs.
168 made a soft appointment and hence no TC cancelling the appointment was necessary.
197 Protected was told to check with a maintenance person for an appointment. The second unit was not within the sister property referral parameters andwas in a different city,
Available date of the unit for both testers was beyond the assigned move in date and hence the unit does not meet either testers' needs.
Neither tester was given an appointment.
Both testers made soft appointments and therefore there is not TC cancelling the appointment.
Control 167 was not given an appointment as agent nothing was available to be shown.
Only Protected Tester 159 was able to reach the agent and learned of one unit while Control 054 did not get a return call.
Protected 198 was told unit not available to be shown.
Control 199 was told that the unit had a lock box and to do a drive by hence not appointment made. Protected 200 was told that the unit was not available and was given information on a sister property, hence, the different addresses.
Control 200 was not given an appointment and told nothing to be seen.
Protected Tester 172 did not receive a phone call back from the agent while Control 061 did.
197 Protected was told to call a different agent to make an appointment and so no appointment was made; this was not said to Control 194.
Protected tester was told that another property had 20 more vacancies but the the assigned building had 1, and another 1 very close by so tester took information on the two units.
Protected tester had no return call from agent.
Control 192 did not get a return call from the agent but Protected 200 did and learned of two available units.
Protected tester 195 was told about a sister property in addition to the assigned property. Control 198 did not cancel appointment with agent but test results were not affected.
Agent for Protected Tester recommended 5 units at the assigned location and 2 units at nearby sister property.
Leasing agent to both testers: it was not necessary to make an appointment. Apt would be ready to view June 18. I could call back then.
Protected Tester 156 did not get a return call while Control 174 was told about 3 units.
Both testers were to attend a group showing, so no TC cancelling appointment.
Protected 198: Agent mentioned that I would have to create a short bio about me and wife and email it to him to be forwarded to the owner. He said this was at the owner's request due to the large amount of responses he's gotten to his ad and that he would then decide who would get an appointment once he read the bio; wouldn't give very much info because of wanting a bio from me to send over to the owner;not provide answers re utilities, other fees, whether an app was required. Control 195 was to attend a group showing so there was no cancelling of the appointment.
Both testers have really inadequate narratives, particularly 057.
Tester 194 control was referred to other sister properties near by hence the different addresses form 197 protected. 194 did not call to cancel appointment but test was not affected.
Neither tester was able to get an appointment as the unit was not available for viewing, hence, no call cancelling the appointment.
Protected tester 200 did not get a return call from the agent while Control 199 did.
Both testers were told to call when on the way, i.e., a soft appointment, and hence no TC cancelling the appointment.
In response to both testers' telephone inquiry, the agent texted back to each of them the same information and did not call the testers and also gave them appointment times. I approved the tests as both testers received the information in the same manner and followed protocols in obtaining it.
Control 194 was given an appointment to view the being renovated unit for June 13 while Protected 198 was told she could not view the unit until June 19 when the work would be completed.
Control 194 was told to call back the next day to make an appointment to view the unit. Protected 198 was given an appointment when she called.
I approved this test despite that the second tester 195 Control did not follow the protocol and called the agent multiple times, but the test results were not affected as both testers were told about the same one unit and were given the same information.
195 control made a soft appointment with no TC cancelling required.
Control 195 made a soft appointment not requiring a TC cancelling.
159 Protected did not get an appointment as agent said agent would call tester when back in office.
165 No appointment needed, can just go in before 5:00 pm to see a model unit and hence did not make a call to cancel the appointment.
Protected tester was given information about one unit while Control did not receive a return phone call.
195 Protected did call to cancel appointment. Test results were not affected.
Control 142 did not get a return call while Protected 198 did and learned about one unit available.
195 Control failed to call agent to cancel appointment but test results were not affected.
194 Control did not call to cancel appointment but test was not affected.
Tester Protected 054 did not call to cancel appointment. Test results not affected.
Protected Tester 197 failed to cancel the appointment with the agent but the test results were not affected.
Protected 165 failed to call to cancel appointment but test results were not affected.
Protected Tester did not get a return call while Control 149 received information regarding one unit.
Agent cancelled appointment with 165 Protected because the owner accepted an application.
Agent for Protected 159: gave me rent range of 2800-3018, said several units were available but could not give me specifics such information on application and fee and credit check, she was in central office. said the apts was next to the galleria, has fitness center, walking distance to shops. Agent for control 149 was able to disclose all information except for app fee cost. Control did not call agent to cancel appointment but that did not affect test results.
Both testers were invited to open house and the agent would not make appointment for protected 143 other than to attend the open house, hence there are not cancellation calls forms.
Agent did not call protected 197 tester to make an appointment but control was given an appointment which control 195 did not call to cancel.
195 Control scheduled soft appt. and there was no need to prepare a TC cancelling the appointment.
Protected Tester 198 received housing information but Control did not obtain housing information as agent did not continue to reply to Control's messages.
Protected Tester 165 did not make a hard appointment and hence no TC cancelling the appointment was made.
Protected Tester 165 did not make a call to cancel appointment but test was not affected.
195 Control scheduled a soft appt and hence did not make a call to cancel the appointment.
Neither tester was able to make an appointment as to do so involved the manager calling them back which the manager did but that call was recorded as a follow up call and the tester had already completed the test with the call center.
Tester 194 asked agent specifically about holding fees instead of other fees, and was told that there was a $200 holding fee. I deleted that from the AUF as it was an error for tester to do so and would appear that that this information was generated by the agent when it was in response to the tester's erroneous inquiry.
191 Control scheduled a soft appt and hence a TC cancelling was not required.
Unit was not available to be seen, hence no appointment made by either tester and hence not TC cancelling the appointment.
Control 194 was told that the unit could not be shown as the tenants were still in it, but Protected 197 was given an appointment to view the unit.
Protected tester was told nothing was available while Control 194 was told of an available unit.
195 Control scheduled a soft appt and hence no TC cancelling the appointment was required.
198 Protected Asked for an appointment and was told to call another agent to schedule and hence did not get an appointment and hence there is no TC cancelling the appointment. 194 Control got most of the info from first agent (Cathy) but was asked to call Jesse to verify that the unit was still available.
Protected Tester 165 failed to make a call to cancel her appointment. The results of the test were not affected.

If test was terminated by TC, explain:
DL888 (CT) was told there were no available units.
T1 (PT) could not get appointment, T2 (CT) got appointment.