OCTOBER 19, 2016
Sometime mid-morning Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio knocked on the Applicants unit door. The Applicants husband answered the door and allowed Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio, Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy and his fire inspector/contractor into the unit, despite this had now become a Semi-Annual fire inspection which is not required by the City of Toronto or Fire Marshall Office.
This is confirmed and was clearly stated in the Applicant October 17, 2016 letter that “ The previous super attendants ( Angie and Chris) have already performed this same fire inspection ( smoke detectors ) in or about June of 2016 changing the batteries. There is no absolutely no need for a second inspection in my unit within a 4 month time period. ”
Upon entering the Applicants unit, Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio stated in a courteous and respectful manner “ I read the letter you sent the other night, I would like to talk with you guys about it? ”
The Applicants husband stated “ yeah, that’s Kool, when? ”
Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio replied “ What time will your wife be home? ”
The Applicants husband replied “ in about an hour ”
Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio replied “ Great, when we are done here, I will come back in about an hour and we can talk about it than ”
It appeared that unlike the son, Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio, Alto Properties Inc. owner Louie Liscio had no problems coming to the Applicants unit the next day for a Semi-Annual Fire Inspection and to discuss the previous letter sent on October 17, 2016.
Alto Properties Inc. owner Louie Liscio was courteous and respectful when speaking with the Applicants husband about the issues in their previous letter sent October 17, 2016.
While checking the smoke detector in the unit, the inspector/contractor noticed that the smoke alarm battery had been unplugged, but was still in the unit.
The Applicants husband explained that back in June just before Alto Properties Inc. employee Angie and Alto Properties Inc. employee Chris were fired, that the Applicant had spoken to Alto Properties Inc. employee Angie about the unit continuously beeping.
The Applicants husband explained that they had even changed and put in a lower quality battery and also a higher end battery into the unit and the problem persisted. So they had no choice than to unplug the battery while waiting for Alto Properties Inc. employee Angie or Chris to replace the unit.
During this time the family had lost track of the problem and never thought to re-inform Alto Properties Inc. a 2nd time on the problem.
( Referring to Document # 6 ) – But, the Applicant at the time also explained to Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio and the fire inspector/contractor that they still had 4 other working smoke detectors in the unit.
The Applicant opened the two bedroom doors immediately to his right and pointed that there was a working smoke detector in each room on the ceilings. And he also explained that there was also a 2nd smoke detector in Applicants closet.
The Applicants husband also walked into the living room area, where he pointed out the 4th working unit above the computer desk area.
Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio returned to the hallway and requested that Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy replace the battery and if the problems still persist, they will have to change the unit itself.
After the Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy removed the old battery and replaced it with a brand new one. Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio stated “ We will come back in about an hour to see how everything is. ”
The Applicants husband replied “ Kool ”.
The Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio also had a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it.
At that point everyone, Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio, Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy and the fire inspector/contractor left the unit.
Just under an hour later, Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio, Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy and the fire inspector/contractor returned to the Applicants unit. Again the Applicants husband invited them in and explained that the unit had once again started continuously beeping.
At that time Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio heard the beeping and asked, Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy to replace the old unit with a new one. Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy completed the task and the fire inspector/contractor was satisfied with the work.
Before leaving Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio stated “ She is not here yet? ”
The Applicants husband replied “ No, not yet, I just talked to her on the phone, she will be here just now. ”
Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio stated “ okay, I will come back in a bit, and we can talk when she gets home ”
Again the Applicants husband replied “ Kool. ”
With this interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio, Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy and the fire inspector/contractor, there were absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative.
After the Applicant got home shortly after everyone left, they realized that after night had fallen, that Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio had lied about his “ I read the letter you sent the other night, I would like to talk with you guys about it? “ and his numerous offers to return.
Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio lied as a tactic and a tool to negotiate his way into the unit for the Semi-Annual fire inspection without ever having any intentions of returning to deal with the Applicants concerns about Alto Properties Inc. or racist employee Stella Reddy.
( Referring to Document # 71 ) – Later that day Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sends an email at 16:48 to only Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio.
“ Hi Anthony, Just so you are aware, the techs are done with the units. Russell is not impressed as they rushed and didn’t give him much time to make notes. Louie stayed with them as well. imagine, about an hour to do all the units here. That is rushed. They got into 303. They found the detector not working there, as the battery was missing. Was told by her partner that he removed it after battery was replaced in June as it was still beeping and said that they were told it would be replaced. Yet, in the letter she sent she didn’t say any of that, just that it was fine as the battery was already changed. No mention in her letter that it still beeped, that they removed the battery due to this beeping. Want me to have them charged under the Fire Code? I checked the file and no mention of replacing the smoke detector, just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. Regards, Stella ”
This emails confirms that;
- The smoke detector was checked on Ocotber19, 2016.
“ Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 4:18 PM ”
- Confirms June’s Fire Inspection by Alto Properties Inc. employee Angie
“ just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. ”
- Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio and Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy were present at the Semi-Annual Fire inspection.
“ Russell is not impressed as they rushed and didn’t give him much time to make notes. “
“ Louie stayed with them as well. “
( Referring to Document # 11 ) – It is at this point that again the Applicant and her husband become confused by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statements, just like her letter of August 1, 2016, where it was proven that she had clearly and deliberately written this previous letter in a way to cast an unfavorable light upon the Applicant and her husband.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ They found the detector not working there, as the battery was missing. “.
This is opposite to what the Applicants husband clearly stated and admitted that he had unplugged the battery, and that it was not missing.
It appears that either Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was misinformed by her husband Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy, or she figured it sounded worse that the battery had be physically removed verses just unplugged.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Yet, in the letter she sent she didn’t say any of that, just that it was fine as the battery was already changed. “
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statement that the Applicant stated the smoke detector was “ Fine “ is totally inaccurate and in fact the Applicant never made such a claim.
What the Applicant stated was “ The previous super attendants ( Angie and Chris) have already performed this same fire inspection ( smoke detectors ) in or about June of 2016 changing the batteries. “
The Applicant clearly does not mention the word “ FINE ” and yet again, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy makes false statements on behave of the Applicant to help her case to try having the Applicant charged under the fire code.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ No mention in her letter that it still beeped, that they removed the battery due to this beeping. ”
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is clearly again making up lies to again get permission from Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio to have the Applicant charged under the fire code.
Neither the Applicant nor her husband ever claimed that back in June 2016, had the battery changed due to “ Beeping ”. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “No mention in her letter that it still beeped ”, it still “ beeped ” after what? The Annual Fire Inspection in June 2016?
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ I checked the file and no mention of replacing the smoke detector just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. ”
Again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is apparently confused as the Applicants husband has NEVER claimed the smoke detector unit was replaced back in June 2016, just that the batteries for all 5 units were replaced.
It appears that at this time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is fabricating lies against the Applicant and her husband to Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was making these false statements on behalf of the Applicant and her husband to help her case to try and have the Applicant charged under the fire code.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Want me to have them charged under the Fire Code? ”
Now saving the best till last. Again we see Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy desire of hate against the Applicant, her husband and family.
It is this type of Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour or OCD that is not normal behaviour. Despite the Applicant having 4 other smoke detectors in the unit that were paid and installed by the Applicant and her husband.
Despite that they did notify the previous Alto Properties Inc. employee Angie.
Despite the Applicant and her husband at no times put their own or their children’s lives at risk of death due to inadequate or non-working smoke detectors.
It is clear that the entire email is solely written to cast an unfavorable light on the Applicant and her husband with Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio, but why?
It appears in the end, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wanted permission from Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio to “ have them charged under the Fire Code? “
What is interesting is that the Applicants husband has videos of the unit #308, just down the hall from them where that smoke detector there has been beeping every 35 seconds since February of this year ( 2018 ). Up until the day this Application was filed.
You can hear the unit beeping from inside the Applicants unit, 5 units away. And yet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has never issued any warning letters to correct the fault battery, or possible like the Applicants unit, smoke detector.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has been to units #305 and #306 since they moved out to review the unit before and after renovations. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has been in and out of the unit of numerous occasions to show the units. He husband has been on the 3rd floor on numerous occasions, to many to count, to sweep and mop the floors.
In fact at the time of completing this document, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was on the same floor entering unit # 306 at 13:15 and 16:30 showing potential tenants the units.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was literally 15 feet away from unit #308 where the beeping could be heard as she walked down the hall, coming and going from the empty unit.
And yet we will assume that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has still made no request to fix or resolve that problem let alone ask Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio for permission to have the fire Marshall involved.
It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not want the Applicant and her husband charged due to any safety reasons. In actuality she could not as there we 4 other working smoke detectors in the unit. She only wanted permission from Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio to have them charged as another way to enjoy trying to deliberately inconvenience and stress the Applicant and her family.
Again, like her August 1, 2016 letter, it shows that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had some form of an alternative and personal motive behind her actions.
The Applicant would also like to take this time to point out a few little quirky things about this email.
“ Hi Anthony, Just so you are aware, the techs are done with the units. Russell is not impressed as they rushed and didn’t give him much time to make notes. Louie stayed with them as well ”
It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy is now a Fire Inspector expert as he has spoken to his wife Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy about his concern over the “ rushed ” job that was done by the hired professional.
It also appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy agrees as she found the need to relay the message to Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio.
It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is not only an expert on the use of Cockroach powder when she lectured the Applicants husband back on September 2, 1016 in what appeared to be an attempt to bait him into some form of verbal altercation.
Now Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and her Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy now experts on the length of time it should require to check smoke alarms in a 30 +, 5 story building.
But what strike the Applicant and her husband as being interesting is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy only emails Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio about it. And in fact implies that the father, Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio is part of the problem as he “ stayed with them as well ”, implying that he condoned this “ rushed ” job and never slowed it down so it could be done properly.
It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has a preference as to who she deals with. Just like the meeting that the two of them tried to set up for the day before with the Applicant. It was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy speaking on behalf of Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio only.
It again appeared that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had not included the father in her correspondence with what appears to be her preferred owner Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio.
One has to wonder what is said during these private correspondence between Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio that the father Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio doesn’t know about?
One has to wonder how much bad mouthing outside of this known email Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has done with her preferred Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio about his father Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio?
OCTOBER 20, 2016
( Referring to Document # 72, 73, 74 ) – Alto Properties Inc. and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy serves the Applicant a second N5 – Notice to End your Tenancy for Interfering with others, Damage or overcrowding in a 20 day period.
Alto Properties Inc. and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy second N5 stated
“ Wednesday October 12, 2016 – Sent Notice of Entry in apt door for Wednesday October 19, 2016 between 9-5 about Annual Fire Inspection.
Friday October 14, 2016 Approx. 1 pm – Tenant was given Notice of Entry that technician would come Monday October 17 to repair glass in living room.
Monday October 17, 2016 Approx. 11:30 am – Spoke to Ace Glass and was informed that due to contractor not showing up they had to reschedule some appointments and would be here to complete repairs Tuesday October 18, 2016 around 9:00 am. Gave Notice of Entry in apt door to tenant advising them of this as wrote on notice “due to scheduling with their contractors they had to reschedule for tomorrow.” Email attached for reason.”
Monday October 17, 2016 7:38 pm – Received letter from tenant in email advising us that she is refusing entry for Ace Glass to complete repairs and is refusing entry for Fire Inspection. Copy of letter received from tenant explains her reasoning is attached.”
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy confirms what the Applicants husband previously stated that “ he opened the unit door and noticed a folded in thirds piece of paper on the floor in front of the units door in the hallway. “
“ Gave Notice of Entry in apt door ”
Again this is just another great example of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information that again would have discredited her truthfulness in her attempt to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.
This again shows how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy tries to portray the Applicant as being uncooperative and unreasonable only because she wants to enforce her rights which are mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.
An example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is when Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fails to mention that there was no possible way that she could have given the Applicant a 2nd Notice of Entry dated for October 18, 2016 that could have fallen under the mandatory 24 hours which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.
Which means that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had no right to serve the Applicant an N5 for something that she, herself had no rights to do.
Another example of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fails to mention that she again deliberately placed the 2nd Notice of Entry in the apt door between 12:15pm to 3:10pm.
Now the Human Rights Tribunal can only assume she did this to allow more time to pass. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy placed the October 18, 2016 Notice of Entry, without knocking, calling, emailing or texting.
It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to allow wanted for more time to pass before the Applicant would have been notified of the cancelled appointment and the rescheduling. Therefore allowing Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy a better chance of inconveniencing the Applicant and/or her husband in hopes of them not being able to be present at the time of the repairs.
You see, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was new to the job at this time, she would sit in the office every day from 9:00 to 5:00pm expect during lunch between 12:00pm and 1:00pm as posted on her sign.
So because of this schedule, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would see the Applicant and/or her husband leave to drop the children off at the school bus at 8:15am and pick them up at 3:10pm.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to know that by deliberately placing any short term Notice of Entry on the door between the time of 12:15pm to 3:10pm would result in it not been seen until 3:10pm. This therefore means that more time would pass before the Applicant or her husband would be aware of any changes.
Another example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also fails to mention she did not make any attempts to place the short term Notice of Entry under the door itself, never bothered to knock, call, text or send an email this time to alert Applicant of the cancelation or the sudden rescheduling made by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy without even contacting the Applicant to see if it worked for her or her husband as it had fallen under the mandatory 24 hours which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.
Another example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also fails to mention is that the rescheduled appoint made by her for August 18, 2016 was also cancelled. This second cancelation was due to an employee/contractor child being sick.
What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy tries to imply is that she had to cancelled the scheduled appoint with Ace Glass because the Applicant was enforcing her rights which are mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act. When in fact Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did no such thing.
It was a good thing that the Applicant enforced her right to the mandatory 24 hours which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act. Because if not, the continuous pattern of the Applicant and/or her husband having to sit around between the hours of 9:00am to 12:00pm waiting for Ace Glass to show up, only to find out after the scheduled time, like the day before, and with pest control on August 29, 2016. That no one was coming to the unit until after the fact when the scheduled time ran out.
Following the pattern. this would have been the 3rd time in a month and a half that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would have left the Applicant and/or her husband waiting in their unit for an appoint only she knew was not going to happen that day.
What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy either did not understand or was deliberately challenging in the act is where she is required to give the Applicant 24 hours notice. It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks that the clock starts ticking from the finish time and not the start time.
There is no way that it can be construed that by giving tenant a Notice of Entry at 5:00pm for a 9:00am to 5:00pm visit the next day is giving the tenant a 24 hour notice. It clearly is only giving them 15 hours of notice. But Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy apparently views the situation as a 5:00pm delivery time and a 5:00pm finish time the next day is considered to be giving a tenant a 24 hours notice.
Despite the fact that the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act states
“ ENTRY WITH NOTICE
- 27. (1) A landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at
least 24 hours before the time of ENTRY under the following circumstances: ”
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated: ” Received letter from tenant in email advising us that she is refusing entry for Ace Glass to complete repairs and is refusing entry for Fire Inspection. Copy of letter received from tenant explains her reasoning is attached.”
What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fails to mentions is that her N5 was based on the Applicant refusing entry to Ace Glass on October 18, 2016 and for refusing entry for the Semi-Annual Fire Inspection on October 19, 2016.
The truth and facts of the situation has been explained very clearly and cannot be debated. Ace Glass cancelled on October 18, 2016 at 8:33am via an email stating “ Please note we are a small Family business. The glass technician that was scheduled to do the job. Called in to inform us he had to remain home due to one of children had failing ill, had no other option but to remain Home. Thanks Mario ”
Again, during this time frame when this email was received by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was in the early stages of speaking with the Applicant via emails about a meeting with Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio later that day.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never bothers to mention to the Applicant of the cancellation by Ace Glass even though these was communication between herself and the Applicant via email after receiving Ace Glass email.
And still Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy serves the Applicant on October 20, 2016, 38 eight hours later with a N5 for “ refusing entry ” to Ace Glass. The Applicant did not refuse entry to Ace Glass because; Ace Glass had cancelled their own scheduled 2nd appointment on October 18, 2016 and therefore they did not show up, which means and the actual act of the Applicant or her husband refusing to entry did not happen.
| Entry with notice27. (1) A landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry under the following circumstances: |
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated the Applicant was “ refusing “ when in fact she was only enforcing her right under the mandatory 24 hours rule in which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, Ontario that she had to be notified when requesting entry.
And yet again another example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated and implies that the Applicants “ refusing entry “ for Semi-Annual Fire Inspection. Even though on October 19, 2016 to Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio, Alto Properties Inc. employee Russell Reddy and a fire safety inspector/contractor did attend to the Applicants unit for the semi-annual fire inspection.
( Referring to Document # 71 ) – This is confirmed with the email dated October 19, 2016 by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy herself to Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio at 4:16pm where she stated
“ They got into 303. They found the detector not working there, as the battery was missing. Was told by her partner that he removed it after battery was replaced in June as it was still beeping and said that they were told it would be replaced. Yet in the letter she sent she didn’t say of that, just that it was fine as the battery was already changed. No mention in her letter that it still beeped, that they removed the battery due to this beeping. Want me to have them charged under the Fire Code? I checked the file and no mention of replacing the smoke detector, just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. ”
So Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy deliberately made false allegations on a legal document that she had every intention to use to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building. Why else would Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy have created this legal document if she never intended to submit it to a Government agency like the Landlord and Tenant Board?
According to the Canadian government it is A SERIOUS CRIME to lie, or to submit deliberate false information or documents to any government agency in the country.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has a proven pattern of deliberately not notifying the Applicant immediately of any changes, as this is her way of enjoying the idea of inconveniencing the Applicant and her family, and trying to get into the unit without someone being present so she can report back to the owners what she has seen in the unit.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has a proven pattern of deliberately using the worse possible method to communicate with the Applicant when trying to get in contact with her when rescheduling on short notice.
It also needs to be noted that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had scheduled appoints for 3 days in a row. October 17, 18 & 19, 2016. Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoying the idea of inconveniencing and harassing the Applicant and her family.
Why could Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy not have scheduled and reschedule the Ace Glass after the for the 19th during the Semi-Annual inspection?
And if Ace Glass could not attend on the October 19th, than Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have scheduled and reschedule for the following week?
Why was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy booking appoints so close to each other instead of trying to book everything on the same day instead of back to back to back?
That is because Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again enjoyed the idea of the Applicant and/or her husband having to sit around for 3 days in a row waiting and hopefully having to cancel any previous engagements that were already scheduled.
The Applicant and her husband made it very clear to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy that she was not going to enter their unit alone under any circumstances if it is not an emergency, and therefore she booked everything intentionally on separate dates to teach the Applicant and her husband a lesson about who was in charge.
And again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoyed the idea of the Applicant or her husband sitting around waiting for multiple occasions, over a back to back to back day period, with long periods of scheduled wait time on these days.
APRIL 17, 2017
( Referring to Document # 75, 76, 77, 78 ) – The Applicant and her family find again a 4 page letter in their mailbox by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Please remove all storage items from your balcony as only seasonal furniture items are allowed. If you have a BBQ, please remove completely as our balconies do not meet requirements for BBQ’s.”
( Referring to Document # 7, 8, 9, 10 ) – It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has not yet given up on her mission to have the Applicant remove her BBQ. She has even gone as far too now include some of the same paper work that the Applicants husband supplied her with back on August 2, 2016.
Like in the past where Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy changed her excuse on numerous occasions to try and justify why she could not take the Applicants $121 in cash to pay what owed on her rent. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again changed her reasoning for why BBQ’s were now not allowed in the building.
It appears again that the pattern of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy lying to try and prove a point has continued.
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never does clarify what it is exactly in the documents that she is referring to when claiming “ our balconies do not meet requirements for BBQ’s.”
JULY 13, 2017
( Referring to Document # 79 ) – The Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy forwards a letter to the Applicant where she stated “ We hope this letter finds you and your family well. We are writing to you today concerning the air conditioner units that we can see dripping water from your windows. The one in the bedroom window is running down the building and dripping onto the window sill below and splashing onto the bedroom window and the tenant there cannot open the bedroom window, as the water splashes in the screen onto the inside of her window sill. The water is also starting to cause discoloration to the flashing under the window there. I have pictures if you wish to see but the discoloration can also be seen outside. Please, install a ledge under the bedroom A/C unit so the water drips out past the building and bypasses the windows below so others can open their windows. The air conditioner in the living room window is also dripping water onto the balcony and is running off to the balcony below and needs a bucket underneath to catch the water. As we all live in a shared space, we need to be considerate of the tenants living below. ”
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy notes that “ The one in the bedroom window is running down the building and dripping onto the window sill below and splashing onto the bedroom window and the tenant there cannot open the bedroom window, as the water splashes in the screen onto the inside of her window sill. ”
It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had spoken to only the wife and not the husband as she stated “ HER window sill ” and that “ TENANT” ( not tenants ) there cannot open the bedroom window “ due to the dripping.
The underlining word here is “ HER. ” Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is no longer speaking in general terms like she was when she stated early in her letter “ the tenant there ”. It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy pretends to try and personalizes the conversation, trying to convince the Applicant that she had in fact spoke to the female “ Tenant ” of the residents, as to again giving weight to her justification in requesting that the Applicant fix the dripping air conditioner.
That very same day the Applicants husband corrected the problems that were outlined by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in her letter. No further action was needed by anyone.
Let’s clarify that if Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not pretend to speak to the female “ Tenant ” the letter would have been worded differently.
“ We hope this letter finds you and your family well. We are writing to you today concerning the air conditioner units that we can see dripping water from your windows. The one in the bedroom window is running down the building and dripping onto the window sill below and splashing onto the bedroom window and the UNIT there cannot open the bedroom window, as the water splashes in the screen onto the inside of THEIR window sill. The water is also starting to cause discoloration to the flashing under the window there. I have pictures if you wish to see but the discoloration can also be seen outside. Please, install a ledge under the bedroom A/C unit so the water drips out past the building and bypasses the windows below so others can open their windows. The air conditioner in the living room window is also dripping water onto the balcony and is running off to the balcony below and needs a bucket underneath to catch the water. As we all live in a shared space, we need to be considerate of the tenants living below. ”