Vintage at Sequim, an apartment complex at 1009 W. Brackett Road near Walmart, is one of five apartment complexes in Western Washington whose owners have been sued by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown along with California-based FPI Management for allegedly engaging in unfair and deceptive practices “at the expense of vulnerable seniors.”
Corporate representatives deny the allegations.
The 23-page lawsuit was filed last month in Snohomish County Superior Court. Three of the apartment complexes included in the complaint are located in that county. In addition to Vintage at Sequim, the petition includes Vintage at Tacoma, Vintage at Marine View in Everett, Vintage at Mill Creek and AMWA Cedar Point Fund, LP, owners of Cedar Pointe Apartments in Arlington.
FPI Management was hired to manage the properties. According to the lawsuit, the company manages 165,000 apartment units in 23 states, approximately 45% of which are designated affordable units.
The Office of the Attorney General stated in a press release that FPI and the property owners market their apartment complexes as “low-income” units to tenants who are 55 and older.
“Over a period of several years, FPI and the property owners failed to disclose to their low-income senior tenants how their rent would be calculated and increased in the future, and misrepresented the quality of their apartment units, the availability and quality of building amenities like pools or fitness areas, and safety at the properties. These are all violations of the Consumer Protection Act,” the press release stated.
“Housing is particularly important for older Washingtonians, and it’s hard for them to move once they’ve signed a lease,” Brown said in the prepared statement. “It’s egregious to convince vulnerable populations they’re getting quality living when in reality they are stuck with properties in disrepair that also end up costing more than they expected over time.”
A phone message left at the office of Vintage at Sequim on Friday was not returned by press time. However, two corporate representatives responded to the Sequim Gazette’s request for comment.
“Vintage Housing disputes the Attorney General’s allegations and will address them in court,” Maureen Picarella, Vintage Housing’s senior vice president, stated in an email to the newspaper. “Vintage housing has been a part of providing housing in Washington for over 25 years. We take seriously our role as providers of affordable housing to seniors and the communities we are part of. We will work with our property manager, FPI, to address any issues. We are unable to comment further on pending litigation.”
Catie Friedrich, executive director of FPI Management, provided this statement via email shortly before the Gazette went to press on Monday:
“How we’re portrayed is not who we are, and doesn’t tell the whole story about the work we put in to respond to our residents’ concerns at Vintage at Sequim and elsewhere. We’re limited by the litigation on the kind of details we can share now, but we’re confident in our position, and we look forward to responding in court.
“FPI’s policy is to respond to requests within 24 hours — even faster for emergencies. When there are exceptions, it’s often because we’re subject to parts delivery schedules or vendor availability. We keep routine parts on hand to reduce wait time for repairs, and we maintain comprehensive contracts with a routine cleaning service, a dedicated elevator company, and an HVAC company to ensure regular and preventative maintenance.
“We follow the letter and spirit of Washington State RCW 59.18.060 which requires that we take care of requests in a reasonable time frame. Vintage at Sequim is subject to regular state and federal inspections and we consistently pass with above-average scores.
“We’re always focused on doing better, and we’re always open to feedback on how to keep improving. We’re committed to attentiveness and care in our upkeep and maintenance, to provide affordable places that our residents are proud to call home.”
Vintage at Sequim’s website advertises one- and two-bedroom units for seniors 55 and older, with amenities that include a fitness center, clubhouse and media room. Clicking on pricing and availability brings a pop-up message to call for leasing information. The lawsuit says the complex has 118 units.
Tax credits
The properties in question all participate in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC). Its purpose is to incentivize private developers “to build, renovate, and preserve low-income multi-family housing units with support from federal tax credits.”
To qualify for the federal tax credits, property owners must set aside a percentage of their units to be “rent-restricted” for tenants with a household income of no more than 60% of the area median income (AMI) for the county in which the building is located, the lawsuit details.
County AMI is determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development and fluctuates. Property owners can raise a tenant’s rent, even if the tenant’s income does not change, but are not required to do so under the LIHTC program. The Washington State Housing Finance Commission urges caution when deciding to increase rents.
FPI and the property owners do not adequately disclose to prospective tenants that their monthly rent will be based on area median income, which is often significantly more than the fixed incomes that most low-income tenants must live on, the press release said. As a result, tenants often end up paying an unsustainable portion of their fixed income as rent, leaving little for other expenses like food, transportation, or medical expenses.
Failure to disclose key details about rent calculations impacted seniors, who are less likely to move units once they’re in, even if costs become unmanageable, due to the cost and physical demands of moving, the attorney general’s office said.
The defendants also misrepresent the quality of their buildings, according to the press release, advertising them as “luxury” and “resort style,” when, in reality, some tenants move in to find their units dirty with broken appliances, including leaks, mold, worn carpets and torn flooring as well as other issues.
Despite the promise of quality amenities like pools, fitness centers, and computer rooms, tenants found such amenities either did not exist, were inoperable, or were permanently closed and shut down, the lawsuit alleges.
In addition, the apartment complexes have not been as safe and secure as defendants in the lawsuit represented, according to the press release. Many have no one monitoring who is entering, which has led to trespassing and other crimes on site. Their parking lots also experience frequent prowling, theft and vandalism.
The complaint seeks an injunction as well as restitution to impacted tenants.
