Good afternoon. This is Jennifer Gillespie, Sydney Gillespie's mother and co-signer for her lease @ Theory Syracuse. Our daughter signed a 12-month lease ending July 31, 2026. She was unable to secure a sublet until after departing for her Syracuse Abroad architecture program in Florence, Italy. She left her keys with me in Canada so I could empty remaining furniture and household items left in her unit that are enjoyed by her remaining roommates. On January 6, Safi Berry completed documents to take over Sydney's lease. She was immediately given keys and access to the unit before we could FedEx the keys to Safi. The lease takeover was back-dated December 31st so that Ms. Berry was responsible to cover January’s rent. Sydney recently received notice she was being charged for the new set of keys staff immediately gave Ms. Berry. Given we did not have a subletter until January 6, we held on to the keys and offered to FedEx them to the office. An odd, private arrangement was made with Ms. Berry that Sydney pay for the summer months, and return to remove her remaining items. This information was shared with Theory Syracuse staff on 5 separate phone calls. Given staff were aware of the arrangement, we respectfully ask that charges be reversed for the keys upon returning them. Please do not refer to the closing documents stating keys need to be returned. Doing so, is a trite effort to extinguish a legitimate case for review that warrants objective analysis. We thought she’s be keeping the unit when she left for Italy, and that I would have to return to empty her remaining items. Additionally, Ms. Berry was immediately given keys before we could send them to your office. In Sydney and Ms. Berry’s case, Ms. Berry also did not want the summer months, so we knew we had to return to the unit. Sydney had several phone conversations with staff outlining these details. Additionally, it is extremely difficult to reach office staff live without telephone tag, and especially when Sydney is in Italy. Respectfully, -jennifer gillespie iPh: (410)490-7889 | Res.: (613)695-5060 jennifer.gillespie@rogers.com All supporting details documents are with Theory Syracuse staff, though

I am writing to formally explain my concerns regarding the charges on my FMO. Unfortunately, I was unable to complete the remainder of my lease due to an unexpected job loss. Losing my income made it financially impossible for me to continue meeting my rental obligations despite my efforts to manage the situation responsibly. This circumstance was not intentional, and I did not anticipate the sudden change in my employment status. I truly valued the opportunity to fulfill my lease agreement, but my financial hardship made it unmanageable to continue. I respectfully request a review of the charges in light of my situation and would appreciate any consideration, adjustment, or guidance that may be available. I am committed to resolving this matter in a fair and reasonable way. Thank you for your time and understanding.

The unit has been unoccupied since December. On Jan 23 I received a financial move-out statement listing a charge for a reassignment fee, and during my last communication in November 2025 I was informed by the office that this was to help find a new tenant. However, I only received notification at the end of January, via the move-out statement, that no one had been found -- after most students have moved in and it'd be near impossible to find a replacement.

There is a charge of $185.00 and I’m just wondering where this is coming from.

Hello, I am concerned that the damage charges for my apartment were very harsh, and I don't believe that all of them are warranted. If you can send me pictures or explanations as to why some of these charges are so expensive (Trash and damage fees especially) that would be great. Thanks you.

I am an international student and I happen to have gotten financial aid from my country and they would fulfill the monthly payments for my stay at Theory but they require some information such as IBAN and SWIFT since they would in this case pay directly to you/Theory. I would just need that information or any other that would allow them to directly pay you.

I am formally disputing the $185 charge for “missing keys/fob.” This fee is unfair, avoidable, and the result of management’s failure to properly communicate with me. On December 23rd, a couple of days after I officially moved out, I realized my key fob was still in my possession. I immediately acted responsibly and called Theory that same day to ask what I should do. I explained that I am a student and live 4.5 hours away from the property and asked what my options were — whether I should mail the fob back or drive back after the holidays to return it in person. The staff member I spoke with told me she was unsure of the protocol and said that either option would probably be fine, but she needed to confirm. She stated she would leave a note and call me back with a definitive answer. I never received a call back. When I later received this charge and called Theory again, the manager confirmed: - All calls are recorded - The note from my original call does exist - There is no record of any follow-up call made to me This confirms that I did exactly what I was supposed to do as a resident — I proactively contacted management with plenty of time to resolve the issue. My lease end date was December 31st, meaning I called over a week in advance. That is more than sufficient time for the staff to return my call and provide instructions so I could return the fob properly. Because management failed to follow up, I was left waiting for guidance and did not want to take the wrong action without approval. Had I been told to mail it or return it in person, I would have done so immediately. This charge could have been completely avoided if I had received the promised callback. It is unfair to penalize residents for staff communication failures. There is clear proof that: - I called before the deadline - A note was logged - No follow-up was made - I was actively trying to return the fob Instead of being helped, I was sent a bill. This fee is unjust and should be fully removed. I acted responsibly, in good faith, and with urgency. Management did not. I am requesting: - Full removal of the $185 charge or a significantly smaller amount - Written confirmation of resolution I do not have the recording of the call but theory syracuse does for further documentation if needed to escalate this case.

I am formally disputing the $25 “Turn Trash” charge. This fee is unreasonable and based on flawed reasoning. The photos provided show a disco ball and a study bed mat. These were not trash. They were intentionally left behind because I had already confirmed with my friend/subletter that she wanted both items. I asked her directly if she would like them, and she said yes. These items were left for her personal use, not abandoned or discarded. After I received this charge, I called Theory to ask why I was being billed. I was then told that I could leave items behind for the next subletter, but only if they were placed in a common area. This was the first time I was ever informed of this rule. This condition was never disclosed in: - Move-out instructions - Lease documentation - Emails or written notices - Any official policy provided to me Charging residents based on undisclosed, after-the-fact rules is unfair and unacceptable. Had I been informed beforehand, I absolutely would have complied. I understand there may have been a small amount of miscellaneous items in a desk drawer (such as stickers). While I would be reasonable and open to a much smaller charge if necessary, $25 for removing a few minor items is completely excessive. This falls under standard unit turnover and does not justify such a high fee. To summarize: - The items left were not trash - They were left intentionally with the next occupant’s consent - The “common area” rule was never communicated before move-out - I only learned of it after being charged - I am open to a reasonable adjustment, but $25 is disproportionate I am formally requesting the full removal or significant reduction of this charge.

I am formally disputing the $140 “Walls/Ceiling” damage charge. This fee is unjustified and does not reflect the actual condition of the unit at move-out. The only item referenced as “damage” was the presence of removable adhesive strips on the shower wall. These were Command-strip style adhesives specifically designed to peel off cleanly without damaging surfaces, paint, or leaving residue. They do not cause wall damage and are widely used in rentals for that exact reason. I was actively in the process of removing these strips when my subletter (who is also my personal friend) informed me she was installing hanging shelves and did not have adhesives. Since I was already peeling them off and they were still fully intact, I intentionally left them in place for her use. This decision was made to avoid waste and because they cause zero damage to the wall. Additionally, these strips were attached to the shower wall, which is not painted drywall. It is a sealed surface designed to withstand moisture and cleaning. No paint was removed. No residue was left. No surface damage occurred. There was absolutely nothing that required repair, patching, or repainting. Charging me $140 implies that permanent damage occurred, which is factually incorrect. Removable adhesive strips do not constitute wall damage, and their presence alone does not justify a repair fee. If maintenance simply removed them, that is standard turnover cleaning and should not be billed as damage. I am requesting: Immediate removal of the $140 charge or any photographic evidence of the alleged damage, if any exists. I left the unit in good condition and took care to avoid any damage. This charge is unreasonable, unsupported, and should be reversed. Thank you for reviewing this matter thoroughly.

I had left extra pillows and cleaning supplies behind for Tanner Cox who will be taking over my lease. I know her personally and was trying to provide her with some things instead of being wasteful and throwing them away. I didn’t leave them behind intended for someone else to clean them up but to be passed onto a friend. For this reason, I believe I should not be charged as it wasn’t out of disrespect for Theory or laziness but out of care. As for the collider and the wall hooks, that wasn’t my responsibility but my roomate’s.