Some of the reviews and the rumors floating around are ridiculous!!!…read more Listen, you get what you give in this world! People treat you how you treat them PAUL and his whole crew were amazing with me and my family. Paul is a fair and mild mannered person. What some of you entitled Washington folks don't like is his direct manner and unwillingness to do more for you than you'll do for yourself. They never missed my calls, never didn't make a repair unless the owner held it up!! And those were normal human reasons also Paul has many properties and many personalities to deal with I'm sure. The increases on rent are imposed on renters by the OWNERS. I was not the BEST tenant on the planet. But I wasn't treated like less than that. I had issues that I was actually fairly surprised to be treated better by Paul than the rest of the world over. Lol but seriously. I have told many people to go to The Sunworld Group and though I'm out of state... I still say the same. Go ahead and try to find better. You may get comparable at best.

I'm uploading this review on Yelp as I see they are deleting my reviews on their Google page…read more Renters beware -- this company is SHADY. For starters, they use a terrible 3rd party company for their application processing fees. Sunworld themselves are extremely hard to get ahold of for ANYTHING. I had to call numerous times and ask to be transferred and leave voicemails over the 4 days it took to hear back about the applications that my partner and I spent $110 on. Their ads are extremely deceitful & do NOT accurately reflect the amount of fees that you will be subject to, especially if you are a pet owner. The specific unit we applied for said it was pet friendly for both dogs & cats, required a $75 admin fee per pet & $35 a month pet rent per pet. Nothing less, nothing more. Our application was finally denied after 4 days, with the reasoning on mine being "low income" (I'm a stay at home mom with really good credit), and my partners reason being bad credit. We immediately contacted the property manager named Sharon & offered her a higher security deposit if they would be willing to accept that. We then asked if paying off the specific credit problem would make us eligible for the unit. She said if we gave her proof that we paid off the debt she would get our application approved. We immediately paid our debt, got proof & sent it over to her. She then sends us an email apologizing for the "confusion", and saying that they are now choosing to deny us due to the property owners 2 pet maximum which was NEVER brought to our attention or stated in the ads or on their website AT ALL. Mind you, we have one small border collie & two small indoor cats and would have never wasted money on applying if we were aware of this policy. We then called Sharon to ask why they would accept our application without being up front in their ads about the pet maximum, and we were met with a repeated answer of "there's nothing we can do" so we requested to speak to her manager. We were then connected with Paul Van Baalen who agreed to speak with the owner of the property & Sharon about a possible exception of the "rule" due to it not being stated in the ad. We then received an acceptance email stating that we would need to pay a $1495 security deposit AND a $1500 security deposit for our pets, which would be $500 per pet. This $500 per pet security deposit was never stated in the ad and when we questioned this, we were told "sorry it was left out of the ad, but it's company policy and you can look at any of our other listings and it will tell you that." I then told Sharon that we were not going to be renting from them due to their deceptive ads & lack of transparency causing us to lose money and time. After I thought all was said and done, I received a phone call from Paul Van Baalen AFTER HOURS telling me that we "ought to find someone else to rent from because this is going to be a bad marriage if it's already starting out this way" and that he "knows that people like us will throw every RCW in the book at them". Since he wants to bring up RCW, here's one for him. Under RCW 59.18.257, landlords must provide written disclosure of all tenant screening criteria, including policies that may lead to denial, before collecting application fees. Failure to disclose a $500 per pet deposit in the initial written criteria violates this statute and constitutes an unfair or DECEPTIVE PRACTICE. In the end I'm EXTREMELY GLAD that we aren't stuck renting from this deceptive company & will never be involved in anything that has Paul Van Baalen attached to it.