This is a reciprocal review prompted in response to a negative review of my vacation rental property Siesta Breakers #603 in Siesta Key, FL, published under the anonymous name of Kenneth S. on June 16, 2019 on www.vrbo.com (property ID #208534- visit https://www.vrbo.com/208534). Eliminating anonynity, Kenneth S. is actually Kenneth J. Stokes of Montclair, NJ, the listed founder and president of Stokes Financial Investment & Insurance Services also of Montclair, NJ. The difference between the review by Kenneth J. Stokes, and my review is that my review is not laced with deliberate lies and fact fabrications. In fact, out of the 479 words in Kenneth J. Stokes’ review, 275 words are in sentences dedicated to lies and fact fabrications. I have to ask the question, “Why would anybody want to deal with Kenneth J. Stokes, and why would anybody want to even deal with Stokes Financial Investment & Insurance Services?” Please read on, and find out what kind of person Kenneth J. Stokes really is, and why you really shouldn’t deal with Kenneth J. Stokes or his business! Stokes Financial Investment & Insurance Services 29 Central Avenue Montclair, NJ 07042 U.S.A. Web-Site: https://www.stokesfinancial.net/ BITDEFENDER WARNING: The Bitdefender web protection software blocks the Stokes Financial web-site, and displays the following message. “Suspicious page blocked for your protection Your connection to this web page is not safe due to an unmatching security certificate. This means that the certificate was issued for a different web address than the one it is being used for, and you run the risk of exposing your data by accessing this page.” On Feb 13th 2019, Kenneth J. Stokes rented my condo Siesta Breakers #603 in Siesta Key, FL, from Apr 20th to Apr 27th 2019, and received a 15% discount from what he would have paid through the association rental office. During the Apr 27th departure cleaning, my cleaner reported damage to the unit to me, and Kenneth J. Stokes was notified the following day. May 23rd is the last date of e-mail received from Kenneth J. Stokes. "We were in Florida for 3 weeks so we have not been home for long? I will get the keys out but please text your handy man and let me know what you plan on charging. Thank you." On Jun 16th however, Kenneth J. Stokes posted a somewhat less than truthful review of Siesta Breakers #603 on www.vrbo.com which is reproduced below in its entirety with [LIEs) hi-lighted, and also below is my uncensored response to his review, addressing all comments made, responses that were being continually censored by VRBO.com. The fact that the www.vrbo.com rental web-site, and others even allows reviews by disgruntled guests who made damage to a vacation rental property is very disturbing, as the garbage that these disgruntled guests post remains until the rental ad is cancelled by the property owner. Reading the review of Siesta Breakers #603 that Kenneth J. Stokes saw fit to post, I would have to describe Kenneth J. Stokes to be a disgruntled and disingenuous former guest, who was definitely unhappy about having to pay $185 for the damage made to the unit by his family, who is also by his own posted statements, an outright liar multiple times, 12 counts to be exact, and turns out also to be a petty thief, as it has been 123 days as of today, Aug 28th since he departed the unit, and he has not yet returned the 2 ASSA security keys to the unit, as he stated that he would in his May 23rd e-mail. The 2 ASSA security keys have a replacement value of approximately $100, and they can only be replaced by a licensed and contracted locksmith provider located in Bradenton, FL, which means a 40 mile round trip, and an hour and a half travel time, hence the $100 value. I am also still holding $106 of Kenneth J. Stokes' security deposit, pending the return of the 2 Siesta Breakers #603 ASSA security keys. Vic Wasiliw

Find a different Unit * Stayed Apr 2019 Kenneth S. I am surprised by all the good reviews. [LIE #1] My assumption is many must be family, friends etc. We stay in Siesta Key at least once a year as we have close friends in the area and never have issues. [LIE #2] Unfortunately, this was one of the only units in Siesta Key that was still available for the Easter break. Pros: -the location is great as it is right over the bridge and you have access to restaurants and stores across the street -Obviously, the beach and pool are great! Cons: - [LIE #3] It is very dark in the unit because you are staring at a concrete wall from almost everywhere in the condo(accept for a corner in the living room and far left corner of balcony). The 2 buildings are separated by the pool and courtyard but since they tried to face the balconies in the direction of the ocean all you see is the concrete wall of the building across from you(the sides of the balconies). Its tough to explain unless you see it for yourself. -No WIFI in the unit. (seems crazy in this day and age with a rental property) Yes, it is clearly written in the advertisement, etc. but it is still a con. [LIE #4] The rugs in the bedrooms must go. Rugs don’t work well in rentals(especially at the beach). [LIE #5] They are old and stains are everywhere. [LIE #6] -We also had issues with our Security Deposit. I was informed via email that there was white paint on the lanai and he sent me a photo of a thumbnail sized hole in the screen from his “cleaning person”(owner is out of the country). The email said the cleaner did not report the tiny hole the week before so we must have done it. It wasn’t us but tough to argue with that I guess? [LIE #7] I also assured him that luckily we don’t travel with paint but he didn’t want to hear it. The only thing we could think of was sunscreen? [LIE #8] Either way the charges to “repaint the whole Lanai floor and replace the entire screen panel added up perfectly to the few hundred dollar security deposit. [LIE #9] Luckily it wasn't a huge deposit or I have a feeling it would have totaled that exact amount. I suggest going a little further into the (non 5 star reviews) and how the owner responds. I obviously did not do this until after the stay(lesson learned). [LIE #10] Even a 4 star review with a mention of the wifi gets a scathing response from him. [LIE #11] Be sure to check the one star regarding the pool under construction(specifically his response). I think it will give better idea of what you may deal with. We have had plenty of great stays elsewhere in Siesta Key so I suggest a different unit…Good luck Published Jun 16, 2019 [LIE #12] Message received from this guest on May 23rd through www.vrbo.com e-mail portal: "We were in Florida for 3 weeks so we have not been home for long? I will get the keys out but please text your handy man and let me know what you plan on charging. Thank you."

Reviews posted by disgruntled guests are totally irrelevant, and after 31 years of renting condos in Siesta Key, I am certainly not at all surprised by the usual fabricated nonsense content of this disgruntled guest's review. The plain fact is that this disgruntled guest is unhappy about having to pay for the damage made to the unit by his family, and he has nothing negative to write about in his review of Siesta Breakers #603, so he purposefully implies and assumes so as to present a negative review in a clear attempt of retaliation against the rental property owner. What does it tell you about the character of this disgruntled guest, one of only two such guests charged for damage posting a negative review in a 12 year period. Firstly, in response to [LIE #1], all of the 89 five star and 19 four star reviews at Siesta Breakers #603 were from actual paying guests, many of which were returning guests, and not from family and friends as this disingenuous guest purposefully implies to present the appearance of fake reviews. Siesta Breakers #603 has a 4.7 star average, and from 2007 to 2018 has had 344 guests, of which 53.4% were returning guests. One 3 star, and one 1 star review (this guest) were submitted by disgruntled guests who were charged for damage made to the unit. The second 1 star review was from a disgruntled guest seeking a rental discount due to extended pool closure for repairs due to weather conditions, both out of my control, and no such eventuality compensation was offered in the guest's rental agreement. Secondly, in response to [LIE #2], Siesta Breakers #603 was not the only unit available for rent in Siesta Key from Apr 20th to 27th as purposefully stated by this disingenuous guest, "Unfortunately this was one of the only units in Siesta Key that was still available for the Easter break.", an outright lie, as there were still plenty of units available for rent when he made his reservation on Feb 13th, and that was 66 days prior to his arrival, and this disingenuous guest chose to rent Siesta Breakers because of the attractive rental rate and the location. Thirdly, in response to [LIE #3], it is not dark in the unit by any stretch of the imagination, as this disingenuous guest purposefully implies, with floor-to-ceiling and 14 foot wall-to-wall impact sliding glass doors in the living room accessing a screened lanai, lighting is not a problem. Fourthly, this disingenuous guest purposefully stating that "you are staring at a concrete wall from almost anywhere in the condo" is just blatant stupidity. The way that the two Siesta Breakers buildings were constructed offers owners and guests privacy when sitting on the lanais, with the lanais of both buildings not facing each other, but all facing toward the Gulf of Mexico. Fifthly, in response to [LIE #4] and [LIE #5], the rugs in the bedrooms are not old as this disingenuous guest purposefully assumes. The rugs just went through 16 weeks of prime season non-stop use, and were last cleaned in January, and again in June, done as usual each year. Sixthly, in response to [LIE #6 & #7], it is all about appearance, so any lanai screen damage is unacceptable, no matter how small the hole, non-blended spot paint touch-ups on the lanai floor also unacceptable, and handymen in Sarasota do not work cheap. The Lanai floor was painted at the end of January and this disingenuous guest's response to the probable cause of the lanai floor damage, "The only thing we could think of was sunscreen?" If so, why did this disingenuous guest not clean it up, when the spill occurred, whatever it was, because my cleaner could not remove it? Seventhly, in response to [LIE #8] and [LIE #9], this disgruntled guest still does have a security deposit problem, after having the $185 cost to repair of the damage done to the unit by his family deducted from his security deposit, the remaining balance is held pending the return of the unit keys, and this disingenuous guest's purposeful comment, "Either way the charges to repaint the whole Lanai floor and replace the entire screen panel added up perfectly to the few hundred dollar security deposit.", which is just another outright lie, because this disingenuous guest was advised of the total damage repair cost, was supplied with a copy of the handyman's $185 invoice, and knows well that $106 of his $291 security deposit remains. Eighthly, in response to [LIE #10] this disingenuous guest knew that WiFi was not provided in the unit, but complimentary Siesta Breakers WiFi was available in the pool area, as clearly advertised. Guests at Siesta Breakers #603 over the years prefer the generous discounts offered from the rental office rental rate, and realize that if WiFi was offered in the unit, those discounts would be reduced accordingly to pay for that WiFi. I also do not own Xfinity WiFi, so any review complaints about Xfinity WiFi service quality are irrelevant in a Siesta Breakers #603 review. Below is my comment to a guest who complained about Xfinity WiFi that this disingenuous guest is referring to. “In my opinion if a guest has a complaint about the Comcast WiFi service, they should complain to Comcast and obtain a full or partial refund, not complain about the Comcast WiFi service in a non-related rental property review.” Ninthly, in response to [LIE #11], as clearly stated in the rental agreement, I was not obligated to refund a guest’s rent because of the pool closure, a result of delayed repairs due to poor weather conditions. Lastly, in response to [LIE #12] this disgruntled guest departed the unit on Sat Apr 27th and today is Wed Aug 28th, 123 days later, and he still has not returned the 2 ASSA security keys that were sent to him to be able to access the unit, as he stated he would in an e-mail on May 23rd, which in my opinion now also makes him a petty thief Vic Wasiliw