Tenant reports the issue
However it arrives today — a call, a text, an email, a portal you already have — it lands in one inbox tied to a property and a unit.
Exact Apps / Property management / Maintenance
Keep your property-management system. Fix the maintenance handoff.
The portfolio is large enough that texts and a spreadsheet hurt, and not so large that you want to rip out AppFolio, Buildium, DoorLoop, or Yardi. Rent and leases can stay. The request still needs an owner, a vendor, and a status that is not trapped in someone's phone.
Built for the gap between "tenant reported it" and "the work is done and the tenant knows."
Property maintenance request tracking fails in the gaps: who owns it, whether the vendor accepted, whether the estimate needs approval, and whether the tenant was told.
However it arrives today — a call, a text, an email, a portal you already have — it lands in one inbox tied to a property and a unit.
Urgency, a named owner, and enough detail to dispatch. Missing photos and notes stay on the request instead of in a personal thread.
Assignment, acceptance, a visit time, reminders, the estimate, the approval, the invoice, and the note back to the tenant.
If a request sits in "waiting on vendor" past the reminder, it escalates to the owner of the request. It does not wait for the tenant to ask again.
The March leak and the September leak are the same story. Repeat issues show up before you dispatch the same repair a third time.
Acceptance, scheduling, estimates, invoices, and a reminder when insurance or another credential is about to lapse.
A threshold you set. Under it, the work proceeds. Over it, the request waits in the open, not in an email you meant to forward.
A status they can understand: received, scheduled, done. You are not retyping the same update into a text.
A tenant can describe the issue in plain language and attach a photo. The system can ask for what your rules say is missing — which unit, whether there is water on the floor, whether the tenant is home — and suggest an urgency using rules you wrote.
It does not decide that a smell, a stain, or a crack is safe or dangerous. A person still triages anything that could hurt someone.
This is not a new property-management platform. If rent, leases, and owner statements already live in a system your team knows, leave them there. Maintenance coordination is the workflow that outgrew the group text.
Leasing, rent, and owner reporting are a wider conversation. That lives on the property management page. Start here if the pain is the work order, not the whole platform.
No. Keep the property-management system. We build the maintenance handoff it is not running well: inbox, vendor, schedule, approval, and close-out.
Yes. The property maintenance spreadsheet, the shared inbox, or a screenshot of the text thread is the brief. Import what you have. A connection to the PMS is scoped after we see it, not assumed.
They can keep reporting the way they do now. The change is that the report gets a property, a unit, an owner, and a status, instead of living as the last message in a thread.
Assignment, acceptance, a scheduled visit, reminders, the estimate, photos, the invoice, and a flag when insurance or another credential is about to expire.
Only by rules you define, such as "no heat below this temperature" or "active leak." It will not look at a photo and declare a condition safe. Your team still makes that call.
The spreadsheet, the inbox you use, or a description of the last request that slipped. Within 24 hours you'll see that handoff as a single workflow.
A spreadsheet of open work orders, a screenshot of the vendor texts, or the steps from "tenant called" to "invoice filed." We'll show you the maintenance workflow with one owner and one status.
You'll see a prototype of this maintenance workflow within 24 hours.