We have no record of Mark or Elizabeth asclients of our business. We believe this review has been left in error.

Mike, thank you for taking the time to write your review for a property where Martin & Co does not provide a management service, limiting our role to that of finding and securing a tenant. You are correct in stating that Martin & Co chased you for rent due for the room which we had completed your application for as we were not aware that you had not been allowed to move in. The first time that we were made aware of this was when you informed us and made us aware that you had agreed to stay in an alternative room, agreed with your landlord directly without our knowledge (neither you nor your landlord had previously informed us of that arrangement). When we contacted your landlord regarding the issue, she confirmed that she had agreed to reimburse you as compensation in cash. We then received your rent payment through which was short. When we chased this, you then advised us that you had not received the full reimbursement. Again, this was not a matter that we were party to. We then verified with this with the landlord, she agreed and this was then reflected on your account correctly. Upon vacation, your landlord has checked the room that you had lived in and proposed deductions from your deposit. You have not been charged for a replacement blind but a £25 cleaning cost, which the landlord has since reduced to £20, in order to reach a resolution. The remainder of your deposit has been returned to you. We await further instruction from the landlord regarding the disputed £20 amount for cleaning your room based on the checkout carried out by her with further evidence of this. Whilst we recognise that you were inconvenienced early in your tenancy, and you are in discussion with your landlord in relation to your security deposit, none of these matters fell within our responsibility as the property was self-managed by your landlord. It is important that reviews properly reflect the facts and are directed towards the person or organisation that was responsible. In this case we were not, and we acted correctly once we were in possession of the facts.

Sometimes reviews are wilfully unfair, despite clear communication from my team to the tenant about how to resolve their issue. This review is an example of unfair feedback that relates to a matter over which my team had no responsibility to act.. Shufen and his flat mate picked-up keys to their new home on Saturday 15 June at around 10am. By around mid day his flat mate returned to the office, very angry, shouting at staff members and demanding action was taken as they believed the hot water system to be broken. It was explained that the property was managed by the landlord and not by Martin & Co, and we showed the tenant the where to find the landlord's contact details in their tenancy agreement. We also reminded the tenant that he and Shufen had been informed that the property was landlord managed in previous written communication. Sufen and his house mate called and left messages for their landlord, and called the office again complaining that they were unable to get through, and became verbally quite aggressive with female staff members. We later spoke with the landlord who visited the same day, and confirmed that the hot water system had been fully validated as functional 24 hours prior to the Shufen and his flat mate moved in. My office has since heard nothing further from Shufen, suggesting that the issue was resolved by their landlord. Despite us explaining that we had no management responsibility, Shufen continued to leave a 1 star review despite my staff performing their responsibilities fully and politely in the face of shouting and aggressive behaviour.

Gioia, the deposit deductions awarded to the landlord by the DPS reflected evidence provided to them from an independent check-out report detailing condition at the end o your tenancy. Deposit negotiations are between a landlord and tenant, as managing agent we are duty bound to remain impartial. The DPS arbitrated a dispute between you and your landlord a process that is entirely independent of Martin & Co. The arbitrator stated that the award of costs to the landlord was 'given the amount of cleaning required at check out and at check in, I find the claimed sum is reasonable ahd justified'. It further states ' I find the rest of the claimed sums are reasonable and justified'. In future, I would encourage you to maintain your rental property in a better state of cleanliness and avoid doing damage that may result in deposit retentions.

We have no record of Mark or Elizabeth asclients of our business. We believe this review has been left in error.