You can use this form to reply to the above review or a displayed comment on the above review.
Oliver Jaques
229-231 Lower Road
Surrey Quays,London
Greater London
SE16 2LW
0207 231 5050
Services | Valuation Accuracy | Fees Satisfaction | Min Price of property reviewed | Max Price of property reviewed |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sales | 98% | 99% | £188,000 | £3,500,000 |
Lettings | 94% | 98% | £360 | £3,200 |
From Landlords | From Tenants | From Vendors | From Buyers | Other | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
56 | 3 | 151 | 4 | 113 | 0 | 74 | 3 | 12 | 2 |
Equivalent of One Weeks' Rent
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:36 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings ManagerEquivalent of Five Weeks' Rent
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:37 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Letting ManagerEquivalent of Six Weeks' Rent - (Non Housing Act Tenancies and AST's where annual rent is above £50,000)
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:38 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings ManagerCompany Tenancies and Non-Housing Act Tenancies (Including Referencing and Contracts)
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:39 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings Manager£108 - £150 dependent on property size. (Non Housing Act Tenancies or AST's where annual rent exceeds £50,000)
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:41 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings NegotiatorAbove Base Rate of the Bank of England when Rent is 14 days late.
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:41 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings ManagerLandlord Reference when requested by tenant (Non Housing Act Tenancies and AST's where rent exceeds £50,000 annually)
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:43 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings ManagerAmendments or Changes to the tenancy where requested by the tenant.
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:44 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings ManagerLost Keys / Security Devices will be charged at cost of replacement + £30 administration fee
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:45 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings ManagerEarly Termination of Tenancy - If, for any reason, you request your landlord to agree to ending the tenancy earlier than the end date set out in the tenancy agreement (or in line with any break clause included in the tenancy agreement) then he/she does not have to agree to this. However, should your landlord agree, then he/she can ask you to reimburse him/her for any financial loss he/she might suffer as a result. This may include………….. Equivalent of letting fee already paid to the agent by the landlord from the date you wish to end your tenancy until the date the tenancy ends contractually (variable) as well as the New Tenancy Set Up Fee of £360 inclusive of VAT.
Last updated on 03/06/2019, 1:46 PM by Stephen Banks MARLA - Lettings Manager
We would therefore like to take this opportunity to advise the background of this review and what actually happened. With regards to the issue with the tenancy agreement this was sent out by post to the tenant shortly after her tenancy commenced, she did not advise us that she had not received it. The only time we were aware of this fact was shortly after she gave her notice to vacate the property , she attended the office and requested a copy of it.
It is correct that there was an issue with the boiler in the property, however the landlord has a repair policy on the boiler, and the delay with the repair was due to the company that covered the boiler. The cover on the boiler did not include the annual gas safety check on the boiler, so when this was due we instructed our own approved gas safe engineers to carry out the check. They found a problem with the boiler and switched it off. We then instructed the company who supply the cover to attend, they incorrectly refused to attend as they said another company should not have touched the boiler. We did ask the original contractor to attend but they could not repair it and advised that the company supplying the cover should be attending as if they do not include the safety inspection within the cover then of course somebody else would have to touch it to carry out the gas safety inspection. Eventually the company supplying the cover did attend and repair the boiler, as the tenant had been inconvenienced it was one of our staff members that actually attended the property to allow access to the company on their own time. We also left the tenants with a bottle of champagne and two glasses by way of an apology for their inconvenience. With regards to the compensation, an email was sent to the tenants offering them £90.00 compensation and asking them if this was acceptable, the tenants never responded to the request, which is why this was not processed. The review mentions that we never acted until they contacted Citizens Advice Bureau, again this is incorrect as the tenants were kept updated of what was going on at all times, there is email evidence to prove this. The tenants did contact Southwark Council who in turn contacted us, we updated Southwark Council with what was happening and they thanked us for doing everything in our power to resolve the matter as quickly as possible and that all of our hard work was truly appreciated, again we have the emails from Southwark Council to confirm this.
Once the issue with the boiler was resolved the tenant ( there were 2 ) emailed in to thank the staff member who dealt with the repair ( It was not Ms Pauli) the tenant expressed that he personally appreciated the way the staff member had given them all of their time as well as sacrificing their private time to deal with the issue. As before we do have the email to substantiate this.
As I have addressed above there were two tenants in this property, the reviewer has left the property and been replaced by another tenant. When we contacted the former tenant for more information regarding the review we were advised by her that she understood the issue with the boiler was not our fault personally but it was unpleasant and that she appreciated that we had attended the flat to oversee the repairs and also the champagne left for her. She did however advise that she was unhappy with the emails that she had received from Miss Pauli and also complained that she had been unhappy with how things were dealt with on the telephone. As we do take any complaints very seriously, we asked the tenant to forward in the dates of the calls (so we could listen to the recordings) and also to forward in the emails so we could deal with her complaint accordingly. The reviewer has ignored all of our emails and not provided us with any of the information we requested to substantiate her claims. We have checked all of Miss Pauli’s email contact between herself and the reviewer and cannot see any reason for complaint. The only dealings that Miss Pauli had with the reviewer was when she wanted to vacate the property which was not a straight forward procedure as the other tenant wanted to remain in the property, and her deposit was also held with the DPS which due to it being a change in tenancy was not a straight forward process for her share to be refunded. We do have to follow certain procedures with such changes in tenancies and can only apologise if the tenant felt it was a difficult process.