Thank you for your review Mr Macleod. It's been a pleasure working with you.

Thank you for your unfortunate and unwarranted review which I will elaborate on in detail based on your comments, whilst also offering our perspective on the situation.

‘we were totally let down when we made a decision to sell our house .
We were told to get on with it ourselves they would not get involved with any side of it at all.’

As you are aware, we are letting agents and not estate agents. We cannot decide who you wish to represent the sale of your property, and being letting agents we cannot facilitate the sale. Your above statement is an opinion not based on facts. The facts of the matter are that from the moment you decided that you wished to sell the property, we were ‘involved’ as we had to issue notice to the tenants as per your instruction, and try to coordinate home report appointments and viewings with the rather disgruntled tenants in order for your property to go through the appropriate stages in order to facilitate any possible sale. Had you got on with it yourself, you would have been the one issuing notice as well as organising home report appointments and viewings.

‘Which made it very difficult as our tenants were extremely difficult to work with, not allowing anyone to enter the house by not being in or just not allowing any viewings until they did move out.’

The tenants had been in the property for over two years and were unhappy about the situation of being issued notice on the basis that you wished to sell the property, and THEY were extremely difficult to work with from OUR perspective as it was our agency who had to try and appease them so that the home report and viewings could go ahead. When they fundamentally stated that they would not provide access for the home report on advice allegedly given by their own estate agent, it was our agency that reminded them of their legal obligation for the landlord to gain access. The facts show that our involvement aided the process of you potentially selling your property, and the TENANTS made the process difficult.

'Lomond letting allowed them to leave so much rubbish in the loft and garage that it cost us well over £500 to get removed. Some of this rubbish was from previous tenants that Lomond letting had told us they were sorting out.'

We do not ‘ALLOW’ tenants to leave items. If any items are left, they form part of the exit report which a landlord is made aware of, and in this instance which you were made aware of as the digital inventory was sent to you with photographs of the internal aspect of the garage both showing the before and current state. Upon being given this information, this was not part of your deposit claim instructed to us, and rather other aspects were. I would also like to quote the disclaimer of this inventory that was sent to you for the last two exits that we have carried out;
...
''The inspector cannot undertake to move heavy items of furniture or to make searches in inaccessible locations such as loft spaces, cellars, locked rooms and high level cupboards, or to unpack items. Inspectors reserve the right not to handle or move items deemed to be fragile or valuable. In addition, the inspectors reserve the right not to handle items that may be of a health hazard and to generalise/summarise on such items deemed to be unsuitable for further inspection.''
...

'When we contacted them to ask about the rubbish we were asked “what do you want us to do about it”.'

This statement of opinion lacks the details of what transpired during the phone call. Despite what has been stated above regarding the exit inspection that you were in receipt of in order to instruct us as to what you wished to make a claim on, with rubbish not being a part of it, we still tried to assist you. Your quoting of ‘what do you want us to do about it’, was not a STATEMENT, which is the narrative that you are trying to drive, but rather an actual question based on the ongoing conversation prior to our agent asking you that question. The question was asked from our perspective due to the fact that you demanded that the items be removed on the day that you called us, to which we said we could have someone come and look at the issue but that it could not be that day. You stated that that wasn’t good enough, to which we stated that the tradesperson was not available when you wanted him to be, which lead to the question of what you would like us to do in this situation. You decided at that point to terminate the call.

Upon looking at the home report which is public domain, and of which I will further go into detail later, I can see that the surveyor entered the loft space on 9/6/2022, and also on 29/10/2022 as part of the home report refresh. Also I can see that as part of the home report refresh, that the surveyor noted that;

‘Since our original inspection, the vendor has removed the spray foam insulated from the sparking timbers within the roof void. Some insulation remnants remain which should also be fully removed / cleared’

I would think that £500 worth of ‘so much rubbish in the loft and garage’ (of which again, you were furnished with the garage pictures as part of the exit report and chose not to claim for) would impact the works carried out in the loft space, which was observed as being carried out prior to 29/10/2022, and your call to us being within the last few weeks.

'I was then put on speaker phone while everyone on the office had a good laugh.'

Everyone ‘on’ the office that day, was that of two agents only at the time of your call. One was an administrative assistant, and the other, one of the directors. The call went onto speakerphone so that one of the directors of the company could also speak with you at the request of our administrative assistant due to the lack of resolution and your tone. To state that we ‘had a good laugh’ is factually incorrect, and ultimately defamatory as nothing about the conversation was humorous in any form, and ultimately came to an abrupt halt by you.

'I would never recommend them to anyone now, which I had often done in the past,'

So in summary, you had recommended us before but now choose not too based on;

1. We did not assist with the sale of your property.

Of which you can see from the above that we did.

2. The tenants being difficult to work with.

This in no way should impact your view on us as an agency. The tenants are a separate entity to our agency and their decision(s) are that of their own. We facilitated the viewings on all interested potential tenants for your property and carried out all suitable checks, of which you selected them to be your tenants.

3. The tenants leaving items in the property.

You were furnished with the exit report that included before and after pictures of the garage, along with the disclaimer regarding the loft space, of which multiple people have been in since the end of the last tenancy making the timeline of it being brought to our attention puzzling, and as per the disclaimer, ultimately redundant.

4. You feel that we did not deal with a situation and have ultimately accused of unprofessionalism...

We offered to have some attend and look at the issue. This did not meet your timescale, which frankly was not possible. Your accusation of unprofessionalism is the only thing of humour at this stage.

'I felt that I only got service when I was paying for it not because there was any customer care even after 14 years with them.'

As an agency, we provide a service to our clients for an agreeable sum(s), however it is our intention to make all of our clients feel that we are handling their affairs with care. What our clients perception is of that is something we cannot control, just like in this instance.

I feel that your review has ultimately lacked key details and not been wholly truthful, and after looking at your home report questionnaire (carried out by the owner(s)), which is public domain, that trend looks to have also continued given our collective knowledge of the property history from when we managed it.

From what I can see, your property has been on the sales market from June 2022, in what can only be described as a dream market for sellers up until recent times, and is still live at this time.

The tenants vacated the property within the first week of June 2022. The home report also shows that the roof is a CATEGORY THREE issue, which potential buyers will STRONGLY take into consideration due to the cost implications compared to other areas of the report.

I feel given the recent shift in the sales market, you are lashing out at us as we have a platform, and from the above have not hindered in any way the possible sale of your property or lack thereof. We do however hope that you do sell the property as we believed we had a good working relationship and would want that for you. If it doesn’t sell then hopefully you end up with a letting agent that you would recommend based on your criteria above.

There has never been any malice from our agency toward you or any of our clients. It is our duty to respond in kind when someone gives us a review that is defamatory, without fact and seemingly personal over whatever you feel we have done to wrong you in some way. We have clarified our stance on this matter and again wish you well moving forward.

Thank you for your review Mr Swales. It was a pleasure dealing with such an efficient Landlord and we look forward to working together in future if the opportunity presents itself.

Deposit claim was put through SDS for broken glass door and cleaning of laminate flooring as items such as kirby's, coins, fluff, soiled areas and even a Balloon were present. Tenant disputed claim, adjudicators awarded claim to the agent based on the sufficient evidence presented. All was done in line with Legislation. Such as shame you feel the need to try and slander our company based on your wrong doing.

Thank you for your review Ronnie. It has been a pleasure doing business with you :)