Dear Lily, Thank you for your feedback. Your name is not our in our system. Nevertheless, considering the timing and the deductions that you mentioned (£280 for cleaning and £100 for damages), we could assume that you relate to the tenancy at ** C*********on Street. You, using various different pseudonyms, have posted reviews relating to this tenancy, which they have been eventually removed from the various platform due to their harassing nature toward female and male members of our team, and lack of evidence. Please refer to our accounts of the events: The tenant of this tenancy removed a male occupier due to claims of domestic abuse. At the time our team members were abused by the removed person, who in fact was not more than a occupier who had been lawfully removed by the rightful tenant. At the end of the tenancy the property was thoroughly inspected by a third party certified inventory clerk (as all our managed properties are inspected). The tenant was invited to comment on the draft of the Inventory and Condition report. The tenant did not make any comments. Based on this report, a claim was made before SafeDeposits Scotland. SafeDeposit Scotland emailed the tenants on 29-Mar-22 confirming the agent claim, and gave them the opportunity to comment and submit reasonable evidence to support their case. A day later (30-Mar-22) the tenant accepted the proposal. Based on this acceptance, the funds were transferred to us, and we in turn transferred these funds to the landlord. With regards of the washing machine and hub, our team organised attendance to the property within 24 hours of they being reported by the tenant. In both instances a new appliance was installed within a week of the initial report. Unfortunately these new appliances were very badly damaged by the tenant after being installed. These damages were once again documented by the third party inventory and condition report above mentioned. In summary 1. The ex-tenant of this property: a. Had an abusive relationship. We advised the tenant on best steps to remove the allegedly permitted occupier. We have written and recorded phone calls to support this. b. Damaged a property well beyond fair wear and tear, which was documented by a third party, including reports, pictures and videos. c. Had the opportunity of comment after the claim for damages was made before SafeDeposits Scotland. Nevertheless the tenant agreed with the claim within 24 hours of the proposal being sent by SafeDeposits Scotland. d. Have had throughout the tenancy, and even after the tenancy has come to an end, the opportunity to make any complaint in accordance to the industry standard. That could include making a formal complaint before The Property Ombudsman, the independent redress body that we belong to. 2. The ex-permitted occupier: a. Harassed our team members during and after the tenancy to the point that they had to be reported to the authorities. b. Have had throughout the tenancy, and even after the tenancy has come to an end, the opportunity to make any complaint in accordance to the industry standard. That could include making a formal complaint before The Property Ombudsman, the independent redress body that we belong to. 3. You (the author of this review), acting on behalf of either the tenant or the permitted occupier (we are unable to determine this because, once again, you’re using multiple pseudonyms): a. Have harassed our female and male team members, and made false claims against them. These team members, who have worked extremely hard to look after our customers, including the tenants and the landlord, have suffered emotionally due to your unfounded comments. b. Have failed to meaningful engage with us. We hope that our accounts of the events brings a more balance view of this situation. If you wish to discuss this further, please contact me directly on 01224-974140. Kind regards, Eduardo Prato Director Martin & Co Aberdeen