Matt, thank you so much for your kind review, its much appreciated. Mike White - Director

Dear Kattrina, your review comes as something of a disappointment, as in your near 3 year tenancy, all issues you’ve raised, for example, in respect of property maintenance have been dealt with on a timely basis and in an efficient manner. However, you clearly felt it necessary to leave your review and I would be very pleased to discuss this with you to get a better understanding of why. It is always our intention to have a good, cordial working relationship with tenants and if we can improve upon this, I’m more than happy to listen. Perhaps you would care to give me a call on 01603 766860. Thanks. Mike White – Director, Martin & Co Norwich.

Dear Mrs Bush, I am afraid from our perspective this is not a true reflection of events. Detailed emails were sent to yourselves and addressed all relevant questions. When you phoned the office, I was unfortunately otherwise engaged at the time but as my colleague explained, it would be better for correspondence to be put in writing so that both parties had a written record of what had been discussed. You also state that we failed to answer your questions, but you should appreciate we are unable to discuss matters regarding former Tenants with you as this would be a direct breach of GDPR legislation. With regard to the wood burner issue, this was checked by an appropriately qualified HETAS registered engineer two days prior to your Tenancy commencing and was confirmed to be in full working order with no issues/faults noted at that time. When you raised an issue with us, several months after the start of your tenancy, the engineer re-attended and took steps to ensure the wood burner was in a safe state whilst not being used, which in any event you confirmed you had no intention of using the appliance. With the wasps, we had simply asked you to confirm if there was evidence of a nest or whether it was a few stray wasps. Again, once confirmed there was an evidence of a nest, your landlord arranged for their contractor to remediate this promptly. I am sorry that you have felt the need to leave this review but it appears to be as a direct result of your former landlord wishing to seek legitimate deductions from your deposit, for which they have independent evidence to justify, rather than a review of our actual services. As you know, there is a clear process to have any deposit dispute independently assessed by a qualified adjudicator and we await you to confirm the use of this service offered by the DPS . Matthew White - Director

My name is Michael White and I am a director at Martin & Co Norwich and I would be more than happy to meet with you personally to discuss your perceived issue. We obviously want everyone who engages with us to be treated respectfully and politely and our staff are highly trained in this respect. However, I am a little unsure what the basis of your above complaint is; I 'witnessed' the telephone call you made and I believe my colleague spoke with you in a very professional, polite manner throughout your conversation and was simply trying to ascertain whether your requirements met with those of our landlord client. It seemed to me, from the side of the conversation I heard, those respective requirements didn't match and we weren't able to assist you, at which point you ended the conversation. As I say, I'm happy to meet with you to discuss if you would like to.

Naima, I am sorry you feel this way. Our reaction to your enquiry was based solely on the information you gave us on the telephone and having listened back to the recording, I can see that we were polite, courteous and willing to assist if possible. My staff member certainly didn't 'want to stop your application straightaway' they simply wanted to save you the time of undertaking a viewing when based on the criteria we use, we would not have been able to pass you through the referencing process. By asking the questions we do at the enquiry stage, we are only trying to save people from greater disappointment later. All agencies have different referencing criteria and our clients' employ us because ours is among the most thorough. Your above review states that you have proof of your income from the French Government, this is different to what you advised us on the phone but clearly, I can't divulge in a public forum what you told us or your employment status. Normally, in these situations if an enquirer is unable to understand the reasons given, I am only too happy to speak with them myself to provide a further explanation in the hope that they will accept the reasoning even if I'm unable to assuage their disappointment. However, when accused of being 'ridiculous', ''pathetic' and worse still, practicing 'racism' I do not feel it would be appropriate to engage in further conversation in this instance. Even if you were acceptable from a referencing standpoint, how could we now possibly recommend to a valued client that they should engage in a business relationship with someone who is quick to make spurious and defamatory statements? Michael White - Director Martin & Co

Dear Charlotte, It is unfortunate this matter has resulted in the requested deposit deductions having to be referred to the formal adjudication process. It is never our intention for matters to reach this stage and we much prefer to be in a situation where the full deposit is promptly returned to a Tenant. However, in cases where remedial works are required at the end of a tenancy as a result of a Tenant’s actions or inactions and where supported by fully independent, written and photographic evidence, we are duly bound to act for our Landlord client in recovering the reasonable costs they have incurred in addressing these issues. Our emails to you on this subject have been factual and polite but firm. Since we cannot reach a sensible agreement, the matter is being put forward to a fully independent adjudicator*. In the meantime, while I note your comments regarding the release of the undisputed amount of deposit, please be assured we have not delayed this process and the release of said amount by the DPS awaits action by yourself - as it has for the past 3 weeks. Michael White - Director, Martin & Co Norwich *15/2/2019. Update the independent adjudicator has found in your landlord's favour in the majority of the items and amounts claimed.....

I am at a loss to know who you are and what your specific issue is? If you would care to identify yourself by contacting me on 01603 766860, I will be happy to discuss the matter with you. In the meantime, I can only surmise that you are a prospective viewer, who enquired about one of the properties we have listed, and unfortunately your circumstances did not match the requirements set out to us by our Landlord Client. Given our primary Client is the Landlord (hence why there is a weighting of reviews by landlords) we are bound by their requirements and restrictions as to who they are looking to let their properties to. I appreciate this sometimes can leave a prospective tenant feeling slightly aggrieved but when explaining such to them, I am wholly confident that all team members here are polite and courteous. Mike White - Director

I’m slightly surprised that its taken two years after the tenancy ended for this former tenant to make these negative comments. Unfortunately, on the very rare occasions when the expectations of our landlord clients are not met by the actions of their tenants, we find ourselves on the receiving end of some very spurious remarks, as in this case. Ignoring the personal slights which are egregious to say the least, the fact is the tenancy ran to term and there was no payment made ‘to get out’. This exemplifies the reason why a discerning landlord should select an agent who actually cares about the welfare of their property and their tenants (even if said tenant doesn’t understand such) but who doesn’t buckle in the wake of personal onslaughts. Mike White - Director, Martin & Co Norwich

Dear Charlotte, It is unfortunate this matter has resulted in the requested deposit deductions having to be referred to the formal adjudication process. It is never our intention for matters to reach this stage and we much prefer to be in a situation where the full deposit is promptly returned to a Tenant. However, in cases where remedial works are required at the end of a tenancy as a result of a Tenant’s actions or inactions and where supported by fully independent, written and photographic evidence, we are duly bound to act for our Landlord client in recovering the reasonable costs they have incurred in addressing these issues. Our emails to you on this subject have been factual and polite but firm. Since we cannot reach a sensible agreement, the matter is being put forward to a fully independent adjudicator*. In the meantime, while I note your comments regarding the release of the undisputed amount of deposit, please be assured we have not delayed this process and the release of said amount by the DPS awaits action by yourself - as it has for the past 3 weeks. Michael White - Director, Martin & Co Norwich *15/2/2019. Update the independent adjudicator has found in your landlord's favour in the majority of the items and amounts claimed.....