Mr Ellis, This review is not only malicious but disingenuous given it is factually incorrect. You had been made aware of issues regarding the condition of the property at the end of your Tenancy (which is not the month ago as you stated) and you had been notified we were awaiting costings for tenant incurred remedial works to enable a deposit proposal to be submitted. We never wish to unnecessarily delay the release of any deposit but you must surely appreciate during the current global situation, many things are taking longer than they would have previously. Contractor’s are extremely busy currently and are prioritising urgent matters over general remedial works as was the case here. Also factoring in the Easter Bank holidays, in reality only several working days had elapsed since the independent check was undertaken. With respect to your telephone call, it is not acceptable that a member of our team be faced with a grown man shouting down the phone at them. I fully support how the call was handled and terminated by my colleague politely and calmly advising you they were not prepared to continue a conversation when faced with your aggression. In any event, all of the remedial requirements were entirely within your own control and had the property been returned with only fair wear and tear, then no issues would have arisen. Matthew White - Director, Martin & Co Norwich

As a local independent family run agency, we work incredibly hard for our landlord clients to provide a high quality, value for money service. Without being complacent about our service levels, the Google Reviews from our landlords all endorse this. Looking more closely at this particular reviewer – at the time of writing this response – they have within a very short space of time (less than 4 weeks) reviewed 16 business entities in Norwich on a random basis; all with meaningless, unverifiable comments. It appears this person for whatever reasons of self-aggrandisement, is simply seeking to raise their own Google profile. We can only conclude therefore, given there is no other evidence of an online footprint for the reviewer and having no idea who they are, this review is wholly fake. Mike White – director, Martin & Co Norwich

Simon – Irrespective of your ‘Fact’ being, in fact, not true, your defamatory comment about Martin & Co’s mission is inane. At Martin & Co Norwich, we make it our mission to provide ethical and professional letting and management services to landlords and tenants alike. The many positive reviews from both landlords and tenants encourage us to continue to do so. Rightly, it does concern us when we receive negative reviews and I did try to contact you before posting this response to discuss the motivation behind yours. However, as you did not respond, I can only assume you prefer for this interaction to be played out publicly. Mike White - Director Martin & Co Norwich

Dear Miss McCorgray, Unfortunately, GDPR regulations do not allow for us to pass comment and respond to this (in our view) disingenuous rating in detail. This is disappointing given the circumstances.

Dear Mrs H I am sorry to have to publicly doubt what you are saying but good communication is a key factor for us and I can genuinely say, we have not received an email from you addressed to Martin & Co in Norwich. Also, your comments about a ‘friends daughter’ are slightly dubious to say the least. Unfortunately, in the absence of knowing who you are and with none of my staff being aware of the need to have a 'firm but polite' conversation with a potential tenant in recent weeks, your review in my honest opinion has all the hallmarks of being posted by a competitor seeking to deliberately do us down. However, if this is genuine, then I apologise and I would gladly be prepared to discuss your concerns and by all means please contact me in person on 01603 766860, I would be more than happy to discuss the matter with you. Mike White – Director. ***UPDATE*** 5 weeks on from my initial response and 'Mrs H' has not been in contact and because of the anonymity of the post, I have no means of contacting them. MW

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