Hello Joanna, I hope you are well and thank you for your recent review. I am sorry that you felt it necessary to write this. I have taken the time to review this chain of events relating to your application to take one of our rented properties and having read all written correspondents between yourself and my colleagues Luke and Iulia I have now been able to make an informed opinion on the claims you have made regarding our service standard. You made an offer to take the property on 22/6/17. My colleague Luke advised you at the viewing that all monies including rent and deposit were payable by the end of June including completion of referencing and signing the tenancy agreement. It is common for us to look to complete transactions for both tenants and landlords within a very short but realistic timeframe to ensure everyone is offered security that the deal has been completed nice and early. Iulia sent an email to you on 23/6/17 confirming this arrangement in writing and making it very clear what had been agreed. Subsequently I understand that you then spoke with Iulia and then Luke regarding payment of this money and completion of this deal and it became apparent that you couldn't afford to pay both the rent and deposit. At the time this conversation came about we had already had both you and Daniel fully referenced and had drafted the tenancy agreement ready for completion. The comments you have made with regards to the tenancy agreement being continually sent to you is slightly inaccurate. We use docusign for sending all of our agreements. Docusign will send you daily reminder that there is a document outstanding for signature until it is signed. When it became clear that you were not going to be proceeding with this application we then voided this agreement for you. I am of course sorry that we were not able to secure this property for you. It is clear that at some point there has been a breakdown in communication and some of this has led to this unfortunate circumstance. I am however clear that my staff have followed normal procedure when processing your application and I am sorry if you believe that any of the staff were rude in dealing with your concerns. It is not typical that any of our staff will be unhelpful or rude to tenants or landlords and I am sure this was not at all the intention. I wish you well with your new tenancy and hope you are settled. Best regards Richard

Gabriella, Martin & Co is open to feedback both positive and negative, however, it is important that it is fair and accurately attributed. Martin & Co does not have any management responsibility for the property that you occupied, it is managed directly by the landlord, with whom you had a direct relationship. For your tenancy Martin & Co’s role ended on the day you signed your tenancy agreement which was before you took possession of the property. Thereafter, as we clearly communicated to you, any matters relating to your tenancy and the property were the direct responsibility of your landlord. We had no role whatsoever. I am sorry that you feel your landlord did not respond as you would have expected, however, it is unfair to criticise Martin & Co given we had no management mandate. Kind regards, Bill Cooper, Director

Charlotte, I am sorry that you feel our service was below the standard we aspire to deliver. The lettings negotiator who showed you the property should have been able to answer these straightforward questions. I apologise that he was poorly prepared. The rental property market in Oxford is busy and dynamic. As agent we are duty bound to put forward each offer received from tenants to the landlord, it is for the landlord to accept or reject offers. Many of our properties will be viewed multiple time a day, and offers received will each be communicated to the landlord. Unfortunately, sometimes there is advantage to be gained from being the first to offer. Bill Cooper, Director

Oh Dear, it is disappointing when a supplier like Mr Fry is unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. Below is the text of the email we recently sent to Mr Fry to explain why we were unwilling to pay him for his service. We have an extensive list of trusted suppliers with whom we have long-term relationships, they deliver quality service and can be relied upon. Mr Fry has shown himself to fall below the high standards we require and will not be used in future. Email text below: Dear Michael, Further to your call earlier this week, I have spoken with our Director, Bill Cooper, regarding this matter. Below is a timeline of events and communication between you and I regarding this job which has resulted in unsatisfactory work; 19th January – I raised the job to you to quote to clean the windows and surrounds, initially just the ground floor front and back 22nd January – I sent you the photos you had asked for in order to provide a quote 24th January – you provide a price 1st February – I asked if this includes the surrounds and asks for a price to do the whole house 2nd February – you replied ‘windows and frames £80’ therefore I have to ask if this is for the whole house, you don’t reply 5th February – I email you to book the job in to do all the windows and frames on the whole property “upstairs and down” and ask if this can be done on Wednesday 7th February, you say you cannot go that day but do not specify when you can attend 6th February – I ask if you can collect keys when you attend as I explain I don’t think that there is side access to get to the rear of the property 9th February – you email to say that you “got round the back and did the job yesterday” (suggesting the 8th February) and sent an invoice for £96. As I have already explained to you, you can’t have ‘got round the back’ as there isn’t side access and you did not collect the key. As well as this, due to not being told that you would attend on 8th February 22nd February – I ask you if you did indeed complete the job given that the occupant of the upstairs flat has reported that the windows have not been cleaned 26th February – I chase you for a response 7th March – You respond to say that the upstairs flat was not included and that it was just the bottom that you had done. This is clearly not what I had asked given that I explicitly stated in my emails of 2nd February and 5th February (copies attached) that it was for the whole house. You and I spoke about this on the phone and you advised that you would go back within a couple of weeks to do the upstairs windows as per your quote. 3rd April – I chase you to ask when you are going to go back to do the upstairs windows as discussed, you don’t respond. The landlord instructs an alternative window cleaner to attend to clean the upstairs and rear windows as you had failed to confirm that you will and can still attend. You then attend in June, again without any notice being given to us or to the tenant, claim that you cleaned the windows and demand payment for your invoice. As I am sure you can appreciate given the evidence above, the job was not completed as per the quote and was not completed within a reasonable timeframe resulting in the landlord having to pay somebody else to do the work. Due to the unsatisfactory work completed by MRF cleaning, we will not be paying the invoice for £96.

Thank you for your review. I understand your frustrations. It was your landlord who requested for a 12 month fixed agreement at the renewal point. Your contract is with the landlord and not with Martin & Co we act purely on the instruction of the landlord. Early termination is a breach of the tenancy agreement, and the implication in terms of cost to the tenancy of such breach is detailed in the tenancy agreement which you reviewed and signed. We use an independent specialist company for inventory reports and check-out reports who applies industry professional standards to the assessment of property condition both before and after tenancies. Our landlords act on their professional advice in matters related to end of tenancy matters. Whilst you do not have a legal right to be present during a check-out inspection, had you requested to be present in advance we would have informed you of the time and date of the inspection. Our standard practice in relation to keys, is for keys to be returned to our office to provide proof of return to those tenants, to avoid any doubt that they have returned the full set of keys issued to them at the start of their tenancy. Most tenants recognise that the process protects their position. Security deposit negotiation is between the tenant and their landlords as the two parties to the tenancy agreement. As agent, our role is to advise the parties as required, but to take instruction from our client, the landlords. It can prove frustrating for all parties if there is a delay in either party responding to the other, and we do all we can to expedite the process. In your case, your deposit was registered with the DPS and the DPS terms and conditions were provided to you along with the new AST to be reviewed and signed. This document details everything you need to know about the scheme and about your deposit. Once you raised frustration with the return of your deposit, you were reminded of these terms in order to refer to them and provided with them again by your property manager and then again by the branch manager but unfortunately you failed to make contact with the DPS. You recently claimed that the DPS failed to contact you but it was explained to you by Martin & Co and by the DPS terms provided that you are responsible for ensuring that your current contact details are updated directly with the DPS. Should you wish to take this matter further, you would need to do so directly with the DPS as Martin & Co have provided you with the information and documentation you have needed at every opportunity.

Sometimes reviews are wilfully unfair, despite clear communication from my team to the tenant about how to resolve their issue. This review is an example of unfair feedback that relates to a matter over which my team had no responsibility to act.. Shufen and his flat mate picked-up keys to their new home on Saturday 15 June at around 10am. By around mid day his flat mate returned to the office, very angry, shouting at staff members and demanding action was taken as they believed the hot water system to be broken. It was explained that the property was managed by the landlord and not by Martin & Co, and we showed the tenant the where to find the landlord's contact details in their tenancy agreement. We also reminded the tenant that he and Shufen had been informed that the property was landlord managed in previous written communication. Sufen and his house mate called and left messages for their landlord, and called the office again complaining that they were unable to get through, and became verbally quite aggressive with female staff members. We later spoke with the landlord who visited the same day, and confirmed that the hot water system had been fully validated as functional 24 hours prior to the Shufen and his flat mate moved in. My office has since heard nothing further from Shufen, suggesting that the issue was resolved by their landlord. Despite us explaining that we had no management responsibility, Shufen continued to leave a 1 star review despite my staff performing their responsibilities fully and politely in the face of shouting and aggressive behaviour.

Mike, thank you for taking the time to write your review for a property where Martin & Co does not provide a management service, limiting our role to that of finding and securing a tenant. You are correct in stating that Martin & Co chased you for rent due for the room which we had completed your application for as we were not aware that you had not been allowed to move in. The first time that we were made aware of this was when you informed us and made us aware that you had agreed to stay in an alternative room, agreed with your landlord directly without our knowledge (neither you nor your landlord had previously informed us of that arrangement). When we contacted your landlord regarding the issue, she confirmed that she had agreed to reimburse you as compensation in cash. We then received your rent payment through which was short. When we chased this, you then advised us that you had not received the full reimbursement. Again, this was not a matter that we were party to. We then verified with this with the landlord, she agreed and this was then reflected on your account correctly. Upon vacation, your landlord has checked the room that you had lived in and proposed deductions from your deposit. You have not been charged for a replacement blind but a £25 cleaning cost, which the landlord has since reduced to £20, in order to reach a resolution. The remainder of your deposit has been returned to you. We await further instruction from the landlord regarding the disputed £20 amount for cleaning your room based on the checkout carried out by her with further evidence of this. Whilst we recognise that you were inconvenienced early in your tenancy, and you are in discussion with your landlord in relation to your security deposit, none of these matters fell within our responsibility as the property was self-managed by your landlord. It is important that reviews properly reflect the facts and are directed towards the person or organisation that was responsible. In this case we were not, and we acted correctly once we were in possession of the facts.