Hi Sid, having investigated your concerns I can confirm that the person who originally called to book your viewing was advised the property was proving popular and so a block viewing on Thursday had been arranged. However, having then answered our pre-qualification questions they were informed they did not meet our referencing criteria and so no appointment was booked. When you called back to check if you were booked in, you were informed the same. We are sorry you did not meet the criteria and decided to leave a 1* review. However, we have a set referencing criteria which must be adhered to and so by asking the questions upfront we save everybody time in wasted viewings. Had we not asked the questions and having driven to and viewed the property you wished to go ahead, but we then told you you couldn't, then that most likely would have deserve a 1*... We wish you luck in finding a new home.

Hi Mishhhhmishhhh (?), as we do not know who you are and having read your review we can only conclude that either you have reviewed the wrong Martin & Co office (there are 190 independently owned and managed offices throughout the UK), or it is malicious. Fees charged prior to the tenant fee ban were always set at a fair level and in most instances below the local market rate, a draft tenancy agreement has always been sent out and is included within the pre application pack, with the actual tenancy agreement sent once the first months rent has been paid and the move in date agreed. We would therefore be grateful if you would remove your review and apply it to the correct office (you appear to be Yorkshire based?). Should you wish to discuss your review, we would welcome you to contact the office on 01706 648277 and speak with our office manager Emma. Best regards, Martin & Co Rochdale

Hi Sid, having investigated your concerns I can confirm that the person who originally called to book your viewing was advised the property was proving popular and so a block viewing on Thursday had been arranged. However, having then answered our pre-qualification questions they were informed they did not meet our referencing criteria and so no appointment was booked. When you called back to check if you were booked in, you were informed the same. We are sorry you did not meet the criteria and decided to leave a 1* review. However, we have a set referencing criteria which must be adhered to and so by asking the questions upfront we save everybody time in wasted viewings. Had we not asked the questions and having driven to and viewed the property you wished to go ahead, but we then told you you couldn't, then that most likely would have deserve a 1*... We wish you luck in finding a new home.

Hi Carlie, thank you for your review. As your parents were fully aware from the outset, we conduct detailed credit checks and references prior to a tenancy commencing. Unfortunately, as your parents did not meet the referencing criteria, they required a guarantor. We explained the referencing criteria required for a guarantor to them, but it later transpired that the guarantor put forward was not acceptable to the referencing company / Landlord due to them being on a zero hour, temporary contract. We have advised your parents that should they be able to provide a suitable, alternative guarantor we will gladly proceed with their application. Best regards, Martin & Co Rochdale

Hi Mr Ali, we are sorry that you were not successful in the purchase of a property via our office. However, and as explained to you at the time, all properties are sold subject to contract. You placed an offer on a property on the 26th April which was declined, then raised this which was accepted subject to contract on the 1st May 2019 (albeit still below asking price) and were asked to provide documents to validate your offer. These were not received until the 8th May 2019. In the meantime a higher offer was received and put to the vendor (they too were first time buyers). We informed you of this and that if you still wished to proceed the vendor was happy to accept best and final offers by the 10th May 2019, you subsequently increased your offer but were unsuccessful due to a higher offer being received. We have not lied to you, we have not taken any money from you, we have not attempted to "rip you off" or cheat you - we have acted in good faith to you and in the interests of our client - the vendor. We wish you well in your search for a property and hope you are successful. Best regards, Martin & Co

Hi Jordan, we are sorry you felt the need to leave a 1* review. However, having reviewed our records can confirm the first first viewing was cancelled (due to your shifts, not because the property was too far away) and not rescheduled as the property was sold. As the purchasers sale fell through, the property came back on the market and a viewing was arranged for you today. Having confirmed the appointment, we called you fifteen minutes before the viewing to advise the viewing representative was running late (due to a previous appointment over running), to which you replied you would wait. When the viewing representative arrived you had already left. We then called and asked why you didn't stay, or call to say you were leaving, to which you replied you had others to view and you did not wish to reschedule. We are therefore confused as to what more we could have done and would be grateful if you would remove the review. Regards, Martin & Co

Hi Mr Altaf, we are sorry you were unsuccessful in purchasing a property via our Rochdale office. Having investigated your claims I would like to clarify that you were not "accused of money laundering". However, I can confirm that as your offer was to be a cash purchase, the process, verified identification, proof / source of funds and documentation required as part of HMRC's Anti Money Laundering Regulations was explained to your cousin who attended the viewing and later to yourself upon submission of your cash offer. Unfortunately the offer you submitted was lower than the asking price and given you did not provide sufficient information / proof as requested, we were instructed by the vendor to continue with a scheduled block viewing. Higher offers were received and the property went to best and final offers. The vendor chose the offer they wished to accept and the property was sold subject to contract, which you were made aware of. The sale has since completed and although you may not be happy, we have a very happy vendor and purchaser. We are disappointed you chose to comment in this way, our staff are polite, friendly and genuinely care about our clients. That said, wish you all the best for the future, Martin & Co Rochdale

Hi A Jackson, thank you for your review. Unfortunately we cannot find any record of you on our systems. We therefore suspect it is either malicious, or relates to another Martin & Co office (we have 196 throughout the UK). We therefore request you remove your review. Should you wish to contact the office to discuss, please do not hesitate to do so. Best regards, Martin & Co

Hi Louise, thank you for your review. You left the property in February 2017 and we were unaware of any issues or concerns at the time. Having investigated your points above we can confirm we did ask you to be in the property during works, or to provide access (failure to provide access for repairs does incur a fee as your landlord would have been charge as such by the contractor). We can also confirm your deposit was returned in full. However, you were charge £15 inc VAT for a lost post box key and £42 inc VAT for a lost door entry fob. All fees are set out at the outset in your terms of business and to use the £60 inc VAT contract renewal fee as an example, we advised you to go with a 12 month renewal as opposed to a 6 month renewal to save you money... We therefore disagree with your 1* review and would respectfully request you remove it. Should you wish to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact the office. Best regards, Martin & Co

Hi Mark, we're sorry you felt the need to leave a 1* review. You rented Onchan Drive in Bacup from the 30th Sep 2008 to the 3rd Aug 2012. As you are aware for the deposit claims we act on behalf of the Landlord and if having compared the check in report (signed by you) and check out report (both completed by an external independent inventory clerk), the Landlord wishes to apply a deduction then we will submit that to you, or the DPS with the relevant evidence. Having checked the report it would appear the property needed a light clean, gardening and there was some damage to internal walls. The landlords would have been quite within their rights to claim for this. We do not complete "inspections" and we do not rate inspections, we simply conduct periodic management "visits" to the property and report back to the Landlord with our findings. FYI the most recent tenants to rent the property have just left after five years, they received their full deposit back and even called into the office to thank us for being so helpful during and at the end of their tenancy. Best regards, Martin & Co