In reply from Martin and Co, here is our response: You have claimed you have spoken to the two plumbers you currently used and you previously stated to us on numerous occasions that stuff from the taps couldn’t have caused the mark. But the stain could have been caused by something else as it materialised around the same time your inept plumbers where in the building. Also neither of the two plumbers you have attempted to clarify with were the plumbers in question. While your current two plumbers are no doubt reputable they are not the inept ones who were there and therefore cannot possibly comment on how or what they did. Those guys were so good they collapsed the garage ceiling, nothing is potentially beyond them especially stains on carpets. This was informed to you by telephone. You are correct, we mistakenly believed we had emailed about it, as 95% of the time we would have e-mailed. On this occasion we had misremembered and recalled that it was actually a phone call. This happened because I had suffered a serious health problem and my wife and I were more distracted by more serious issues than the inability of your plumbers and the fact you don’t make note of calls coming into you. All this was stated in the original review. As the member of staff that received the call is no longer with Martin and Co we have no way to verify our call which would clear us and as Martin and Co’s call logging is clearly non existent we were left with no way to prove it either. In regards the cleaning contractor, again you have failed to listen here. The contractor did not advise us as we were cleaning. He advised us BEFORE WE HIRED HIM on the phone that all we really had to do was just clean the carpets. He informed me that at the most that’s all we’d need as if we cleaned reasonably well it would pass the inspection, therefore putting himself in pole position to be hired as of course he would be the cheapest as he was offering a minimal service. This is the cleaner you recommended to us, and therefore we had no reason to doubt his claims would be genuine. We then find out this is not the case and more was required, no doubt to be carried out by the same guy who did us in the end. As I had better offers elsewhere for a comprehensive clean I would have gone there instead, but as your man under pitched knowing he’d get the job twice that’s how it ended up. You may feel the comments are spurious, but yours aren’t even taking in to account anything we’ve actually said so are redundant. You are right, a number of contractors visited, and once you hired a decent plumber we had no further complaints until the end, when having completed a decent clean which was praised by the LANDLORDS THEMSELVES, Martin and Co got involved and suddenly everything was wrong despite saying in the first email that the house was ‘generally in a good condition.’ The Fumigation was originally sold to us as something that HAD to be completed because we had a dog. Quotes were obtained but only when we spoke to the pest control company you recommended did it turn out that we actually DIDNT have to fumigate as the chemicals are dangerous and should not be performed lightly. A fumigation should only be carried out if there is absolute evidence that it is required. This is NOT what we were originally told and it was later you had to clarify this proving that the clause in your contract was completely wrong. You later admitted your mistake and clarified you would keep back a portion of the deposit until 2 weeks after the new tenants had moved in. With regards to the Oven, thank you for confirming that your inspection between tenancies was inadequate in this case. We feel our comments are perfectly justified, and thank you in your return comments for proving our point with a lack of attention to detail, and for showing you do not wish to learn from a negative review. This is how we found your responses in our email exchanges too and now its here for all to see. Regards.