We do receive communication from time to time from people who were not accepted for a tenancy and people who missed out expressing their disappointment but (perhaps) 98% are understanding.

I would like to take this opportunity to put forward the facts of this case, of which many are missing in the original post. (We don't have anyone working here by the name of Ian!)

Firstly, we are obliged to ask any questions we deem necessary about applicant’s financial stability – particularly if they are relying on credit/overdrafts etc.

This can seem intrusive to an applicant. However, having let over 6,000 properties in over 22 years we have only had a handful of complaints about our questions and application form – as one could imaging, all were from people who were turned down.

In terms of showing people around the property after the holding deposit was taken, this is absolutely untrue and I would like to set out the results of our internal investigation which proves this. Before I do I would like to state that everything we do including telephone call logs are all recorded on our computer system.

On Saturday 28th January 2012, there were three property viewings arranged for the property in question. They were timed at 10:45, 11:00 and 11:15. The author of this review saw the property at 11:00 and booked an appointment to apply for the property at our offices at 12 noon the same day. A holding deposit was paid by the author of this review by debit card.

At 11:26 the same day, the person who viewed the property at 11:15 called our office to book an application interview for Monday 30th January. We contacted the Landlord later Saturday to advise him that we had two potential applicants and had already interviewed one. He requested that we interview both before making a decision.

This is a reasonable request, happens fairly infrequently (it is an issue of timing) and is standard practice in letting. We are obliged, on behalf of our Landlords to accept and consider an application from anyone who has viewed their property.

On Monday 30th January at 12:30 the second applicant was interviewed at our offices.

We contacted the Landlord after the second interview and discussed both applications in detail – as is standard practice. Due to reasons of professionalism, I am not prepared to disclose exactly why the Landlord declined the first applicant, suffice to say we supported his decision.

True, the second applicant did not have a dog but this was not the only reason applicant one (who had a dog) was turned down.

At this point, many agents make a charge for credit checks or otherwise. We do not.

The debit card used by the first applicant to pay the reservation fee was refunded IN FULL at 13:41 on Monday 30th January – not long after speaking with the Landlord and abiding by his decision. We have no control over how banks process refunds and how long the money takes to arrive into the payee’s account.

I understand that people can sometimes be disappointed when missing out on a property – and there are lots of them due to lack of supply of good quality rental stock today.

However, here at Brookdale, we feel that if someone is to make an issue publicly then we have the right to investigate the issue internally – which we did and then presents the missing facts.

It is our opinion that we acted as any other professional letting agent would.

Indeed we are grateful to the poster of this review to give us here at Brookdale this platform or opportunity to explain how careful we are with tenant selection and the various processes involved as set out from our investigation.

I am sure that any Landlord who takes time to read both posts will actually see this as a positive view of our tenant vetting, attention to detail and careful balance in choosing the right tenants for their properties.