Hi Ben,

Thank you for the reply.

We agree on a few things, there should be accountability and I did feel very let down.

But until the law changes both you and I know that tennants and landlords have no chance against a company that has no legal responsibilities. No brainer really.

I found out the hard way, I approached ARLA and they said the logo only means you are part of a professional organisation, they have no power or ability over you. Bit like me putting a GB sticker on my car bumper.

You are right also; the judge did admit heavy smoking but as stated the is no regualtions for Estate agents and/or managing agents.

I did a fair bit of research and took additional legal advice and was told other than the tennants deposit there is no legal liability unless I had a contract that you had entered into.

So, I wish you well in your business, maybe you have changed, I'd like to think so, Harker Bullman WAS second to none many years ago - but if anyone asks me for my opinion now I will gladly tell them anything they need to know.

Hello Ken

Thank you for the message.

We agree that Letting Agents can (and should) be held accountable when they have not performed their duties and there are a variety channels open to Landlords to raise a claim if they feel let down, one of them being the Small Claims Court, as you chose. However, after studying the evidence before him, the Judge advised that Harker & Bullman had no case to answer.

We therefor consider the matter closed.

Regards

Ben Richardson, Marketing Manager

Hi Ben,

Its not vindictive, its accurate and truthful and it was a horrific episode - the only reason I wrote this is as a personal friend has just had a similar probelm with you.

The facts are simple TO BE CLEAR - you placed a heavy chain smoker in my property (you could smell the smoke from the street, the decorators had to wear masks), the visits stated things like he put a cigarette out in aq fire place - which there are none in the property, so where exactly did you visit. The person opposite who rarely left her flat categorically said that no visits were made.

At no point were apologise made and the damage to the place was not picked up for until the last few months of his lease.

I see that you have taken the "we are sad to see" - feel sorry for us agents being picked on by someone wrecking our ratings across sites - but the point of the matter its the truth. At no point were you sorry for us at all.

Please Note - Harker and Bullman can say regulated - but in truth as you know that has no legal come back. The only thing you have to do by law is have the deposit safely protected. Any can phone anyone of the logo certified icons on their website and ask exactly what is covered.

The management team at Harker & Bullman were shocked and saddened to read such a vindictive review and misrepresentation of the facts. We question the motivations behind such a piece some 5 years after the episode, particularly when the author has taken the trouble to replicate this material across several other online sites.

To be clear, all the properties H&B manages are Non-Smoking. Potential tenants have always been asked whether they smoke as part of the application process which includes detailed credit checks and obtaining satisfactory feedback from the previous Landlord. All tenants sign a comprehensive Tenancy Agreement which includes a clause agreeing not to smoke or permit smoking in the property.

Having retrieved the archived file, we confirm that regular check visits were conducted and that in our first report to you (2 months after occupation),you were advised that the tenant was smoking and that we had informed them of the breach of contract. Our subsequent check visit reports indicate a continued smell of smoke and burns to the carpet, yet despite this information, you repeatedly chose to renew and extend the contract on 5 occasions with the same tenant during the years that followed. Even when we informed you that the tenant was openly smoking with ashtrays in the property, you didn’t ask us to serve any notice to recover possession of the property until a year later.

Our accounts system shows that we had collected all the rent due from the tenant on 29.07.2014 and that we correctly transferred these funds across to you on the same date.

At the time, we were very upset and disappointed that despite all our advice and guidance over the years (that you chose to ignore) you tried to hold us accountable in court. As we had consistently reported to you all the facts and only ever acted in accordance with your instructions, the Judge at the pre-hearing suggested you may wish to withdraw the case against ourselves and instead pursue the tenant for damages.

We are very sorry to hear that you still feel so strongly about the matter, but we do not know what more we could have done before or during the tenancy. We are of course thoroughly disappointed with the eventual outcome.

Please Note - Harker & Bullman are long term, regulated members of ARLA Propertymark as well as members of The Property Ombudsman redress scheme.