“NGU Home Lettings.This report is based on experiences as ......”
1 Star Review
Nov 02,2013
By:
'unident'
Nov 02,2013
Branch: Gateshead, 469-471 Durham Road
Services: Lettings (as a Landlord)
Would you recommend?: No
Postcode: NE3
Branch: Gateshead, 469-471 Durham Road
Lettings (as a Landlord)
Postcode: NE3
6
people found
this helpful
NGU Home Lettings.
This report is based on experiences as a recipient of their service as a ¢â‚¬Ëœtenant' and a landlord.
Firstly, I must stress that this is not a personal attack on NGU, as I have better things to do with my time, however I like to consider myself a good; honest person, with the best intentions for everyone. This is why I feel obliged to offer a recollection of my experience with NGU, so that others can avoid the stress that NGU's poor service can cause, but also to ensure that landlords are making a well informed and supported decision as to whether or not, this is the right company to manage their properties.
NGU doesn't do a very good job of hiding their true agenda as a company with a sole intention of cutting corners with regard to property maintenance and service, so to make as much money as possible regardless of any long term consequences that this might have on the property, or the psychosocial needs of a tenant.
Allow me to elaborate further, on the above statement. Two of my tenants actually moved out of the properties managed by NGU, simply because when NGU were delivering the 6 month/yearly property inspections, they did not ask the tenants when or if they could be in on the day that NGU ¢â‚¬Ëœdecided' that this inspection was going to take place. Any kind of diplomacy was ¢â‚¬Ëœnone existent' also. If the tenants were not available that day, then NGU would enter the property unsupervised, completely trampling all over the ¢â‚¬Ëœneeds' of the tenant, in order to fulfil their own ¢â‚¬Ëœdesires' ¢â‚¬â€œ with the threat that if the tenant changed the locks, and the grandiose, and arrogant representative could not achieve access, then the tenant would be charged £40 pounds. I would argue that this should actually be outlawed, because my tenants were lovely people, and this caused them a lot of unnecessary stress.
Furthermore, the services in which they used to carry out property maintenance are absolutely ¢â‚¬Ëœnot' vetted or registered tradesman, other than those whom deal with gas related maintenance. I posed as a tenant after I became suspicious about repairs that were being carried out on windows, and other general maintenance. The fellow they were using was completely unqualified to repair the this particular job, and after a little investigation and help from some professional tradesman whom I paid, established that , as well as the fact that said chap completely made the fault up, he said that I needed a part that he attempted to over-charge me for it by £250. Unfortunately however, this man managed to rip me off on several occasions before I had realised what was going on. This is what I me about NGU cutting corners. NGU were notified, yet continued to use him.
Just the other day, one of my tenants informed me that although a new boiler had been fitted a month prior, that the usual boiler inspection would need to take place, for which the tenant was refused any rationale or explanation for this, and had actually defended me in telling NGU that it was going to cost ¢â‚¬Ëœme' unnecessarily for which that was exactly the case.
NGU aren't having a bad month here, people. They have been practicing like this for over 5 years. They are rude, inconsiderate and clearly consider themselves a social class ahead of anyone else, since they feel that they are not required to be civil, or considerate with other human beings. An example of this attitude was delivered by a member of their office staff, whom told one of my tenants that ¢â‚¬Å“if they did not like the way that NGU practiced, then that is their fault for renting, and should endeavour to get a mortgage like normal people'¢â‚¬Â ¢â‚¬â€œ this is clearly the essence of NGU's protocol.
If their attitude does not cost you tenants, then their devious corner cutting will certainly cost you hard earned cash.
I hope this is of some assistance to my good, honest fellow citizens and tradesman alike.
6
people found
this helpful
Was this helpful?
Yes
Cutting corners: As a company we invest a lot of additional time into our processes to ensure quality.
Trying to make as much money as possible: 100% this is not the case. We do NOT make decisions regarding our landlords properties based on which option makes us the most money. We deal with 620 properties at present and have an impeccable retention rate. It is very rare that we have ever lost business through under performance / miss-management on fully managed properties. All staff are trained to understand the value of money and to actively save money for landlords where ever possible.
Scheduled reviews: Based on how many reviews and inspections we have to do on a weekly basis I would be an operational nightmare if we allowed all tenants to pick and choose the date and time of their reviews. Tenants are given plenty of notice (usually 2 weeks or more) to make arrangements if they wish to be present at reviews which I feel is more than adequate. In regards to a charge for tenants that decide to change the locks themselves – yes, this is a stipulation as tenants should not change locks of their own accord at ANY point during a tenancy. To use the example of a potential different scenario - If a tenant stopped paying their rent or we had a complaint from a neighbour saying there was reason to believe that a tenant was not maintaining a property to a the correct standard, I would suspect that the person who posted this review may potentially hold a different opinion about our stance of tenants changing locks if all of a sudden we could not get access to rectify such an issue or it prevented us from reacting accordingly.
Tradesmen: Without knowing which property this review relates to I cannot offer any response to this section without being able to understand the back ground. If the person who posted the review would like to contact me directly at [email protected] I can look into this in more detail. In regards to the gas safety inspection being required shortly after the boiler install this was more than likely due to the fact that after a boiler install the gas engineer will provide an installation certificate. This is different to a gas safety certificate so if the annual check was due this would have remained the case even after the new boiler install.
They have been practicing like this for over 5 years: This statement indicates to me that the person who has written the review has a long standing relationship with our company which confuses me greatly given our extremely high retention rate that I mentioned above and the fact that I cannot think of ANY long standing landlords that we have lost ties with. In my experience – if a letting agent offered a poor service then landlords typically wouldn’t still be using that agent after 5 years.
They are rude, inconsiderate and clearly consider themselves a social class ahead of anyone else: I feel this a completely unjustified comment. Housing benefit tenants are the foundation of our business. We DO NOT discriminate against anyone and treat all of our clients (Landlord and tenants alike) with the same level of respect. In regards, to the claim that one of our staff made the comment “is their fault for renting, and should endeavour to get a mortgage like normal people†- I would be beyond shocked if ANY of our staff would say something so ridicules. I am confident in the ability and professionalism of ALL of our staff as I personally invest a lot of time into their training and development.
As mentioned above I can add some further substance to my response in regards to the review and would love the opportunity to discuss the matter further if the person who wrote it would like to contact me.
Best regards,
Aaron Phelan
Lettings Director
Email: [email protected]