"Dear Adam

I was present at Connells throughout the whole process of this sale and whilst both staff members are no longer in this branch I believe this needs addressing publicly as your review is utterly misleading.

You state we should have “obeyed the laws and regulations”. It is those very laws and regulations that seem to have caused your anger. We followed them stringently and were audited on this sale internally and externally. I’m unsure why you’re playing ignorant about what the laws are and distorting the issue for effect, they were conveyed to you numerous times when you viewed, offered and whilst the sale was progressing.

The house was a repossession. By law repossessions have to stay on the market until exchange of contracts. The highest offer has to be public knowledge. A public notice has to be put in the local newspaper stating what the current highest offer is and inviting higher offers. It is the most transparent all-be-it the most stressful sale process you can undergo.

Emma’s reluctance to enter the property is her discretion. Given the fact it was fumigated twice for fleas and I’m lead to believe a dog had sadly died in the property. The smell and condition reflected this. I conducted viewings on the property too but have a rather stronger stomach than my female colleague, I would never insist a member of staff went in against their will when the condition was as it was. Maybe she could have explained herself better but given the spurious accusations in the review and knowing Emma on a professional basis (I hear her explaining things to customers 9 hours a day) I would naturally assume she probably did. Any question that Emma could not answer on the viewing was due to the fact we are not furnished with any information about a properties history when it is a corporate sale, you were however told that.

It is clear you took an instant and personal dislike to Emma. That’s obvious from the very early complaint to our compliance department about her allegedly “Screeching up outside the property because she was driving too fast in her car”. In reality Adam, she was waiting outside the property for you in her car with the engine turned off as you were 10 minutes late, I know this to be fact, I took the call from her when she was outside asking me to call and find out where you were.

I’m not sure what she did to offend you to the point that you refused to speak to her on the phone when she tried updating on the progress of the purchase numerous times. I remember you putting the phone down on her at least twice as soon as you knew it was her on the other end, I just find that strange. She kept professional at all times yet you refused to speak to her, I struggle to comprehend your attitude unless she had been offensive towards you which she was not. She was getting genuinely upset by your un-warranted attitude towards her. This meant that various staff members had to deal with your sale and I’m afraid that will obviously affect the continuity of any effective working relationship or communication. We offer a one on one personal service when progressing sales in our branch but you made that impossible.

Jon met you at the property for a re-inspection and yes he had a slight black eye. He made you aware he had been in a car accident with his wife but this may have been quickly forgotten when you or your father became instantly aggressive and confrontational with Jon inside the property. Jon came back from that meeting visibly shaken yet somehow you've portrayed him as some kind of thug because he had a black eye, I find this offensive and I'm in awe of the audacity. I have never seen him shaken like that in over 16 years of knowing him. Jon wasn't up to date on the progress of your sale, not because he’d “been away” because it wasn't his sale yet you insisted the very person who was dealing with your sale didn't attend. I am thoroughly relieved it wasn't Emma who met you at the property the second time, who knows what poor state you would have left her in.

I understand the reason for the confrontation was your obtuse reaction to the recent telephone message you’d received from us, after you neglected to answer the phone, that message Emma urged you to take certain actions and chase certain aspects else you risked losing the property and it being re-marketed. This was a direct instruction from our corporate client and we had to relay that information to you asap. She was trying to offer advice and guidance with urgency, we were not, unlike your demeanor on the second viewing, making threats.

Luke, our in house mortgage adviser, sent the certified copies of various documents off to the mortgage business unit in Leighton Buzzard yet neglected to take triplicates (second for the lender and third to keep on file in our office). This is a company requirement and also in keeping with our legal duties under the “money laundering act”. Apologies you had to provide us with those again but this is not a mistake I feel is worthy of such a dreadful review or an accusation of “dodgy practice” especially when it proves exactly the opposite.

Our staff are anything but inept, we have a very experienced and conscientious team in Crawley who believe in treating people the way we wish to be treated ourselves. We strive to balance sales performance with an un paralleled level of service and want everyone to walk away happy, primarily our clients, the sellers (the people who pay our fees) but also the buyers who receive a duty of care far beyond what is generally expected.

I don’t think anyone could of done anything more from our side given your lack of cooperation and volatile, aggressive attitude. You should count yourself very lucky to have exchanged and completed on that purchase because if anyone in that office had of acted un-professionally they would have got contracts pulled on you when you started creating problems. I am proud of my team for fulfilling their duty of care to someone who in return was condescending, aggressive and volatile towards them.

I genuinely wish you all the best in the future and I’m sorry you feel we are in the wrong. I feel my explanation of the circumstances will be fruitless. In 10 years I don’t believe I have witnessed such irrational behavior from a purchaser. I have never refused business in the past so with the greatest of respect it comes as a huge relief that you will not use us “again under any circumstances”. I would not be doing my job properly if I recommended you as a “safe buyer” to future clients who trust me to sell their homes in a timescale that suits them with minimal stress. I would also be a poor employee to stand by and let you subject my fellow staff to such unwarranted stress and aggression again.

Yours sincerely

James Gordon