Appalling Customer Service
I had an extremely poor experience with Pro Property London.
The property I moved into was unfurnished, yet the very first thing the inventory report stated was that it was furnished. That immediately made me question the accuracy of the entire report. After reviewing it carefully, it became obvious that my concerns were justified.
The report missed numerous significant issues, including loose and hanging kitchen cabinet doors, as well as multiple instances of damage, dents, mould, paint defects, and other issues that simply weren’t recorded.
When I requested amendments, I was told I needed to use a link that had supposedly been sent to me. I explained repeatedly that I didn’t have the link, or couldn’t find it, and asked three separate times for it to be resent. Despite this, I received the same response every time: “We’ve already sent you the link.” That completely ignored the point. Whether it had been sent previously or not was irrelevant—I simply needed it resent. Having just moved house, I had hundreds of emails to work through and couldn’t locate it.
To make matters worse, after I’d already sent three separate emails asking for the link to be resent, Simon’s final response was to tell me that the seven-day period had now expired, so the link no longer worked and I could no longer access the report to submit my amendments. Had the link simply been resent when I first asked, this situation could have been avoided entirely. Instead, I was prevented from reviewing and challenging an inventory report that contained numerous inaccuracies.
The customer service was appalling. In particular, Simon was dismissive, obstructive and completely unwilling to help resolve what should have been an incredibly simple issue. Resending a link would have taken seconds, yet instead I was repeatedly told it had already been sent, only to later be informed that it had expired.
This is, without question, some of the worst customer service I have ever experienced. An inventory report is only useful if it’s accurate, and customer service is only valuable if staff are willing to help. Unfortunately, Pro Property London failed on both counts. I would not recommend them.
—-
REPLY TO PRO PROPERTY LONDON’S REPLY:
Your response completely misses the point of my review.
The inventory itself was farcically inaccurate — including describing a completely unfurnished property as furnished — and I submitted extensive corrections and photographic evidence.
After doing so, I repeatedly asked for the link to be resent so that I could review and confirm the amended report. Instead of simply resending a link — something that should have taken seconds — I was repeatedly told that I had already received and accessed it, culminating in Simon telling me, “I don’t know why this is so hard.”
Whether I had previously received or opened the link is irrelevant. I was a customer asking three times for a very simple piece of assistance. Your response was to argue with me rather than help me.
That is precisely why I left the review. The fact that your response focuses on proving that I once had access to a link, rather than addressing why your staff repeatedly refused to simply resend it, perfectly illustrates the obstructive customer service I experienced.
I would strongly caution landlords and tenants considering using Pro Property. An inventory is an important document protecting both parties, and basic factual errors — such as recording an unfurnished property as furnished — can have serious consequences at the end of a tenancy. When a customer identifies those errors, provides evidence and asks for help verifying the corrected report, they should be assisted, not argued with.
This remains, by some distance, the worst customer service experience I have ever had.
Antwort von Pro Property London
We have read your further response and feel it is important to correct several factual inaccuracies.
Your original correspondence stated that you had not received the inventory link, could not find it and repeatedly asked for it to be resent. You now acknowledge that you did, in fact, open the link and access the inventory report. Following your comments, we contacted our technical team, who independently confirmed that the link was opened and the inventory report itself was accessed by you on 29 July.
Our records also show that you contacted us on 29 July, at which point you were directed to use the link provided to access the inventory and submit any amendments. We received no further correspondence from you until 4 August, after the link had expired.
The link was sent on 27 July, and the accompanying email clearly stated that you had seven days to review the inventory and submit any amendments, after which the link would expire. The link remained active until 3 August. You therefore had the opportunity to access and review the report within the stated amendment period.
There is consequently a clear discrepancy between your original statement that you had not received or could not access the link and the technical evidence confirming that you accessed the report on 29 July. You also contacted us on that date using the original email containing the link. We cannot speculate as to why your original account differs from the evidence available to us, but we believe it is important to clarify this for anyone reading the review.
We must also correct another factual inaccuracy. You have stated that Simon told you, “I don’t know why this is so hard.” That statement was not made by Simon. We cannot accept quotations being attributed to our staff when they were not said.
We acknowledge that you were entitled to raise concerns regarding the inventory and submit amendments. However, the seven-day review period was clearly communicated and is not an arbitrary customer-service decision made by Pro Property London. The inventory process and review procedure we follow are based on established industry procedures and relevant guidance from the appropriate governing bodies. The deadline is therefore part of the established process and is not something an individual member of staff can simply disregard or extend.
Once the review period expired on 3 August, the amendment link was no longer active. This was not our staff refusing to assist you; it was the conclusion of the established review period. You contacted us again on 4 August, after that period had ended.
We also reject the suggestion that our staff were simply being “obstructive”. Applying an established process consistently to all tenants is not the same as refusing to provide customer service.
We would also note that some of the correspondence received from you was extremely rude and confrontational in tone. While customers are entitled to raise concerns, our staff should be treated with the same courtesy and respect that we expect our team to provide.
We accept that you are entitled to your opinion about our service. However, where a public review contains factual claims that are contradicted by the available evidence, we believe it is appropriate to provide the facts.