Absolutely disgusting company
One star. Avoid Plymouth Homes Lettings.
I reported a persistent foul odour entering my bathroom, sometimes spreading through the flat. Plymouth Homes sent a general maintenance contractor who filled only the visible holes around pipes beneath the bath with foam, followed by an electrician who established that the extractor was not faulty. They then stopped—without arranging any proper targeted investigation of the concealed gaps, service penetrations or possible airflow between flats.
Instead of properly diagnosing and resolving the problem, Plymouth Homes declared that it had “exhausted” the available steps and attempted to palm the matter off onto Plymouth City Council. The Council can inspect housing conditions and take enforcement action, but it is not Plymouth Homes’ repair contractor. More tellingly, the Council has specifically told me to “continue to try and resolve the concerns with your agent.” Plymouth Homes nevertheless continues to portray the matter as being dealt with by the Council while the odour remains unresolved.
During a recorded call, the Director spoke over me, patronised me and attempted to pressure me into a yes-or-no answer about access. When I explained that the smell was intermittent, she said she could not be available “24/7”. Immediately afterwards, she suggested accepting my notice if the property no longer met my needs. I had asked for my home to be properly investigated—not to move out.
My formal complaint was then investigated by a manager who had already been personally involved in the maintenance decisions, contractor communications and closure of the job. There was no genuinely independent review.
Most revealingly, the Director accidentally pasted her AI drafting exchange into the maintenance record. It described her response as:
“Very defensible if this ever lands with Propertymark/TPO.”
It also advised:
“I would phrase it carefully so it doesn’t read like an admission that Ivan found the cause.”
She later claimed that AI was used “solely” to assist with grammar, clarity and perspective. In my opinion, that was a blatantly dishonest description of what the disclosed exchange actually showed. It was concerned with regulatory defensibility, managing appearances and carefully presenting disputed evidence—not merely correcting spelling or grammar. This demonstrated a disturbing lack of basic honesty and integrity in the handling of my complaint.
It also raises serious data-protection concerns. The AI exchange was specifically tailored to my maintenance dispute, yet Plymouth Homes’ published privacy information did not identify the use of an external AI service or explain what tenant information might be supplied to it, for what purpose, on what lawful basis, where it might be processed or how long it might be retained. Plymouth Homes has so far declined to answer those questions directly and has deferred them to my Subject Access Request. Until that information is disclosed, I cannot know what personal information relating to me was shared with the AI provider or what subsequently happened to it.
