Henry Adams, Petersfield

Absolutely dreadful. The original agents, Gibson Gammon, could be slow and not terribly organised but at least they were friendly and polite and treated us like human beings. Henry Adams treated us like a lower form of life whose only value was as human (or sub-human) cash dispensers. Greedy, dishonest, unethical, arrogant and rude, they tried every trick in the book to try to keep nearly the whole of our deposit. They completely ignored the evidence, ignored anything we tried to say that contradicted their heavily biased version of events or challenged their agenda, and essentially falsely accused us of causing nearly £1000 worth of damage and lying about it. Having done the very barest minimum (if that) to do their jobs properly when organising the end of our tenancy, they then somehow found a vast fund of energy and zeal to pursue us for money which we did not in fact owe, bombarding us with uncivil and intrusive emails for nearly two weeks after both we and the landlord had expressed the desire to go to The Dispute Service. Finally we did (and they found largely in our favour); I was so utterly disgusted by the agent’s behaviour that I also put in a formal complaint and when that was met by a torrent of patronising, unrepentant, self-righteous gaslighting (responding to simplistic, straw-man versions of the points I was trying to make or not bothering to respond at all; falsely accusing me of twisting words; denying everything although I had backed up each separate complaint with thorough evidence and quotes from their own Code of Practice; refusing to apologise), I went to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found in our favour and ordered the chancers to pay £300 in compensation (quite a considerable sum) for inconvenience, aggravation and distress; they sent an in-depth letter explaining the reasons for their decision and making clear that they expected the agent to get their act together. However, recent reviews of the agent suggest that they have not, but are still up to the same tricks. (I realise that I don't know all the facts in any case but my own, and that online reviews are not necessarily to be trusted, but what they have said sounds very like my own experience and given the way we were treated I have no reason not to believe their accounts.) Interestingly, my own Google review, referencing The Dispute Service and the Property Ombudsman, has been blocked - hence the very thorough reviews here and elsewhere. What disturbs me most about this is their apparent complete inability to appreciate the moral gravity of their behaviour - serious accusations made without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence, ignoring evidence that was inconvenient to their agenda, baseless attacks on character (technically defamation) and attempting to help themselves to money to which they had no legal entitlement. No, apparently none of those things gave their consciences a moment's trouble. They were indignantly repudiating my complaints (again without much evidence, just simple denial) and attempting to present us as feckless, lying vandals right up to the point where the case went to the Ombudsman for full formal review. (For context, only a minority of cases reach that point at all, so we and they knew even before the judgement was reached that TPO considered it serious.) Well, their appalling tactics not only failed miserably to get them what they wanted, but backfired spectacularly – there’s a lesson there, if only they’d learn it!