The Stirling branch of Martin & Co has been accused of overcharging customers and setting up fake firms to carry out maintenance work.
According to the Daily Record, The Property Ombudsman and the local Trading Standards team have been passed documents that claim fictitious companies were used by the Scottish branch.
The police have also been made aware, although they have no plans to investigate at this stage.
At least 15 landlords claim they have been regularly overcharged by the franchise, run by husband and wife Imtiaz and Nasreen Ahmed, who deny any wrongdoing.
Landlord Scott Buchanan, who rents out his property through the letting agent, told the newspaper: “I’ve been asking Martin & Co to provide me with all the invoices for work done at my property so I can file a detailed tax return – but I’m still waiting.
“They admitted overcharging me by a small amount but when I put out an appeal on Facebook to see if other landlords had faced similar problems it was clear I wasn’t alone.
“I began digging and it’s plain this branch of Martin & Co has been in chaos for some time. There are fingers of blame being pointed in all different directions.
“Martin & Co have told me this is none of my business but I disagree.
“I just want proof that my property has been properly looked after and that I’m not being charged some arbitrary amount. In the absence of answers from the branch and head office, I’ve passed the evidence I gathered to Trading Standards and the Property Ombudsman.”
Former staff claim fake maintenance companies were created using the bank accounts of office juniors.
It is alleged that instead of hiring experts, Martin & Co staff carried out electrical and safety work under the guise of fake maintenance firms and landlords were then invoiced for work carried out.
The newspaper says that it has seen paperwork supporting the claims.
A spokesperson for Martin & Co said: “Martin & Co can confirm they are aware of one complaint made to the Stirling franchisee, and that they have not heard from any authority over this issue.”
Comments (18)
Lack of insurance if anything goes wrong for one thing.
Also, depending on how the cash was being collected, it’s possible that TPFG were being short paid too. Using employee bank accounts could lead to possible tax issues.
Garden and rubbish clearances undertaken by office juniors for some weekend pin money in his Citroen Saxo.
Silicone around the baths and showers by the business owners father in-law…..
UPVC barrel lock changes by the viewing assistant….
It’s gone on for years. Doesn’t make it right mind you
If the work is done and the issue sorted what is the problem
In one part perception in the other part liability.
Doing certain work internally is fine so long as it’s disclosed and the fixer takes ownership of the task.
The problem arises when amateurs start venturing into the professional arena in an attempt to ‘help the landlord’ save a few quid. These savings can – on price alone- be pretty hefty as well.
So then we end up back at the question – what constitutes value – Price, Product/Workmanship, liability or a combination of all.
Also, when it goes belly up – be prepared as your (Social Media) reputation will take a pounding.
Inventing jobs for remote landlords will be the issue on this particular tale I expect….
A ‘mark-up’/contractor fee (provided it is clearly disclosed to clients) is one thing…
Inventing a fictitious company and issuing false invoices, is quite another. This is fraud.
The problem Martin & Co have here is whatever they did or didn’t do, they were not transparent about it.
Was the work actually carried out, and are the billed amounts reasonable? If an independent contractor quoted £400 to repaint a few rooms and one of the agents said they’d do the same job on a Sunday for £200, then there might not have been an issue if the LL accepted.
The problem they have here is (if my reading of the article is correct), is that this branch of M&Co may have allegedly committed fraud…No amount of ‘transparency’ makes this acceptable (or any less criminal)
Do newsagents declare a %age markup on newspapers?
Surely the landlord has a right to see invoices for work carried out on the property they own?
If it’s true that a fake maintenance company has been invoicing landlords this will blow up into a serious problem
This “secret profit” in our industry is pure nonsense – it’s business! It happens in every industry yet in ours it’s a matter for the Ombudsman. “They admitted overcharging me by a small amount..” – get a grip Mr Landlord. Organise it yourself or pay more than £10 a week management fee.
Not sure i agree with that comment.
Surely £1000 per month property at 10% = £100 per month (plus £20 VAT) income is enough, that is a management fee! What are agents managing?
Adding mark ups to 3rd parties is just wrong in my opinion.
Agree with the £100 per month scenerio, but it’s still business afterall. We’re not running charities here. It also depends on what the average rent is in a given area. Surely the LL agreed a quoted amount beforehand and a small amount extra is what? £10 – £25? If it’s a ficticious company though – that’s not on.
The Property Franchise Group advocate maintenance mark ups to all of their franchisees
Great comment…. no different to any other agent up and down the country.
Just for clarity Countrywide charge the landlord for management and then charge for maintenance work. The cherry on top is they charge the contractor 13% for carrying out the work as an approved maintenance supplier.
Management Fee – 12%
Maintenance fee – 10%
Contractor Fee -13%
So I’d say TPFG are still cheaper !!!
This is factually incorrect.
That TPFG are cheaper?
ADL – Ican prove it and happy to post the paperwork confirming should you wish.??
Squeaky bum time for many. Making secret profits, on management businesses, is relatively common. The issue is that you can’t make a reasonable profit by charging 10% management fees, in the same way that you can’t do it selling houses for 1% (as low as 5% and 0.5% in some areas). This means that some agents are always looking for ways to increase their income, often surreptitiously.