Rolfe East reviews

Hi B.M, thank you very much for your review. We are so pleased Kayleigh made you feel that way. It's exactly why we do this job.

Hi Carlo, thank you very much for your review and feedback, we are so pleased you are happy with the service you have received from Ana and the team. :)

Dear Daniel. Thanks for your review. You called our office and asked that a sign be removed from your property. We do not have your property on the market with us. You called from an anonymous number. When asked by my colleague Emma, you would not leave your phone number with us. I wanted to call you back to establish where the board had been placed so that we could change or remove it. We had no way of contacting you. We do not feel this warrants a 1 star review. Please contact us to discuss this on 01935 814929. Thanks. Laurence Truett. Managing Director. Edit: All of our calls are recorded. I have reviewed the call and Emma did not laugh. You appear to have deliberately called us from an anonymous number so that we couldn't call you back and give a resolution to the problem. As an agency, we do not want anyone to be upset by our approach and marketing. We would have called you straight back if we had your number and sorted the problem. However, you were unwilling to give us this. We erect many signs every week. I wanted to establish which board was being referred to and what your problem was with the location it had been placed in. However, I had no way of doing this due to your anonymous number and unwillingness to give it to us. Laurence Truett - Managing Director. 2nd Edit: Thanks for your comments. I have offered to speak with you to gain clarity on this but still have no way of contacting you as your telephone number was anonymous and you refused to give my colleague Emma your number. We would love (as always) to achieve a peaceful resolution, however, in this instance it seems you do not wish this to be the case.

We have reviewed your complaint and believe there has been a simple misunderstanding. You viewed the property on 25th November 2025. We did advise that offers had been made, but none had yet been accepted. Lettings properties remain as available until a holding deposit is paid; in this case, the landlord had not accepted any offer at the time of your viewing. On 26th November, the agent tried to call you for feedback and to ask whether you wished to make an offer, but you did not answer or return the call. Later that day, the landlord accepted one of the existing offers. At the time of your viewing, the property was fully available and you had the opportunity to make an offer for the landlord’s consideration. We therefore respectfully ask that you remove your review.

Dear Marta, Thank you for sharing your concerns. We are sorry to hear that your recent experience did not meet your expectations. We take complaints seriously and have reviewed the circumstances. The property attracted a very high level of interest, with many enquiries coming in by both phone and email. This meant that unfortunately it took longer than usual to respond to everyone. You were booked in for a viewing and given the same opportunity as other applicants who attended during the allocated viewing period. Regarding the viewing, we expect all staff to provide a professional and helpful service. We have reviewed the feedback received and note that another attendee praised the way the viewing was conducted. The agent’s request regarding parking was intended only to avoid inconvenience to local residents. Most attendees made offers and although the property may have appeared as “let agreed” online, it remained available until a holding deposit was paid. By sending the application form, the agent was therefore giving you the opportunity to make an offer while the property was still available. I hope this clarifies the position. If you would like to discuss the matter further, our Sales and Lettings Director would be happy to speak with you.

Dear Jim, We were very surprised to see your review of Rolfe East. As you are aware Rolfe East did not manage this property. Our property management team, however, did help from time to time out of courtesy to you and the landlord which was above and beyond our instructed level of service. You will find most agents would have directed you to the landlord when you had an issue and wash their hands of the situation, but we like to make sure that everyone we deal with is properly looked after. We have investigated this case, by reviewing emails and all other communications with you and the landlord. We also gained information from contractors and the inventory clerk, and we have found your review has inconsistencies and missing information which paints a completely different picture of the events. Firstly, when you reported the leak to us, we reported this to the landlord who instructed contractors to come to the house and investigate and resolve the problem. We cannot comment on what was done initially but the issue came back a few months later and the landlord asked us to get involved. We sent two separate contractors round to investigate. Once the best method to fix the problem which would cause the lease disruption to you and your family was agreed, the contractor who could do the work at the earliest possible date was instructed. We can confirm the repair was carried out before you vacated the property, so your claim the landlord refused to repair the roof in your review does not match. In terms of your second claim referring to your security deposit, the majority landlords will get an inventory check in report carried out by an accredited inventory clerk when a tenant moves into a property. This is done so the true reflection of the condition of the property is agreed and signed by both the landlords and the tenant(s). When the tenancy comes to an end, an inventory report will be compiled once again for the check out. The checkout report notes changes which are not general wear and tear and is the responsibility of the tenant to repair. Both reports were completed in the case of your tenancy, and you were given a copy of both at the time they were compiled. Your check out report shows over 4 pages of things which are your responsibility to pay for. However, the landlord decided to only charge for the holes found in almost every wall in the house which you claim were from hanging pictures, but most of them were fairly large as evidenced in the checkout report when compared with the check in report. Please also note that the tenancy agreement which was signed by you, states that holes should not be punctured in the walls of the house without the landlord’s permission, and this was not sought by you or given to you by the landlord. The landlord instructed contractors to give them quotes to repair all the holes and cost was more than the deposit the landlord held. He therefore decided to keep your deposit as it would partly pay towards the cost of the repair. Again, we will stress that based upon the checkout report the landlord, was well within their right to ask for more to cover the other issues, but they did not. Your assumption that Rolfe East advised the landlord on the “correct manner on how to proceed" is false. The landlord took advice from the inventory report, again which is carried out by an accredited and independent inventory clerk. Rolfe East never advise landlords what they should do in the case of withholding deposits, it is the landlord’s property and their decision. Most landlords will make their decisions based upon the checkout report. We understand you might be frustrated with the situation, but the deposit dispute resolution has its place and is there for a reason. Therefore, we kindly suggest you remove your review and libellous claim again Rolfe East.

At Rolfe East we take a bad review very seriously as we pride ourselves on our people first attitude and our teams are trained to make sure they provide the highest level of service to our customers. We have therefore fully investigated this matter and have found the following: On Thursday 13th February 2025 you had a telephone conversation with Ash to discuss viewings he wanted to book in for your property, one of which was a potential viewing for the evening of same day, which we knew would have been very short notice. However, none of the viewing discussed were agreed by you as during the conversation you asked Ash to confirm the details of any appointments he would like book by email. This also mirrors an email you sent to Ash on 4th February which stated that moving forward you would like all appointments confirmed via email. Due to the fact that you had requested an email, and there would have been a limited time period for you to reply to Ash agreeing to the viewing and then for him to confirm the appointment with the applicant, he spoke to applicant and changed the appointment to Saturday 15th February. He then sent you the requested email showing 3 viewings for 15th February which included the person who had initially wanted to see it on Thursday 13th. This email did not state that there would be an appointment on the 13th February, so therefore he did not expect you to attend the property viewing. You complained about the situation mentioned above to James the branch manager on 14th February and specifically asked for Ash to be removed from doing any viewings at your property, so James promised to deal with viewings and enquires for you personally. I am sure you are aware that as branch manager this was not his usual remit, but due to the misunderstanding with Ash, he agreed to do this, which ensured you as the client was kept happy. However, James could not attend the viewings arranged for the next day on the 15th February as he was already committed to other booked appointments. He mentioned this to you in emails sent at 10:07am, and 2:54pm on 14th February, in order to give you the opportunity to re-schedule if you wanted him to be there, but you did not. This was all communicated by email so you were made fully aware James would not be attending. You have also mentioned that one of the three viewers did not turn up. James had confirmed with all of the attendees via telephone in the morning before the viewings were due to take place, and you were emailed to let you know they all said at the time they would be there on time. One of the viewers, had appointments to see other properties with Ash before viewing yours. Unfortunately, they turned up late to their first appointment. Ash took them around the other properties quickly, and offered to drive them to yours, so they could make it in time. But, they decided they wanted to rebook the appointment as they was limited for time. James called you twice as soon as he received this information from Ash, but you did not pick his calls, and you also did not call James or the office to find out what was happening with the viewing. Emma from the Acton team sent you an email out of office hours to let you know what had happened to which you did not respond to kindly. We am sure you can understand, we cannot control whether people turn up to viewings or not. What we can do, is confirm they will be attending on the day of the viewing and communicate issues they may have attending to our clients. Both of these points happened on this occasion. It’s a shame you feel the way you do about the service you received. However, Ash and James clearly followed your instructions and communicate where necessary and we have seen this in writing, so we are perplexed as to why you have subjected them to this unpleasant review. We would urge you to review your communications with them with a view to removing this unwarranted review.

Hi Jonathan. Thank you very much for your review - we are pleased the sale went well for you and Barry made sure everything went smoothly. We will be sure to pass your feedback onto him. :)

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. We’re sorry to hear that you felt disappointed by your experience, and we do understand how frustrating it must have been to incur costs during the conveyancing process. We take concerns of this nature very seriously. Our research showed that the conversion was carried out with all of the relevant permissions needed at the time, and we provided information based on what was available to us and understood to be correct. We appreciate that further questions arose during the legal process, and we regret that this caused uncertainty for you. While we do not agree with every aspect of your comments, we are sorry that you felt unsupported and that the matter concluded in this way. We always aim to communicate clearly and act in good faith, and we will take your feedback on board as part of our ongoing efforts to improve the service we provide.

Hi Micaela. Happy New Year! Thank you very much for your review.

Dear Joanna, It is naturally very disappointing to receive such a review, particularly given the circumstances outlined below which provide context to this matter. Having seen an email thread between colleagues and yourself, it is important to point out the following: 1. You took up occupation in a room of the subject property without applying to this agency, or approval from the landlord. It appears that a former occupant (who left) offered you their former room. As such, no tenancy agreement should, or needs, to be offered to you in the circumstances. However, as per the email thread witnessed, we have explained a process that must happen to allow this. 2. The landlord of this property has been undertaking various works and has, as a consequence, responsibility for maintenance and repairs at this time. Without their permission, we are unable to commission any works. 3. A new tenancy agreement cannot be issued at this time as your fellow occupants have requested various works (the landlord is undertaking) to be completed before entering into a new agreement. One simply cannot alter a prior contract entered into by parties other than yourself. 4. The landlord has been made aware of the maintenance matters the visiting contractor observed and they must now either permit us to sanction works or continue to act upon these matters themselves. The landlords have chosen to arrange their own builder in this matter. 5. To be added to a tenancy contract you will, of course, have to go through the legally required checks and a standard referencing procedure. We are more than willing to undertake this once the tenants, as a whole, are happy to enter into a new contract and all occupants (who have not already been subject to referencing and legal compliance checks) under the required process.

Hello Subin, Here at Rolfe East, we take complaints of any kind very seriously as we pride ourselves on our high standards of customer service. Therefore, we have quickly investigated the situation surrounding your review. We have looked through our call list records and unfortunately, cannot find the numerous calls you mention in your review. If this was made from a number we do not have on file, please let us know. We did see your phone number on record after we had closed on Saturday 25th May. We can then see an outgoing call from Ranj a few days later (note the bank holiday weekend where the office was closed Sunday 26th and Monday 27th), but the call went unanswered. Ranj called to discuss your application, and to advise we needed application forms from your co-tenants to assess your situation. Without one of these, we did not have all the information required to put to the landlord for them to make a decision. We are sure you can understand that this is very important especially as there are legal compliances for the landlord to follow depending on the make up of the tenancy. Due to this we could not process your offer and the property was given to another party. We hope this explains the situation. If you are still looking for a property to rent, please get in touch. We’d be more than happy to help you.

Hello Liban, thank you very much for your five star review. We are very lucky to have Chris & Ana on our team :)

Hi Abu, thank you for taking the time to leave your feedback. We are pleased Mo was very helpful to you.

Hi Noaman. Thank you for your kind words. We think Ashley is a rather nice guy too ;-)

Hi Pablo, thank you very much your kind words.

Dear Rebecca. Having investigated this matter, we are surprised and disappointed by your assertions, especially given the nine months that have passed. The tenancy deposit refund process is between outgoing tenant and landlord, NOT ROLFE EAST, who merely act as conduit. Any disagreement would result in a dispute with the landlord at the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS Independent Adjudicator). In this case, no dispute was raised. We believe you have misunderstood, and still misunderstand, the process. Not raising a TDS dispute is abnormal behaviour for one who believes someone has ‘scammed’ them. The landlord would always be adjudicated upon by the TDS if they have attempted anything unfair. De facto, a tenant CANNOT be ‘scammed’ in this way. Naturally, we are deeply disturbed by your choice of behaviour. 1) You left this property over six months ago but appear to have fermented a retrospective ‘viewpoint’ and chosen to post a potentially damaging, derogatory and factually incorrect review. Your review cannot be of the agent since the agent does not benefit from the end of tenancy process. We consider this to be ignorant, misguided, unreasonable and unacceptable. 2) When a tenancy starts, an INDEPENDENT assessment is made of condition by a third-party Inventory Clerk. Upon departure, a further report is compiled. These reports identify, to both tenant and landlord, damages, lack of maintenance, uncleanliness etc. for which, at times, the assessor deems the tenant to be responsible. From the report, the landlord and/or tenant (NOT ROLFE EAST) may choose to make a proposal in relation to deductions from the tenancy to cover works identified. If the parties disagree, the Government-backed TDS may be asked to adjudicate upon any dispute created by either landlord or tenant (again NOT ROLFE EAST). Nobody can be ‘scammed’ as there is a clear process followed. Throughout this/these process/processes, Rolfe East act only as conduit between landlord and tenant. 3) Your tenancy DID NOT END with ANY DISPUTE and your deposit was RETURNED IN FULL as recorded at the TDS. Your independent check-out highlighted (we have counted at least 25) items that the assessor considered to be the tenants’ responsibility. Your landlord asked us to share a quote for flooring (independent contractors stated YOUR DAMAGE could not be ‘patch-repaired’). This quote was, indeed, in excess of £3000. However, at no point did the landlord ask, or instruct us to request, that you pay this in full. Some would consider this very reasonable on their part. The landlord trusted you would make a reasonable contribution to the items identified as your responsibility. However, ultimately, they chose to set this aside based upon your exhibited behaviour at the time. 4) You go on to ‘complain by proxy’ on behalf of the recently departed tenants, whom you seem to have some form of connection with. TO BE CLEAR, the current tenants have been allowed to relinquish their contractual tenancy obligations and leave the property early without penalty, by choice of the landlord, who had no obligation to do so. There is no dispute with these tenants, but they still have the right to take use the TDS if they are not happy in any way. Posting a review of a matter when you are not directly involved is ill-considered and, moreover, inaccurate again. You fail to understand that you are reviewing a company that plays NO PART (other than relaying information). Naturally, as professional, independent and long standing West London ARLA/NAEA Licensed agents, we would appreciate you reconsidering this review and the incorrect statements therein. The use of ‘SCAM’ when referring to an independent, legally framed process (of which ROLFE EAST have no part other than conduit) is clearly designed to cause us reputational damage which we cannot and will not accept. We hold your contact details on file and hope you will reflect upon reasonably and rationally.

Hello Jo. Thank you so much for your review, we are thrilled that you had a great experience! We hope your sons will be very happy in their new home. :)

Thank you very much for your lovely words, Heni.

Hi Augustinas, thank you for your review. Unfortunately this was caused by the freeholder not dealing with a leak in the roof of the block (no names mentioned, but we find it hilarious that they give licences to landlords), we decorated the interior more than once, but the structure was the issue and regret that our tenant had an issue. Although we did all in our power to resolve the problem, sometimes there are outside influences beyond our control.