30th Mar 2026 (5 days ago)
We recently viewed a property in Clacton with Boydens that we were very interested in. During the process, we asked whether my partner could be the sole tenant on the agreement. We were advised that anyone over 18 who would be staying at the property would still need to be declared on the application, which we completely understood.
We proceeded with the application and were open and honest from the outset that one of us has a less-than-perfect credit history. A few days passed, and when my partner contacted Boydens for an update, she was informed that further viewings were still taking place. In order to strengthen her position, my partner even offered £50 above the asking rent in the hope of improving her chances of securing the property.
Despite this, we were told repeatedly that the application was still with the landlord for consideration. We explained that we had also viewed another property and were under some pressure from a different agent for a decision, as we didn’t want to inconvenience anyone or risk losing both opportunities. Boydens said they understood and advised they would provide an update the following morning.
When we did not hear back as expected, my partner reluctantly placed a holding deposit with the other agency to avoid losing that option. Shortly afterwards, Boydens contacted her to say she had been offered the property we originally wanted.
Based on this, my partner withdrew from the alternative property. However, when we spoke with Boydens again on 30/03, we were told they were only just reviewing the application in detail and raised concerns regarding the credit history. We were then informed that the landlord’s insurance requirements meant they were unable to proceed with the tenancy, even with my partner as the sole tenant, and the property would be returned to the market.
As a result, my partner lost almost £300 in holding fees with the other agency after acting in good faith based on the information provided.
This review is not intended to criticise the company unfairly, as we appreciate that referencing and landlord decisions can be complex. However, we feel the situation could have been handled more clearly and efficiently, particularly regarding timelines and the stage of the referencing checks. Clearer communication earlier in the process may have prevented unnecessary financial loss.
We hope this feedback is helpful for improving communication with future applicants, as we would not want others to experience a similar situation.... Read more