1

Mayfair Town & Country inserted themselves into an active legal dispute despite having had no substantive involvement whatsoever in the management of the property, the handling of repairs, repeated reports of water ingress, mould, septic issues or the wider tenancy failures giving rise to the matter.
Their involvement had effectively ended many months earlier when the tenancy concluded and the deposit was returned, yet Meg King nevertheless sought access to correspondence and evidence entirely outside the scope of any legitimate authority Mayfair possessed. More remarkably, there was even an unnecessary suggestion that a guarantor — wholly unrelated to the disrepair issues being raised — might somehow be contacted. No proper explanation for the relevance of this was ever given because there plainly was none.
When challenged, Anna Tucker’s response amounted to little more than an attempt to retrospectively justify Mayfair’s involvement on the basis they had once arranged the tenancy and protected the deposit. That conveniently ignored the obvious fact that this conferred no continuing authority to involve themselves in an ongoing dispute centred on long-standing management and compliance failures entirely outside their remit.
Taken as a whole, the conduct came across as intrusive, heavy-handed and opportunistic. Rather than helping resolve matters, Mayfair’s sudden appearance simply reinforced the impression of a reactive and disorganised approach by those connected to the estate’s management.
A thoroughly unprofessional experience.!!... Read more
21st May 2026 (30 days ago)