How Not to Handle a Complaint
An Area Director responsible for reviewing and responding to complaints should approach the process fairly, accurately and professionally. In my view, this case provides a clear example of how not to handle a complaint.
Untrue Statements
Statements were made that were later shown to be untrue.
Unsupported Claims
Claims were introduced without supporting evidence or documentation.
Unverified Allegations
False or unverified allegations were presented as though they were established facts.
This section represents the author’s opinion based on the documented correspondence and evidence held by the author.
The Staff at Fox & Sons’ Eastbourne Branch
How a disagreement over property viewings developed into a formal complaint about the conduct of a senior branch employee.
When we were preparing to leave the flat we had been renting, Fox & Sons was one of three letting agents instructed to find a new tenant for the property.
We agreed to allow viewings during the final month of our tenancy, subject to two straightforward conditions:
We would be present
We would remain at the property during every viewing.
Viewings required prior agreement
Each appointment would be arranged and agreed with us in advance.
These were reasonable conditions, and both the landlord and the other two letting agents respected them. Our experience with the Fox & Sons Eastbourne Lettings Branch Partner, however, was very different.
Our experience
In our view, his conduct became aggressive, demanding, persistent and disrespectful. He repeatedly failed to respect the arrangements we had set and continued pressing for access and further viewings.
The situation escalated to the point where I had to firmly tell him to back off and informed the landlord that all viewings were being stopped with immediate effect.
Despite this, the agent later entered the flat and continued requesting additional viewings. By that stage, we stopped engaging with him directly and raised the matter with the landlord and the estate agents instead.
Read the full account of the Branch Partner’s conductFrom the branch complaint to the Area Director
Initially, we believed the agent’s behaviour may have resulted from pressure being applied by the landlord. However, after legal proceedings were initiated against the landlord, the landlord’s solicitor distanced the landlord from the agent’s conduct and apologised for the distress and harassment we said had been caused.
That brought us to the next stage of the complaint and the main subject of this article: the Fox & Sons Area Director and the way the complaint was handled.
This section is a first-person account of the author’s experience. Statements describing conduct or its effect reflect the author’s opinion and interpretation of the documented events.
An Unverified Allegation Presented as Fact
Look closely at this reply. The Area Director almost immediately states that an incident had occurred outside the office, despite apparently having made no effort to establish whether that claim was true.
I understand an incident occurred outside of the office…
When I first read the email, I was confused. I initially considered the possibility that the branch agent had provided him with inaccurate information.
The allegation had not been checked
Even if the information had been passed to him by somebody else, it is deeply concerning that an Area Director responsible for investigating complaints would repeat such a serious and unverified allegation as fact before checking the evidence or asking me for my account.
In my view, this was an irresponsible and completely unacceptable way to begin a complaints investigation.
Calmly Challenging an Unsupported Claim
The correspondence shows that I disputed the allegation before I had even been given the opportunity to explain my complaint.
A calm and polite correction
As the correspondence above shows, I challenged the claim immediately, calmly and politely. I made it clear that no incident had taken place near or outside the office and suggested that the Area Director may have received inaccurate information.
Looking back, I regret being quite so accommodating. Before I had even been given the opportunity to explain my complaint, he had already introduced an unsupported allegation and appeared ready to redirect the matter away from Fox & Sons.
A complaint approached with a closed mind
In my view, that was not the conduct of someone approaching a complaint with an open mind. Instead of first asking for my account and checking the facts, he repeated an unverified claim that immediately placed me on the defensive.
The Complaint Was Closed Before It Was Properly Investigated
In my view, this is the point at which the complaint was unfairly shut down without a proper, balanced or impartial investigation.
Our complaint was immediately minimised
The Area Director began by saying that he was sorry we “felt” the situation warranted a complaint. In my view, that wording minimised the seriousness of what we had reported.
My wife had been sufficiently concerned by the agent’s conduct that she contacted the police. The response nevertheless treated the matter as though we had simply overreacted.
A questionable claim that the matter had been reviewed
The email stated that the complaint had been reviewed “on a few different levels”.
However, we later submitted a Data Subject Access Request. This required the company to disclose the personal data and internal records it held about me.
Its data protection officer subsequently confirmed that there were no records supporting the account presented in the email. In my view, that raises serious questions about what investigation, if any, had actually taken place.
I understand the police have been informed regarding your actions…
A serious police allegation was presented as fact
The email stated that the police had been informed about my alleged actions during an incident.
I maintained from the beginning that no such incident had occurred. The Area Director later confirmed in writing that the police had not been notified and that no police action had been taken.
A serious and potentially damaging allegation had therefore been presented to me as fact without first being verified.
The court proceedings were described incorrectly
The email also stated that the landlord was taking me to court.
In reality, I had initiated the legal proceedings against the landlord. This was another important fact that could easily have been checked before the complaint response was issued.
The focus was shifted onto alleged abusive behaviour
The Area Director then warned that the company would not tolerate abusive behaviour.
This appeared to imply that I had behaved abusively, despite my complaint being about the conduct of their own agent and despite my wife having contacted the police because of the way that agent had behaved towards us.
The complaint was simply closed
The complaint was then closed without my concerns being meaningfully addressed and without any explanation of what evidence had supposedly been reviewed.
Why I found this response deeply concerning
Rather than examining the conduct of the employee complained about, the Area Director relied on unverified allegations, misstated the court proceedings and immediately placed us on the defensive.
In my opinion, employees are unlikely to be held properly accountable when complaints about their conduct are handled in this way.
This experience caused me to question whether the conduct we encountered at branch level reflected wider weaknesses in the company’s complaints culture.
A More Reasonable Reply — But Serious Questions Remained
With hindsight, this response initially appears more constructive. However, the later DSAR disclosure raised serious questions about whether the statements made in it were accurate.
The claim that a full internal review had been logged
The Area Director stated that he had “logged a full internal review”.
However, the company’s own data protection officer later confirmed that there was no information on its systems relating to such a review. No internal review records, complaint logs or supporting notes were disclosed.
In my view, the claim that a full internal review had been logged is extremely difficult to reconcile with the company’s later confirmation that it held no records of that review.
What outcome was I seeking?
The Area Director then asked what solution I was looking for.
The answer should have been straightforward: a proper investigation into the conduct I had complained about, an honest response based on verified facts and, where wrongdoing was established, a meaningful apology.
What the complaint process should have delivered
A proper examination of the original complaint
A response based on checked and documented facts
Accountability where employee misconduct was established
A sincere and meaningful apology where appropriate
My conclusion
Instead, I was left feeling that the complaint process was being managed through unsupported statements rather than a genuine investigation.
In my opinion, the handling of this matter was shameful, deeply concerning and embarrassing for someone occupying such a senior position.
Leave a Reply