Summary

This is a first-person account of a real consumer dispute involving Fox & Sons, Sequence UK Ltd and Connells Group. I am publishing it as a public-interest case study to show how written complaints, escalation routes and data rights can work in practice.

In July 2024, near the end of a tenancy, a dispute arose about viewings being arranged at the flat I lived in with my wife. Fox & Sons were not the managing agent for the property, but a branch employee was involved in arranging viewings before we moved out.

My complaint was about pressure around viewings, access to the property, communication, and the way the situation was later described.

In August 2024, after I complained, correspondence from the company referred to an alleged incident outside the office and later stated that the police had been informed regarding my actions towards a branch employee.

I disputed that from the beginning.

This case study explains what happened, what was written at the time, what I challenged, and what finally worked.

Background: the original issue

The dispute began during the final stage of my tenancy.

The property was being marketed for new tenants before we moved out. A Fox & Sons branch employee attended the flat to take photographs and arrange viewings.

My position was simple: my wife and I did not want anyone entering the flat without us present. We were also working long hours and asked for viewings to be arranged around our availability.

In my complaint, I said we had explained that Fridays and Saturdays were especially difficult because of work commitments, and that we were more flexible from Monday to Thursday.

My complaint was that this was not respected properly.

I said that viewings were pushed too heavily, that there was pressure to allow access without us being present, and that viewings were arranged in a way that disrupted us during an already stressful move-out period.

That was the original consumer complaint.

The first complaint

On 15 August 2024, I emailed the company’s Area Lettings Director and asked whether I could submit a complaint about the behaviour of a branch employee.

The Area Lettings Director replied the same day. He said the property was not managed by Fox & Sons, so complaints would not normally be dealt with internally. However, he also said he was willing to hear more and advise on next steps.

I replied and clarified that the complaint was not about the landlord, the property itself, or my separate dispute with the landlord. It was about the conduct of the branch employee.

The Area Lettings Director then confirmed that I could use that email address for my complaint and that he could investigate it.

The first reference to an alleged incident

On 16 August 2024, before I had submitted my full written complaint, the Area Lettings Director wrote:

“Please note I understand an incident occurred outside of the office, so the normal policy is for us to refer you to the police or citizens advise.”

Email dated 16 August 2024

I immediately disputed that.

I replied the same day and wrote that there had been no incident near or outside the office. I said the information was completely inaccurate and that there may have been a miscommunication.

I also made clear that I was not pursuing legal action against Fox & Sons at that stage. I said the legal dispute was with the landlord, not with the branch employee or the company.

This was an important moment because the complaint had started to shift away from the viewing issue and towards an alleged incident that I said had not happened.

My formal complaint

On 20 August 2024, I submitted my formal written complaint. In that complaint, I set out my version of events.

I said that when the branch employee first attended the flat, I made clear that we did not want viewings to happen without us present. I also said that we tried to provide alternative availability and that we were not refusing all viewings.

I complained that, despite this, there was pressure for viewings to continue and for access to be allowed without us being there.

I also said that a large number of viewings were arranged on a Saturday without proper agreement from us, and that my wife had to change her plans to accommodate them.

I explained that other agencies had handled viewings differently by calling us, asking for suitable times, and respecting our routine.

The complaint also referred to a later phone call during the final week of the tenancy. I said that while my wife and I were on the way to a viewing, the branch employee called several times asking where we were and urging us to hurry. I accepted that I raised my voice and used explicit language, which I said I regretted, but I explained that this happened after I felt pushed repeatedly.

The key point of the complaint was that I believed the wider context had been ignored.

Connells Group Compliance was copied in

After I submitted the complaint, a Connells Group compliance and complaints contact replied.

That reply explained that the department copied was for residential sales and that the Lettings Complaints Team had been copied in to assist.

This matters because the complaint was no longer just a branch conversation. It had been copied into wider complaints channels connected to Sequence / Connells Group.

The complaint response

On 21 August 2024, the Area Lettings Director responded to my complaint.

The response said the matter had been reviewed on a few different levels, including email communication from the branch, the landlord and me.

The response then said that because the property was not managed by Fox & Sons, I should be redirected back to the landlord.

The most important part of the response was this sentence:

“I understand the police have been informed regarding your actions towards [branch employee] on 18th July, and your statement of events is very different to what was reported by the applicant and [branch employee].”

Complaint response dated 21 August 2024

The same email also said that the landlord was taking me to court, that a solicitor had advised the company to cease communication with me until the court hearing, and that the company took staff safety seriously.

The complaint was then closed, and I was referred to the ombudsman.

I disputed several parts of that response.

Why I challenged it

I challenged the response because I believed it contained important inaccuracies.

First, I disputed the police wording.

Second, I disputed the suggestion that the landlord was taking me to court. My position was that I was the one preparing legal action against the landlord.

Third, I did not accept that my complaint had been properly addressed. In my view, the focus had moved away from the conduct I complained about and onto allegations about me.

The company later accepted one of those points.

“You are correct as my understanding was that the landlord was taking you to court, so I apologise for this error.”

Follow-up dated 23 August 2024

That same email said my concerns had been acknowledged and that a full internal review had been logged.

However, the same email still referred to “the police and landlord’s solicitor” being involved.

That is why the police issue remained important.

The complaint was not over

Although the complaint had initially been closed, the correspondence continued.

1. 30 Aug
   2024

   A holding response

   The Area Lettings Director said he was looking into a few things and would revert the following week.

2. 3 Sep
   2024

   Internal investigation

   He wrote that my comments were noted and were being investigated internally because the company did not want the situation to happen again for all parties concerned.

3. Sep
   2024

   A direct written challenge

   I wrote to the branch employee and forwarded the email to the Area Lettings Director, who replied: “I think that’s a sensible way forward.”

4. Nov
   2024

   Formal escalation

   I asked for the correct complaints route and ombudsman information. The complaint moved to the Sequence Lettings Complaints team and a Divisional Managing Director.

5. 3 Dec
   2024

   A written apology

   The Divisional Managing Director acknowledged the pressure around viewings and said the Eastbourne process would be reviewed.

On 3 September 2024, the Area Lettings Director wrote:

“Please rest assured your comments are noted and are being investigated internally, as we don’t want this to happen again for all parties concerned.”

Email dated 3 September 2024

He also acknowledged that it had been a stressful situation for me and my wife. At that point, I replied that I wanted to move on from the matter and focus on the separate dispute with the landlord.

The September email to the branch employee

In September 2024, I also wrote directly to the branch employee about what had been said. I then forwarded that email to the Area Lettings Director.

The Area Lettings Director replied: “I think that’s a sensible way forward.”

In my opinion, that reply is important because it shows that, at that stage, the company was still engaging with me constructively and did not treat my written challenge as unreasonable.

The matter returned in November 2024

In November 2024, after a separate tenancy deposit dispute had been resolved, I returned to the Fox & Sons complaint.

I asked for the matter to be escalated and for the correct complaints route, including ombudsman referral information.

The Area Lettings Director copied in the Sequence Lettings Complaints team and said the complaint should move to the next stage. He wrote that he had made the Divisional Managing Director aware of the complaint and asked for a response to be issued in his name.

On 3 December 2024, the Divisional Managing Director responded.

“I can see that you and your wife are very unhappy with the pressure put on you to show viewings around the property and for this please accept my apologies. I will look at the process here in Eastbourne and we will learn from any mistakes that we made.”

Divisional Managing Director, 3 December 2024

That apology was significant.

It did not resolve every issue, but it did acknowledge the pressure around viewings and said the process would be looked at.

The unresolved issue: police involvement

Even after the December 2024 apology, one issue remained unresolved for me.

The company had written in August 2024 that the police had been informed regarding my actions towards a branch employee.

I had disputed that from the outset.

The issue mattered because police involvement is serious. It changes the tone of a complaint. It can make a customer feel intimidated, and it can affect how others view the dispute.

In my opinion, if a company states or repeats that the police were informed about a customer, it should be able to identify the record supporting that statement.

That is why I later used my data rights.

The Subject Access Request

I later submitted a Subject Access Request.

The purpose was simple: I wanted to see what personal data was held about me, including internal correspondence, complaint notes, records of third-party contact, and any record connected to the alleged police involvement.

This was the turning point.

A Subject Access Request forces an organisation to search for and provide personal data it holds about you, subject to the legal rules and exemptions that apply.

For consumers, it can be one of the most useful tools when a dispute involves statements made about them.

The 2026 written clarification

In 2026, after the matter was pursued further, the company’s Area Director confirmed in writing:

That sentence is the reason this case study matters.

The documentary record showed two positions:

I make no allegation about anyone’s intent.

The documents are reproduced so readers can see the record for themselves and understand why keeping everything in writing matters.

Key documents

The following six items form the central written record. Redacted screenshots can be placed into the marked areas before publication.

My opinion

In my opinion, being told that the police had been informed about my actions, when the company later confirmed that the police were never notified, was distressing and intimidating.

In my opinion, a customer should not have to use a legal data request to get clarity about whether the police were actually contacted.

In my opinion, this case also shows why vague statements should always be challenged in writing. If someone says the police were involved, ask for the date, the force, the reference number, the officer details, and the record held.

That is my opinion, based on the documents and timeline set out above.

What worked

1. Keeping everything in writing

   The entire case depends on the written record. Emails, dates, complaint responses, acknowledgements, and later clarifications all mattered. Without the paper trail, this would have become one person’s word against another’s.

2. Challenging inaccuracies immediately

   When I was told there had been an incident outside the office, I challenged it immediately. When I was told the landlord was taking me to court, I challenged that too. One of those points was later corrected in writing.

3. Asking for the complaint to be escalated

   The complaint did not end at branch level. It moved from the Area Lettings Director to the Lettings Complaints team and then to a Divisional Managing Director. That escalation produced a written apology about the pressure around viewings.

4. Using a Subject Access Request

   The Subject Access Request was the key tool. It forced the issue away from vague wording and towards records. If an organisation has made or repeated a serious statement about you, a DSAR can help reveal what records actually exist.

5. Separating fact from opinion

   The facts are the documents, dates and written responses. My opinion is how those documents affected me and what I believe they show. Keeping those separate makes the complaint clearer and safer to publish.

What I would do differently

Looking back, I would make every complaint shorter, colder and more structured.

I would avoid emotional language. I would ask for particulars earlier. I would write something like:

Please identify the record relied upon for the statement that police were informed. Please confirm the date of contact, the police force contacted, the method of contact, any reference number, and the name or role of the person who made the report.

Example request for particulars

That kind of wording is more powerful than anger.

What other consumers can learn

If you are complaining about Fox & Sons, Connells Group, Sequence, or any other estate agent, keep the complaint focused.

• Write down dates
• Keep screenshots
• Ask for final responses
• Request evidence behind serious claims

If something has been said about you and you believe it is inaccurate, consider making a Subject Access Request.

If the organisation fails to handle your data properly, consider escalating to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

If the complaint is about estate agency service, ask for the company’s final viewpoint letter and consider escalating to The Property Ombudsman where appropriate.