Thank you for your feedback.
We take concerns about our service seriously, but there are several points in this review that require clarification.
Firstly, the person posting this review was not our client. Our client was the landlord, who instructed us, authorised the work and was responsible for payment. Although this review has been posted under an account named “Neil”, the comments clearly relate to the tenant’s experience and conversations with us at the property.
Our original instruction from the landlord was to treat one wasp nest at the rear of the property. No second internal wasp nest had been reported to us by our client or included within our instructions.
We later returned regarding a separate mouse infestation. Again, no second wasp nest was raised with us through our client as an outstanding issue.
All jobs, instructions and visits are recorded on our digital system. There was no second internal nest logged or instructed to us at that stage. Had the landlord instructed us to investigate or treat a second nest, we would of course have done so as additional work.
The first time we were made aware of an emergency involving the internal nest was when we received a call informing us that wasps had broken through the ceiling.
Given the situation, we attended as an emergency without waiting for prior landlord authorisation and treated the nest.
We therefore strongly dispute the suggestion that we knowingly ignored a previously reported internal nest.
We were later asked by the landlord to return because of concerns about continued wasp activity. We also intended to check the progress of the mouse infestation.
Unfortunately, when we arrived, a disagreement arose regarding what had previously been reported and what we had actually been instructed to deal with. We explained that our instructions came from the landlord and that we had no previous record of the second nest being reported to us through our client.
The conversation ended when we were told the matter would be taken down a legal route and the door was closed. As a result, we were unable to inspect either the ongoing wasp situation or the mouse infestation.
We subsequently attempted to telephone the tenant’s husband to discuss the situation, but the call was not answered.
We also completely reject the descriptions of our conduct as “rude”, “incompetent” or “sexist”.
At no point were any comments made, decisions taken or actions carried out based on gender. The disagreement related solely to the scope of work, what had been reported to us and the instructions we had received from our client. We would have dealt with the situation in exactly the same way regardless of who we were speaking to.
We fully appreciate how distressing the wasp incident must have been, particularly with a young child and a person reported to have an allergy present.
However, we attended the work we were instructed to undertake, and when the internal nest was first brought to our attention as an emergency, we attended and treated it promptly.
We are always prepared to take responsibility where we have made an error, but we cannot accept responsibility for an additional pest issue that had not previously been reported or instructed to us through our client.