Beware: Scammers!
I have entrusted the rental of my lovely house to Prime properties Madeira and this turned out to be the worst decision ever. After a first bad experience with another rental agency, I was looking for somebody reliable. I am living abroad. Having a good professional onsite is absolutely key for me. The positive comments led me here. When I met them, they seemed to be serious, claiming they are professional. But this was all a very well-prepared speech. They are nowhere close to that.
For 3 years, they cashed in on agency fees without looking for my property. A first inspection took place only 6 months after the beginning of the rental. Some young women lived there at that time. Everything was OK.
But then, nothing happened for 18 months, during which the renting company put too many other construction workers in there. Nobody took care of common rooms: kitchen and bathrooms are disgusting, wooden floors and the landing seriously damaged. The paintings on the walls are dirty. They let those people ruin my house.
Lucy, the real estate agent contacted me to share her concern. She suggested forcing the renters to do the needed to restore the house in a first step as the guarantee could not cover the full renovation and then to end the contract after that.
I accepted, hoping they will follow up on the renovation.
They did not.
The renovation was all just window-dressing.
I met them in person one month before the end of the contract. I wanted to discuss the approach to find new renters. They advised me to modernize the kitchen and the bathrooms because they considered the existing ones are too old-fashioned and do not meet their clients expectations. (which is, by the way, funny as it was not the case when we decided to work together 3 years before). They even offered to put me in contact with renovation companies and to supervise the works. I was OK as long as the renters would pay for the existing damages. I only understood this was all a diversion and a manipulation attempt when I read their final inspection report.
Indeed, 3 weeks after our meeting and 4 weeks before the end of the rental, they sent an email to me stating “changes in their company led them to stop managing the rent of my house”. I was very surprised by this sudden swing.
In other words, they let me down.
In the final inspection report, they considered the damages are coming from the structure of the house (it was built in 1999 and occupied without any issue until 2 years ago) and correspond to a normal use of a house. I am attaching some pictures of the kitchen. There are evidence of leaks around the tap and the seals. The water flowed on the cabinets which blew up to the point the doors cannot close anymore. The drawers are all broken. I am attaching a video. You will be able to make up your mind.
My collaboration with Prime Properties Madeira is a pure nightmare.
They might be good at selling houses and make easy money but believe me, they will probably not hesitate to abandon you in case of trouble, just like they did with me.
Svar fra Prime Properties Madeira Real Estate
We strongly reject the accusation that we are “scammers.” The property was built in 1999 and, to our knowledge, has never undergone any significant renovation or modernisation.
This is fundamental when assessing the condition of a kitchen, bathrooms, cabinetry, plumbing, seals, flooring and other fixtures approximately 27 years later.
In an effort to resolve the matter objectively, we REPEATEDLY proposed that an independent and impartial third party inspect the property and assess its condition. Those proposals were declined.
Where tenants cause genuine damage, they should of course be held responsible. In fact, several months before the tenancy ended,some of the issues raised were already addressed by the tenants before the end of the tenancy.
However, tenants cannot reasonably be expected to pay for the renovation or replacement of ageing fixtures and fittings, or for deterioration resulting from the age and maintenance requirements of a property. Our professional responsibility was to distinguish between genuine tenant damage and deterioration that could not fairly be attributed to the tenants.
We were not prepared to classify every issue as tenant damage simply to make the tenants pay for works that, in our professional assessment, included maintenance and renovation requirements in a property dating from 1999.
This is precisely why we recommended modernising the kitchen and bathrooms. It was not a “diversion” or “manipulation attempt.” It was professional advice based on the age and condition of the property.
Our refusal to make tenants financially responsible for matters we did not believe they caused does not make us dishonest, and it certainly does not make us “scammers.”
As property managers, we have a responsibility to act fairly towards both property owners and tenants. A tenant should pay for damage they cause; they should not be expected to fund the renovation of a property that has not been significantly updated since 1999.
We stand by that principle and by our professional assessment.