I appreciate your frustration and the views you have expressed but I feel that it is unfairly targeted at ourselves for a number of reasons which I will explain. The first point is that our role at the end of the tenancy is to act between the tenant and the landlord to decide if deductions are justified and how much to deduct. We do not gain from this process, in fact it is better for us if it can be decided and agreed straight away as this gives us less work to do. Any deductions are not our money, they are the landlord´s monies so we do not financially gain from an "exaggerated" claim. The second point is that we are instructed by the landlord. Whatever advice we give to them, it is their choice as to what they instruct us to do and we are contractually obliged to act under their instruction as is the case in this matter. So it is not that we are a "company for a landlords heart", we are contractually obliged to act for them. You might argue it is one and the same but the hard fact is that we act not based on emotions but on a legal obligation. The third point would be that you have expressed your opinion on the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The DPS adjudicator did not agree that it was in a better condition (and this is most definitely neither ours nor the landlord´s view), just that the condition when you moved in was fair and therefore the landlord (to quote from their report) has suffered "no material loss because the décor would have required redecorating at the end of the tenancy". This is the adjudicator´s independent view based on photographs and not by their having seen it in person. We would still disagree that there has been fair wear and tear but we understand the point the adjudicator is making regarding the age of the décor and that it is their view to compensate the landlord would be "embetterment". The fourth point would be that your review implies the property was so much better at the end of your tenancy that all of the deposit was returned to you. You know that is not the case, monies were withheld for a number of issues that were upheld by the arbitrator. You make it sound as though you got the whole of your deposit back because of exaggerated claims and because the property was in a better condition at the end of your tenancy. You know that is not the case. Finally, tenants should not be concerned about using us because due process has been followed at every point. The adjudication process exists for this scenario where there is a disagreement. The fact that you "won" on some aspects is not a reason that tenants should not use us. We are fully compliant with all relevant legislation and with the deposit scheme rules and so tenants are protected as you are claiming you have been in your case. If I might be cheeky, I would argue you should compliment and recommend us for following due process that has enabled you to achieve a result that you believe to be fair - we have played our part in that by acting between you and the landlord. I invite you to call me if you wish to discuss further and if you believe there was a failing that we should act upon. As business owner, I always look at opportunities to improve our service. Steve Adams, Director, Northwood (Bolton) Limited