Kelwyn: of course we credit check applicants. We, like every other agent in the country, do an affordability check - to ensure a tenant will be financially secure, which protects both parties in the lease - and once applicants have been put forward to a landlord, credit checks are carried out on the successful one(s). In this instance, your application was pretty much at the back of the queue mostly because you ran two hours late for the viewing, and then tried to subvert the system by applying without seeing the property, when of course prospective tenants who had done and had made applications in good faith were bound to have priority, on such a popular home, and rightly so - why should they be denied that opportunity by you? For the hard-working young team who conduct our process with care and rigour to be slammed with a one-star review in the circumstances described is unthinkingly unreasonable. I don't know what you do for a living but I'll hazard a guess that such casual offhandedness that affects people's livelihoods and reputation would be thought unfair, even cruel, if it had been applied to you. They are upset and they don't deserve to be. Maybe on reflection you'll re-think your review; if not, then at least other readers will see it in context and draw their own conclusions. For that at least, this has been a welcome opportunity to spell out the reality of letting done properly. From: Andy (owner)

I'm answering this review in order to ensure that you fully understand the reasons behind the decision, and so that the public at large are not misled by your comments. First, the situation regarding Holding Deposits in law is clearly stated by Shelter, here: https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/tenancy_deposits/holding_deposits You'll see that Shelter state that if an applicant gives false or misleading information to try to secure a property, the agent is entitled to retain the holding deposit (in this case £276). I wouldn't normally want to draw attention to anything to do with your personal situation, but as you have put slurs about Northwood into the public domain, I have to point out that you have an active CCJ against you and you opted not to reveal this yourself. Any landlord is entitled to decline an application from someone with an adverse credit history. You may also note that Shelter make clear that a Holding Deposit will only be taken by an agent from one applicant at a time. By giving us false information that led to us trying to progress this property for you, you actively denied the opportunity for any other applicant to make this their home for a considerable period of time. At a time of critical shortages of properties in the rental sector, this is manifestly unfair and unreasonable on your part. The retention of a Holding Deposit is not in any sense some sort of penalty for non-disclosure, it is a partial recovery of the costs incurred in processing your application, covering referencing costs and excessive wasted time incurred in discussing the situation with you and with the landlord. No-one wanted your application to fail, but false information made it rather inevitable. It is hard to conceive that you did not know you had a CCJ, but even then the team here did what they could to advise you how to resolve things for your future benefit. It's probably hardly worth me mentioning it, but perhaps once you have considered the true facts you will think that accusing hard-working people of theft is wholly unworthy - you ought to withdraw that comment, however unhappy you may be - we too are unhappy at wasting time and precious resources on services that any successful applicant receives absolutely for free.

I'm not sure how to respond to this review as there's not much to go on, but if there's something that displeases you let us know and we'll see what the issue is and how we can help - that's what we aim to do at all times, so poor reviews are always a worry to this hard-working team. From: Andy (owner)

Hannah: I need to comment on this review. I find it regrettable if a client feels it proper to make the comment you do, but for the sake of balance I'd refer to the INDEPENDENT adjudication by a tenancy deposit scheme administrator that takes place when a dispute about a deposit arises. The claim by an agency is assessed impartially by an outside expert assessor - and that body made the award against you of the overwhelming majority of the claim the agency made. So what part of that expert independent assessment of the standard you left the property in is the theft you allege? Boiler breakdown comment: an intermittently faulty item that inconvenienced you, no question. The need for regular repairs that we were having to manage led to the supply of a boiler replacement. A very regrettable equipment problem and I don't doubt for a second the intense irritation this caused you. From: Andy (owner)

Mokhtar: As owner of the business you've reviewed it falls to me to either try to understand where we might have not performed up to scratch, or to discuss with you what issues you've encountered - we only ever want our tenants to feel they've enjoyed the homes we let. In the same way, I very occasionally have to put right mis-impressions created by tenants who simply like to sound off when they don't like being held to account for their own behaviour; this is one of those occasions. First, if you have any worries at all about the deposit deductions proposed, you have the complete right to take your concerns forward with a deposit scheme dispute - that is exactly what the legislation around deposits since 2007 has enabled you to do. We too have the right to put forward the evidence of the exact issues being claimed for, which in this case include a good deal of cleaning of the entire property and with specific attention to carpets in five rooms, all matters that you could easily have avoided had you adopted basic cleaning functions. Likewise, why should your landlord or their agent have to deal with the disposal of clothes you chose to leave behind - why would you think that reasonable? These things are plainly not "inventions" by us. Second, your comments about asking you to sign hundreds of items BEFORE you get into a property are manifestly untrue: you are indeed asked to sign photos of the condition, but only when you are walked through the property on the DAY you move in, so that you can be protected against any later claim for damage that was already present - that seems to us and to adjudicators at the independent dispute resolution services to be a superbly efficient way of removing any reason for later dispute at the outset. So, we have evidence of ingoing condition, and evidence of the damage that has had to now be put right, including part redecorating after you, and repair to your breakages. We have no issue with placing these before the adjudication service if required - again, this will prove these are not "inventions". I'm bound to wonder why an educated man would have signed the documents (which are just the standard tenancy items) and the photographs if you didn't actually believe them at the outset - a very strange thing to do. So, although the landlord is looking for recovery of 42% of your deposit to pay for your dilapidations (again, not "most of your deposit" as you exaggeratedly claim), if you disagree then I suggest using the proper dispute handling channels, not airing your (literally) dirty linen in public. Very disappointed to have to defend my hard-working team against wholly untrue distortions of this sort. From: Andy (owner)

At the risk of repeating oneself ad nauseam, let me nevertheless repeat (sorry, again!... but it must be understood) that the assessment of the state of cleanliness before and after a tenancy is INDEPENDENTLY reviewed by the tenancy deposit adjudication bodies. Therefore they consider photographic EVIDENCE and both agency and tenant have to abide by their decision. As they have not yet had a chance to do so, no other "viewpoint" is even valid. Algirdis also did not see the photographic EVIDENCE of the position before the tenant moved in. He also did not see the photographic evidence of the state of cleanliness at the checkout: how is it possible therefore to work out "the work that was done"? Can someone who works in hygiene actually somehow cost up the work that is required only from photos AFTER the work has been done - pretty imaginative skill - you must come and introduce yourself to our business as we are intrigued! Has Algirdis actually visited the premises for himself to see the condition? I suggest that rather than indulge in ludicrous public musings we wait until the independent adjudication has taken place; the tenant has already confirmed in this public forum that she left the property dirty, and I am mystified why one would want to wash dirty linen in public any further. From Andy (owner)

Vygis: let's be clear about deposit handling procedures - all deposit disputes are handled independently through adjudication by the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. This exists precisely to protect your interests AND those of the landlord completely fairly, ensuring that damage that you have caused and costs that you have given rise to are properly taken from a deposit, and any balance due to you is returned to you. What could be clearer or more fair than that? You have the opportunity to put your case to the TDS, as does the agency on behalf of the landlord, and independent ruling will follow. As I understand that in your instance you have not yet even raised a dispute, and you therefore do not have the independent views of the TDS, it is hard to see how you can make the unreasonable comments you do - indeed, so far you suggest that you do not dispute the substantial cleaning that had to be done behind you and for which the full signed photographic evidence exists: it seems to me that if you had the good sense to clean up after your standard of living no dispute whatsoever would arise. I suggest that we let this go to the TDS, if you really think it necessary, and we'll see what arises - we have absolutely no problem with that From Andy (owner)