It is common that tenants will dispute damage or deposit deductions, but the review is false. The tenant gave notice to leave his property on 4 September 2017. My staff sent him the usual communications regarding check out procedures and an appointment for them to attend the property. My staff attended the property that day and the tenant WAS NOT AT THE PROPERTY. My staff made a wasted trip due to the discourtesy of the tenant. Tenant then informed our office that he needed extra days at the house. We then agreed the extra days with the landlord with tenant paying the extra rent. Tenant failed to pay his rent as promised on time (citing bank transfer issues) and he kept moving the "move out date". The landlord agreed to his constant moving of check out date. Since no new tenant had been found yet for the property, the landlord did not mind letting the tenant stay extra weeks. In the end, this went on for 2 - 3 weeks of the tenant messing us around on his moving out date. He was therefore informed that he should return the keys to our office when he had moved out so we could carry out the check out inspection. There is no legal requirement for agents to accompany someone's moving out. In fact, when there is damage to the house, the presence of a potentially aggressive tenant hinders the staff's job to take photographs and record any damage. TENANT WAS OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT CHECK OUT. He did not take up that opportunity. As a top national brand of letting agency, we take FULL PHOTOGRAPHIC INVENTORIES of the condition of the house upon move in and again upon check out. The contents of the 2 documents are compared and any damage caused to the house by the tenant is then recorded and communicated to the landlord. Proper quotes are then obtained by contractors to repair the damage. Comparing the 2 reports, and taking into account fair wear and tear and the condition of the house upon move in, only the further damage caused by tenant was noted down as needing a deposit deduction. My staff put that proposal to tenant by email and also explained in the same letter that he should respond with his proposal so any deductions can be deducted. He failed to respond. As reputable agents, all our deposits are protected by the Deposit Protection Service and there is a time limit for deposits to be returned at the end of the tenancy. As that time limit was coming up, the correct legal procedure that my staff followed was to submit our claim for deposit deduction to the DPS. The tenant was informed by email that he should follow the procedure of the Deposit Protection Service to dispute any deductions. He was also given the DPS guidance leaflets. Rather than use the correct procedure, the tenant and his wife have chosen to use Google, falsely claiming the deposit had been wiped, to tarnish our reputation. We do not take deposit deductions lightly as the money is the client's and we only follow correct legal procedures. Tenant has also called our office this morning to agree some "damage" and put forward some proposals for the landlord. He also claims he put this review "not against us" but to show the landlord as a "tramp". This landlord is one of the nicest landlords we know; a trustworthy, honest man who is agreeable to any repairs to his rental property. This review is false. Tenant has threatened to put duplicate reviews should his deposit not be returned in full. He isn't following correct procedures, that he has repeatedly been advised to do, and is using Google as a means of putting pressure to escape paying to put right the items damaged in the house. We are only carrying out our jobs to a high professional standard. Ramona Hirschi Managing Director