I’m afraid this review isn’t accurate or fair. These tenants were 2 months into a 12 month contract with no break clause when they approached us asking if they could be released from the contract. The initial answer to that was no as there was no break clause as they had agreed and signed a legally binding 12 month contract. But I said I would speak to the landlord and see if he would be agreeable to release them once a suitable replacement had been found. After a few conversations with the landlord (and tenant) he agreed for us to re market the property and for us to try and find a suitable replacement if the tenant met the costs to do this (which they agreed to). I've read back all the emails we had on the matter and there isn't one that could be deemed to be rude and when they first raised the question we had several emails the same day so it was dealt with in a very timely fashion. The property was back on the market within a week from the tenants first email and they were released from their contract exactly 5 weeks after first raising the question. To say we look to claw back money from our customers is just not true. The amount we agreed included third party costs like a check out inventory, check in inventory and reference costs for new tenants. I would genuinely much prefer tenants to stay for the duration of their contract from a business point of view. We effectively had to do the whole job again 2 months after having already gone through the process of marketing the property and sourcing a tenant for a reduced fee. I would advise any tenant who isn't 100% sure of their work / life plans to request a break clause in their contract.