Does L have to give T opportunity to fix end of tenancy repairs themselves?

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "12/05/2015 - 17:01":

We don't allow naming and shaming here, see >>> http://www.property118.com/what-property118-is-not/

However, this website does >>> http://www.allagents.co.uk/
.

If I was the tenant I would contest the agents claims and seek arbitration. It's then for the agent to provide evidence of their claim (not the tenant). If I was the landlord I would be looking for a new agent. A check-out (or in) that is not accompanied with the tenant and agent/landlord at the same time is a waste of time.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "12/05/2015 - 17:01":

Ros, these particular tenants also painted top to bottom (the girl is a painter and decorator) and so saw it as no bother to go the extra mile to prevent any nit-picking, yet that seems to have happened anyway, which is what makes this scenario all the more frustrating. It makes me wonder if tenants who leave properties as they did have even SOME of their deposit at potential risk, how on earth any of their 'average condition' properties tenants have even the slightest hope of getting anything back.

I would guess that my very best returned property (covering over 20yrs in renting), would, in this particular agent's eyes, be considered nothing short of completely unacceptable.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "12/05/2015 - 17:01":

Even though £150 may or may not be more than the total of damage done, it really doesnt seem like much to lose (compared to the amounts that some on this site have lost).

This kind of thing makes me really angry. How is it still possible for agents to retain any part of deposits without going through the Deposit Protection Scheme? In Scotland the landlord and tenant have to agree before any money is released. If they don't, it goes to adjudication. Meticulous evidence is required from the landlord or agent in any adjudication, otherwise the tenant gets the whole deposit back, even if the house is wrecked. If the landlord can't prove it wasn't wrecked when they moved in, he hasn't a leg to stand on.
We are regulated to within an inch of our lives in Scotland, and it is because of greedy unscrupulous agents and landlords like this. I have just submitted my response to the Second Consultation on reforming the private rented sector up here, and I've been ranting on defending the majority of landlords, and describing some of the problems we have with certain tenants, but agents like this just destroy my moral high ground. As others have said, I would be delighted if tenants were prepared to make this sort of effort, and wouldn't dream of taking a penny from their deposit.

Reply to the comment left by "Annie Stevens" at "12/05/2015 - 23:16":

We've had deposit protection in England and Wales for far longer than Scotland.

Sadly that's what happens when left wing politicians look to win votes from the likes of Shelter.

I don't envy Scots landlords with such a left wing biased group of MP's.
.

The only worry might be if the tenant wanted to repaint a grubby walled property would be that they could make a decent job of it.

Reply to the comment left by "Colin Dartnell" at "13/05/2015 - 01:54":

My original question was really about whether or not the landlord/agent could refuse the tenant the opportunity to 'fix' the trivial problems they highlighted (water-marked soap dish in shower, a couple of light bulbs that are blown etc.) rather than them just go ahead and pay a cleaner and an electrician top dollar. Especially as they are willing and the agent also asked them if they'd like to sort the 'problems' themselves. Once they did tell them they would, the agent then needed to 'check with the landlord' to make sure he'd be happy for them to 're-access the property'.

I actually advocated for my brother by ringing and saying I would take no nonsense after I saw the 20-page document. I asked where the deposit was protected and they said they had it. So I said that was against the law. Then the woman said it was with the 'Dispute Service.' So I said I had no idea what that was. Then she said it was with the TDS - which I've never used but I assume is the one where the agent/landlord keeps the money and insures it. She said my brother would have to agree before any money went to him or to the landlord. But in practice, my brother felt they held the power, he needed the money after being made redundant and could not afford to wait. He had already moved back to Wales by the 'inspection.' The bill he was then presented with included £45 for cleaning a stain on a carpet (one stain after 7 years) and £92 for vaccuuming and clearing some marks on the inside door of a cupboard - very trivial things as with the case Luke is discussing.
My argument, in the case of my brother, is that after 7 years of occupation, a home is not to be expected to be returned looking like a brand new Barratt home. Instead for the sake of £150, which as one person says is not a lot of money to lose (for us landlords it's not - I've lost tens of thousands from nightmare tenants - but for a tenant it usually is a lot), but to be cheated by anyone leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. I'd prefer to try and make the world a better place through my actions. Incidentally, I gave £200 to World Vision yesterday to support their work in Nepal, so I also think a couple of hundred isn't much - but any amount seems a lot when someone has got it from you wrongfully.

The tenant has no right of access as the tenancy is now over. The agent is correct to ask the landlord permission to let the tenant's re-enter to clean. Yes entry for cleaning can be refused and charges applied for contract cleaners to come in. I would not be surprised if the landlord refused re-entry as this has implications on many things such as what happens if there is an accident, caused by or to the uninsured cleaners (ex tenants) etc. What happens if the tenants are let back in by the agent/landlord and they then don't leave? All the check-out preps should have been completed by the time of the check-out. Any deterioration (accepting fair wear & tear) when compared to the check-in condition can be deducted from the deposit.