Hi Rob, We are very sorry to hear that you have had a poor experience with Happy Lets and have looked into these comments; many of which are being mentioned for the first time. With regards to the insurance, this is a very common request which benefits both the landlord & tenant and ensures everyone is as protected as possible. However, it is also a common request from tenants to forego this and if this is the case, we simply ask the landlord whether they are happy to proceed without this insurance. We can see that you did email Pamela on 01/09/2016 who responded the following day with your options and asked that you let her know how you would like to proceed. Had you requested to remove this requirement then I am confident that we would have been able to work around this so it is a real shame that you are only bringing this to our attention now. With regards to the deposit, I am afraid that £1000 is extremely typical for a rent such as yours. We do not claim that the inventory will detail every bit of dust and mark which is the very reason we allow tenants to have 7 days to make any amendments that they would like to be included (again, this is very standard practice in the industry). However, we cannot see any grievances with inventory being reported to us at the time? The amended inventory (from yourself) was returned to us on 19/09/2016 and we were happy to use this version when it came to the final inspection. During the tenancy, should you find any ‘little faults/stuff' then we would ask that this reported to us and (with the landlord's permission) we would update the inventory if possible. It is also worth noting that fair wear & tear is always taken into account when it comes to the end of a tenancy. In relation to the property inspections during the tenancy, it is surprising to hear that we failed to showed up on two occasions but unfortunately these things do sometimes happen and you would have been notified accordingly with as much notice as possible. The inspections themselves are not for the purpose of updating the inventory but is to ascertain any clearly visible repairs/maintenance (although, we do also have to hope that tenants notify us of any issues). If damage was found then this will have been forwarded to the landlord for any instructions. It really is disappointing to hear ‘Happy Lets' being peppered throughout your review when in fact we can only act on the instructions of the landlord. This was very much the case when you requested to vacate the property prior to your lease ending in July 2018. Happy Lets then tried to negotiate this with your landlord and asked that you were released as per your request as opposed to holding you liable until July this year. The landlord did authorise this but was on the condition that any incurred costs were passed to yourself. We then notified you of this prior to advertising the property to ensure that you too were happy to proceed on this basis which you confirmed you were. The photos on the system were a truer reflection of the property as they were void of any personal belongings/possessions and we always try to be as accurate as possible when it comes to advertising. This also meant that we were not required to inconvenience you with an unnecessary appointment to take more photographs. The landlord requested a higher rent which was in line with the current rental market and subsequently a tenant was secured at the requested rent thus releasing you of liability. When arranging a viewing, we feel that an email detailing the date and time of this appointment is the best way of communicating this to any resident tenants and in that email we do make the tenant aware that we will have management keys to gain access should no one be present to allow access. We have strict protocol when it comes to gaining access to a property so even if we do have management keys, we always knock/ring/buzz prior to gaining entry. Again, we cannot see a complaint on the system reflecting this; it would have been helpful if we had the opportunity to investigate this at the time. You were asked to cover the rent up until a new tenant moved into the property but again this request came from the landlord as he felt it unfair to lose out on a week's rent for agreeing to release you of your liabilities earlier. However, you would not have been denied access during this week if this was required so further information on this comment would be appreciated. With regards to the final inspection, we always send information prior to the appointment with an abundance of information for the tenant to assist in this process (this particular email was sent to you on 22/12/2017). Furthermore, we are happy for the tenant to be present at this appointment if they so wish; our records show that you did indeed attend this appointment. This report is then sent to the landlord who ultimately decides what is to be claimed from the deposit and of course, cleaning is probably the most popular deduction. However, with the welcomed introduction of the tenancy deposit schemes, it is very difficult for agents/landlord to ‘falsely' claim anything on a checkout and we are always happy for the matter to be passed to them should we require their adjudication process when a tenant and landlord come to a disagreement. Finally, there is a balance outstanding to you but as you are aware, the advance rent was paid to the landlord in good faith that the tenancy agreement would be honoured. However, given that this has ended earlier, we have requested this over payment to be paid back to you. Please also be reminded that Happy Lets are not holding your deposit and shall be released by the tenancy deposit scheme once you and the landlord have come to an agreement. As stated above, if this is not possible, then the matter will be passed on. Thanks for your comments but again, it really is a shame that a lot of this only being highlighted to us now. Looking at the communication on the system, it only appears that Happy Lets were trying to accommodate you as best as possible in reaching an amicable agreement with the landlord.