Worst letting agent I had so far

Click here if this is your business
1.4 / 5
8% of users recommend this
Click here if this is your business
  • Value For Money

u255387's review of Challenger International, Bath


“Worst letting agent I had so far”

Written on: 17/05/2012 by u255387 (1 review written)

I spent £450+ on cleaning on a one bedroom flat in Bath after 2 years tenency. They claimed there were damages in the bathroom. They used a lot of the emails to make us believe the damage is real. They claimed they have the protection from the tenancy agreement and always win the Court case to make us think carefully if we put it to the Court. They refused us to re-visit the flat when we said we wanted to visit the flat again (even we pay them). Took 3.5 months and a solictor to get the deposit back. Took 7 months and submitted to the Court to end the issue.

They claimed that… (extracted from the emails)
• Replacing the taps £355
• Replacing the bath & tiling £1000
• Replacing the shower fitting £70
• Replacing the shower board seal £25
• Replacing the toilet seat £130
• Cleaning on the toilet £60
• Replacing the windows keys £45
• Dry Cleaning on the curtain £300+ (we quoted it from the same company individually £55)
• Extra cleaning for the flat £200+ (we had already paid £450+ to use the cleaning company recommended by them before we moved out)
• Sub-letting the flat to our baby (they did not give me a figure)
• Agent fee to communicate with me £550+
Total £2735+ (plus refused to return my deposit of £862.50).

I also spent time to get the second opinion on…
• 2x professional residential cleaning companies on the bathroom
• 2x letting agents on the bathroom condition
• 3x dry clean companies on the curtain
• 2x solicitors to claim the deposit back and advice
• Deposit Protect Scheme
• Bath MP team
• Bath Citizens Advice Bureau (4 days)
• Comments from neighbour
• 25 emails from me to CIL and 36 emails from CIL to me

  • Bath


If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Challengerinternational's Response to u255387's Review

Written on: 21/09/2013

This person is known to us from the information provided. The high quality flat they occupied was in need of a lot of work at the end of their tenancy. The landlord had to reluctantly pay for a lot of damaged items. The good quality double bed was not new but in good order at the start of the tenancy - it was found to be broken badly and had to be replaced at the owners expense for the new tenant. There work in the bathroom was also paid for by the landlord although the damage was to the expensive gold plated taps and other fittings which had to be replaced as the tenant had damaged these beyond restoration by not caring for them pr using some corrosive substance that was so damaging as to cause pitting, the lavatory seat was broken too. The tenant did not pay for these damages but left the landlord hiigh and dry. There were many compaints about adult type music and general noise in the small hours and sub-letting too - things calmed down a little when their lovely baby arrived in the latter part of the two year tenancy. Items were abandoned on the communal stairs including a huge televison set and additional cleaning was required to meet our standards, the landord met most of the additional costs. We believed that the flat was sublet and the tenant tried to suggest that this was his baby which was most definately not the case! In fact it seemed there may have been several different adults there from time to time in addition to the two offcial residents. We refused to provide references which is something we do not like doing.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
Was this review helpful? 0 0