u/CarefulArtist2932

Hi all,

Would really appreciate some objective opinions because I feel like I’m going slightly mad trying to work out whether we’re being reasonable or whether we should just pay to make this go away!

This is in England and the deposit is protected with DPS.

Me and my partner rented a flat for around 18 months. Overall, we took really good care of the property- it was actually under offer/sale whilst we were living there (which is why we had to move out) and the buyers first viewed it fully furnished by us and told us how well presented it was etc. They subsequently made an offer. we were also told that by our estate agency and thanked for consistently keeping it so "impeccable". We were also so flexibile with viewing of course, and never said no to any (despite the fact that I WFH).

There is also wider context that has impacted trust during the tenancy (although I know DPS won’t care about this specifically as it wouldn't be directly relevant to their claim). For around a year there was an issue involving sewage/manhole flooding at the front of the property which repeatedly smelled strongly of human waste. We repeatedly raised this with the agency/landlord, it was never properly resolved or hygienically cleaned despite lots of promises, and eventually I ended up contacting Southern Water myself and the freeholders of the buidling- which finally stopped the flooding. Again- I know this is not directly relevant to deposit deductions, but it does explain why by the end of the tenancy we felt quite frustrated and unsupported given how flexible we were, and that we literally put up with living in sewage which is a total biohazard.

Anyway:

We vacated the property on 30 April. A formal independent checkout report was completed on 5 May.

The checkout report:

• did not identify any damage to the kitchen worktops,
• described the garden as needing “cutting back”,
• and cleaning standards weren’t considered sufficient.

The agency initially came to us with:

• full cleaning deduction (quote: £187; claiming from us: £187),
• garden contribution (quote: £200; claming from us: £100),
• no kitchen issue mentioned.

We accepted the cleaning deduction in full immediately, but had some concerns RE the garden as comparing it to the check-in and check-out report, it was described when we took over the property as being "overgrown" and "requring light maintence"- thus we believed we gave the property back in the same condition (also, we moved-in in september, and moved out in April/May so of course with seasonal growth its bound to look fuller/bushier/more vibrant. Then on 11 May (11 days after we moved out and 6 days after the checkout report) the agency suddenly emailed us close-up flash photographs provided by the landlord, alleging knife/scratch marks to the kitchen worktops. These were not in the checkout report at all and we have absolutely no recollection or knowledge of such marks. We responded initially saying:

• we did not agree the marks necessarily amounted to damage beyond fair wear and tear (and noted how we were not aware of these)
• and that after 18 months of use some superficial marks on laminate worktops did not seem unreasonable.

The agency then came back saying no, the landlord would be pursuing a claim and this is damage, and can be avoided by using chopping boards. Of course we used chopping boards, we aren't hooligans. At this point we escalated to the owner/director of the agency because we felt our concerns/context were not really being engaged with and everything felt very landlord-led, despite the check out report. For example, when we tried to chat/provide context and negotiate we kept getting selective replies and were just told it was moving to deductions. To be fair to the owner, he has actually been nice and professional throughout. He called us and basically encouraged us to avoid DPS if possible. During the call he repeatedly said things like:

• “it’s a grey area”
• “it’s not clear cut”
• “what feels fair in your hearts of hearts”
• etc.

We kept bringing the conversation back to the actual evidence and the checkout report.

Our position became:

• the garden was already described at check-in as “slightly overgrown” and requiring “light maintenance”
• the checkout wording (“needs cutting back”) seemed broadly comparable,
• and the kitchen issue was not identified in the independent checkout report at all. Nor did we have any knowledge of it.

We then formally offered:

• full cleaning deduction (£187)
• £50 goodwill contribution toward the garden
• £0 toward the kitchen.

The kitchen quote is apparently £350, but the landlord is only trying to claim £150 from us. We have never actually seen the quote itself. In our email we explained:

• we were not aware of any worktop damage when vacating,
• no damage was identified during the checkout inspection,
• the issue only appeared later via landlord-provided photographs,
• and given the timing and absence from the checkout report we did not feel liability could fairly/reliably be attributed to us.

The agency owner then called me again and basically said:

• our tone had shifted from “this isn’t damage” to “maybe we didn’t do it”
• the email felt too legal/combative,
• he thought the references to the 11-day gap and later photos sounded accusatory,
• and he believes if the landlord receives the email as written she will escalate to DPS and he personally thinks DPS would rule in her favour.

He also suggested we lead more with emotion/goodwill and less with legal/process arguments.

To clarify:
We are NOT accusing the landlord of fabricating damage or intentionally causing damage. We genuinely just:

• do not remember seeing or causing these marks,
• were never made aware of them during checkout,
• and are uncomfortable accepting liability for something not identified in the independent report- which is meant to be the objective report that everyone has access to/goes by.

The agency is now encouraging us to increase our kitchen offer and settle. They said a 50/50 of what they're asking for (i.e. £75 of the £150 they are asking for based on the £350 quote). We are considering offering £50 toward the kitchen purely to make this end, but honestly we don’t actually believe we should have to pay it based on the evidence.

So I guess my questions are:

1. In people’s experience, how much weight does DPS place on the formal checkout report?
2. Is the later landlord photographic evidence likely to override the absence of any notation in the checkout?
3. Does the agency owner’s reaction sound like genuine concern that we’d lose, or more like pressure to settle and avoid escalation/admin for them?
4. Would you hold firm at £0 for the kitchen or just pay a small amount for peace?

Our concern offering £50 is that the landlord will just go higher, but £50 is our total max (i.e. offering £287 in total). We already feel like we are compromising, given we totally agree and accept cleaning, but feel as though the garden was given back in a comparable / nearly identifical condition based on check-in and check-out report; and that the "damage" to the kitchen worktop was not in the check-out report. Another peice of context that might be useful is the fact that we agreed on a rent price when we moved in, and the landlord did renovatons on the kitchen (so yes, kitchen counter tops were brand new when we moved in FYI!); but the landlord asked us to increase our rent by £100, citing that their kitchen renovations had costed more than they initially expected. So, it just feels as though there is an attachment to this kitchen and thus a weird level of scrutiny being placed on it. The counter is laminate, and the scratches appear very superficial- but they have committed to the fact that they are knife marks. Again, we can't really comment on it because we never noticed them, and we don't even know what area of the kitchen the marks are.

Would really appreciate objective opinions because I genuinely can’t tell anymore whether we’re being reasonable or whether I’m becoming overly defensive/stubborn at this stage. Should we hold firm at £0 for the kitchen? should we offer the £50 but say its our cieling? should we just let the landlord go to DPS and let it play out? I think I'm a bit scared now based on the agent saying it likely wouldn't rule in our favour. from my research, i assumed if it wasn;t in the checkout report and it was that gap- that the DPS adjudicator would likely say liability cannot be fairly attributed?