Looks like Letting Agent may not have protected our deposit

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Well, the tenancy was actually 'renewed'. So if OP was aware of the fee at the time and in effect agreed to it I don't see a reasonable ground to demand it back now.

As a compromise position it is far more reasonable than the one you propose whereby the tenant forgoes the compo they are entitled to in law.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As a compromise position it is far more reasonable than the one you propose whereby the tenant forgoes the compo they are entitled to in law.

Are you replying just for the sake of arguing?

Agent agreed to refund disputed amount, what more should be reasonable asked for?
What is this 'compo' that the tenant is 'entitled to in law'?

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Are you replying just for the sake of arguing?

Agent agreed to refund disputed amount, what more should be reasonable asked for?
What is this 'compo' that the tenant is 'entitled to in law'?

was #31 your reply just for the sake of arguing? Methinks the landlord doth complain too much.

The compo is the 3* deposit, dear Landlord. If the tenancy was not renewed, then the deposit would have remained protected and the tenants would have had access to a dispute resolution service. But they did not, so they should have had 3* deposit. But if tenants and agent agree that this would not have arisen had the tenancy not been renewed, and tenants are gracious enough to let agent and landlord off the hook, then perhaps agent should be gracious enough to return the renewal fee.

It is all about being gracious, dear landlord, although one does think that the landlord class are a little lacking in graciousness.