What motivates agents to make wrongful deductions from a tenancy deposit, what is in it for them?

saajan_12

Could be any number of things
* Maybe they forgot to deduct for it from the prior tenants and are trying to cover tracks, get the money and pay for the repair before the LL notices. 
* Maybe they manage the repairs too and the LL won't question them if its covered by the deposit, so any extra collected is theirs through padded invoices. 
* Maybe they are trying to pacify an LL who is generally annoyed at the state of a property which can never be looked after as well as they would do. 

flaneurs_lobster

Since we are in full speculative flow

Maybe the Agency is staffed by vindictive psychopaths who get their jollies by imposing unreasonable sanctions when in a position of perceived power.

MeteredOut

flaneurs_lobster said:

Since we are in full speculative flow

Maybe the Agency is staffed by vindictive psychopaths who get their jollies by imposing unreasonable sanctions when in a position of perceived power.

Isn't that part of the job spec?

flaneurs_lobster

MeteredOut said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Since we are in full speculative flow

Maybe the Agency is staffed by vindictive psychopaths who get their jollies by imposing unreasonable sanctions when in a position of perceived power.

Isn't that part of the job spec?

If I were to base my answer on my (thankfully brief) experience of being a managed tenant then yes.

reheat

flaneurs_lobster said:

Maybe the Agency is staffed by vindictive psychopaths who get their jollies by imposing unreasonable sanctions when in a position of perceived power.

Joking aside, I do think there is an element of that. Had the distinct feeling they have been trying to wear us down so we give up in the end, so we at least get some money and end to it. Wouldn't be amazed if they run a little wager in the office who gets most deposit money back each month - something must be driving them to be trying it on with something that amounts to being illegal.

I suspect many tenants may be too hard strapped re cash flow, and too emotionally vulnerable, they would end up as one of this agent's "resolved without need for dispute resolution" cases, but nonetheless coming out much worse off than the law allows.