Chas Everitt don’t protect their tenants

I am sharing my experience in the hope that it helps others make informed decisions.

I was asked to vacate the property after six months, despite my three-legged pit bull having been approved at the start of my lease. I was informed that potential tenants for the main house were allegedly uncomfortable with the dog. Although I did not agree with this reasoning, I chose to comply, as the property itself was in a poor and deteriorating condition, including damaged boundary walls.

Upon vacating, I completed the outgoing inspection with the agent from Chas Everitt International Property Group and was under the impression that my deposit would be refunded in full.

However, I have since been informed by the landlady, Jennifer Harmsworth, that a portion of my deposit will be withheld for alleged damage to a boundary wall located on a separate part of the property that is not included in my lease and to which I had no access. I have not been provided with evidence linking me or my dog to this damage, and I dispute this claim.

I have raised this matter with the managing agent, but have been advised that the deposit is held by the landlady and that there is little they can do to intervene.

Additionally, I have since been contacted by previous tenants of the main house who have indicated that they are experiencing similar difficulties in recovering their deposit.

This has been a very stressful experience, and I would strongly encourage prospective tenants to ensure that all terms, conditions, and responsibilities are clearly defined and documented before entering into a lease agreement.

If anyone has advice on how to proceed with a deposit dispute, it would be greatly appreciated.