Fictional case · accreditation practical · Property & tenancy
Judge it yourself first
This is a fictional dispute — no real parties, drafted as the accreditation practical. Read the brief, commit to your own determination, then compare it with the venue's. Then tell us where we got it wrong; that critique is the part we actually want. Your committed answer is recorded against your email — it's the practical component of accreditation, and first answers stand.
Okafor v. Marsh Lettings — the £900 deposit and the invisible damage
The agreement. A twelve-month tenancy of a one-bed flat, £900 deposit, on a written tenancy agreement requiring the deposit returned "less reasonable deductions notified with evidence within 14 days of the tenancy ending". A photographed check-in inventory exists; the agreement contemplates a check-out inspection, which the landlord never arranged.
What happened. The tenancy ended 31 March. Nineteen days later Marsh Lettings emailed: "Damage found and a deep clean needed — we are retaining the deposit," with no itemisation and no photographs. Okafor's own moving-out photos show clean rooms; one cracked bathroom tile is visible, which Okafor admits and offered £40 for. The landlord's reply: "Photos don't show the smell — the carpets need replacing."
The claim. Okafor claims the full £900. The landlord asserts damage and deep-clean costs exceeding it, evidenced by nothing in the thread.