AVOID KALLARS
AVOID KALLARS – STRESSFUL TENANCY AND POOR MANAGEMENT
Our two-bedroom Plumstead tenancy began on 30 November 2024. What should have been straightforward became prolonged stress. In our dealings, Kallars repeatedly showed poor communication, organisation, follow-through and consideration. This reflects our personal experience and records.
MICE INFESTATION
We experienced an infestation estimated at 20–30 mice over about two weeks, causing distress and serious hygiene concerns. Kallars’ response was limited to two pest-control visits; there was no meaningful support, compensation offer or apparent comprehensive resolution. Landlords have repair and fitness duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) framework; infestation may be an HHSRS hazard depending on cause and severity.
MAINTENANCE
Soon after moving in, we reported mould, wall cracks and cracked skirting boards. Repeated reports were largely unresolved. We waited around 18 months for the staircase to be painted; it was finally painted when new tenants moved into the neighbouring property. This suggested incoming tenants’ presentation was prioritised over existing residents’ concerns. These conditions engage landlords’ repair and habitability duties.
BINS
Bins went uncollected for months, causing rubbish build-up and hygiene concerns. The agency emailed occupiers but did little to prevent recurrence. Given the mice infestation, this was particularly worrying. Environmental health rules and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 may apply; the agency should have escalated the issue.
NOTICE AND VIEWINGS
When we gave notice, Kallars initially insisted on two months. We challenged this and they eventually accepted our position. After notice, viewings were arranged while we remained lawful occupiers. Despite our cooperation, notification of three viewers for the next day without our agreement was unacceptable. Quiet enjoyment matters; notification alone does not necessarily authorise viewing entry.
ADMINISTRATION
Repeated emails referred to a completely different address from ours. This reinforced our impression of disorganisation.
CHECK-OUT AND DEPOSIT
At move-out, professional cleaning was described as preferable and a company associated with an agency employee was recommended. Professional cleaning should be optional: the Tenant Fees Act 2019 generally bars blanket requirements. Tenants need only return the property in its initial condition, allowing fair wear and tear.
We cleaned thoroughly, painted, filled picture holes and documented everything. Nevertheless, a deposit deduction was made. The check-out report included several “professional cleaning required” notes, including a hair in the bathroom—not just one observation. It was produced three days after we vacated, while viewings had taken place. We supplied photos and questioned whether observations arose after we left.
Cracks in walls and skirting boards that appeared soon after move-in and reported maintenance issues were not comparably considered. Deductions should be evidenced and account for wear and tear, initial condition and tenancy length—not pre-existing defects. The report was not sent to me directly although I was also a tenant; I learned of it through my cousin, who shared the flat.
OVERALL
Infestation, repairs, rubbish, viewings, wrong-address emails and the deposit dispute made the tenancy unnecessarily stressful. It felt as though securing the next tenancy mattered more than supporting current occupants.
We paid rent promptly, kept the flat clean and tidy, raised concerns and retained emails and photos, yet basic matters repeatedly required chasing. A home should not become a constant battle with its managing agent.
Based on our experience, I would not rent through Kallars again and urge prospective tenants to be cautious. Document everything and put requests in writing. The true test is how an agency treats tenants after signing; in our case, Kallars repeatedly fell short.
