Royal Mail could cost me £2000! Please help!

clutton_2

""I'll look into the name and qualifications issue and see what the other schemes do""

why would you need to check with other schemes - as you said on here that your arbiters signed their names and qualifications on the Decisions..... were you mistaken ?

Hopejack

Oh my, this doesn't bode well for the DPS at all.

If have to deal with arbitration, I will be making sure I am given the arbitrator's name and qualifications otherwise I will not go any further with the process. It is only fair that the whole process is transparent for BOTH parties.

As Clutton has rightly said, you tend to be taking a u-turn on your previous post Kevin. What difference does it make what the other schemes do. It is only courtesy that one knows who one is dealing with in this situation and of course, good business practice if nothing else! I wonder what the Government would make of the discrepancy.

If things don't improve for 'honest' landlords (and to be honest, I don't think there will be many 'dishonest' landlord pursuing claims via the DPS - the hoops one has to jump through make it just 'not worth it'), I fear the DPS will lose a lot of custom. In my opinion, these cases seem weighted heavily in favour of the tenant before the process even gets to arbitration.

Fire_Fox

Clutton/ Hopejack: You've asked a public question of an official company representative so it's only courteous to await an answer, otherwise it wasn't a question it was a points scoring exercise!

clutton_2

FF - i responded as i did because his response is in direct opposition to what he had said earlier..... but, i shall be patient and await his reply with bated breath

Ladybird20

Why dont you find out if she has a buy to let mortgage and ask does she pay her taxes on her lets......that will knock the wind right out of her sails,,sorry to go off thread

Fire_Fox

Clutton let them dig their own graves .... advice you are welcome to quote back at me ad infinitum!

The_DPS_company_representative

I'm afraid I owe you an apology, I was wrong by stating that we currently put adjudicator names and qualifications on correspondence. However, I would qualify this by saying that this was what we used to do - and I am informed that we had to stop as a result of a few people taking it on themselves to deliver completely unacceptable levels of abuse to the individual adjudicators. I’m sure you’ll all agree with me that this is not something we can let our adjudicators be open to.

Fire_Fox

Kevin is there any reason why you cannot omit names but continue to put qualifications on the adjudications?

The_DPS_company_representative

FF - yes, we can do that. I'll make sure the qualifications appear on all future decision documents. Here's an example :-

In accordance with the DPS terms and conditions, I confirm that I am qualified to adjudicate this claim, being a qualified legal adviser, an accredited mediator and a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

N79

The_DPS_company_representative wrote: »

I'm afraid I owe you an apology, I was wrong by stating that we currently put adjudicator names and qualifications on correspondence. However, I would qualify this by saying that this was what we used to do - and I am informed that we had to stop as a result of a few people taking it on themselves to deliver completely unacceptable levels of abuse to the individual adjudicators. I’m sure you’ll all agree with me that this is not something we can let our adjudicators be open to.

My underlining.

I know that I have an "old fashioned" view of the indivisibility of justice and the rule of law and believe that some principles which are inconvenient and some might say academic should be defended at all costs but here goes. One of those is principles is that a fair legal system must be transparent because justice must be seen to be done.

If you maintain that you provide a transparent and impartial dispute resolution service rather than an attempt to dumb down and privatise "justice" on the cheap then I would have to totally disagree with you.

Judge's names are public whatever fora they judge in (eg Employment Tribunal chairs, Benefit tribunal chairs etc - they are all judges following last years changes to the court system but they are still proper (unlike the DPS) alternative dispute resolution services). A proportion of abuse from "dissatisfied" clients goes with the territory. Your adjudicators should just take it on the chin, report it to the police and move on. It does not justify a lack of transparency which is a cornerstone of all fair systems of judgement.

That said I really can not see any reason for a LL to use the DPS (or the other two competitor services). Court doesn't cost anything when you know you have a valid claim and preparing a court case, where there are proper and transparent rules of proceedure and evidence is easier and takes less time than jumping through the DPS's every changing rules and hoops. Courts will even give you some costs!

As a final question, what is a qualified legal advisor? Sounds like another example of dumbing down.