Deposit Scheme Adjudication

mrginge

wildheart83 wrote: »

Their justification is that they are satisfied that the item was in a worse condition at the end of the tenancy than it was at the start

and was it?

Did you or the LL provide evidence as to its condition at the end of the tenancy?

wildheart83

No it was exactly the same at the end of the tenancy as it was at the start.
I provided evidence to show it was broken at the start of the tenancy, and it was also broken at the end of the tenancy

mrginge

So you provided no evidence as to its condition at the end.

And the adjudicator assessed, based on some other evidence, that additional damage had been caused.

Can you please explain what this evidence was?
As it stands i have absolutely no idea what your grounds for appeal actually are.

wildheart83

I provided the check in and check out inventory, showing the item damaged before I moved in.
My grounds for appealing are that it was already broken 2 days before I signed the lease so I didn't break it.

wildheart83

The adjudicator seems to have overlooked the info on the check in inventory, and only said oh yes it's broken, tenant can pay. When it seems likely the previous tenant broke it and the agency either missed it, or they are getting money from each tenant.

mrginge

wildheart83 wrote: »

I provided the check in and check out inventory, showing the item damaged before I moved in.
My grounds for appealing are that it was already broken 2 days before I signed the lease so I didn't break it.

You said the judgement was that the condition was worse at the end thanit was at the beginning, not that you caused the initial damage.

You also said that they acknowledged you notified the LL of the initial condition.

Instead of going round the houses it would help if you posted the actual detail of the adjudication.

wildheart83

They have said the judgement was that the condition was worse at the end than it was at the beginning, despite me showing photos of the condition at the start and at the end of the tenancy. It's as though they only looked at the photo at the end and not the start.

They have also acknowledged that I notified the LA of the condition 6 days after my lease started.

I have posted the actual detail of the adjudication, I'm not sure what's not clear?

DandelionPatrol

Take it to review and then to small claims if necessary. The bais of your claim for review is that it has not been substantiated that the condition is worse at the end than at the beginning and that the entry check in shows that the item was in the same condition as at exit.

I think you need to word the review request with entry and exit in the same order as I have given, because it seems that your problem is that they focussed on the exit inventory.

FBaby

It sounds like the issue is not whether it was damaged before or after but how much damaged it was. The role of the adjudication is to determine whether the LL has a case to withhold money. It's not for the tenant to prove their case. Somehow the LL managed to convince the adjudicator that what damage they are claiming was done afterwards. How did they manage that? I can only think that they had evidenced that you damaged it much more than it was already.

mrginge

wildheart83 wrote: »

I have posted the actual detail of the adjudication, I'm not sure what's not clear?

No, you have paraphrased it.

if you post the exact, word for word adjudication then it will be a little easier to advise.