Has anyone been through a deposit dispute service? How did it work out?

wesleyad

Slightly OT but Ipersonally think there needs to be apenalty applied for frivolous claims. As a LL I am always extremely fair with my deductions (if any) and have never had a complaint. As a tenant I have had claims made against me as per the OP,which are a joke,and actually insulting. In my last house the letting agent actually apologised and said they couldn't believe the LL was trying it on.

I think if the DPS find in your favour and there's clearly been a case of the LL trying to get something for nothing they should fine the LL whatever the original claim was.

FBaby

Most claims are not frivolous, they are just the result of different perspectives on either side, which is exactly why it is a legal requirements that deposits are protected and parties have access to the ADR.

I can assure you that in both cases I had to resort to using the ADR thought that my claims were frivolous. I didn't think they were and the ADR agreed with me. Even that doesn't mean I was right(although I strongly believed that I was), just that I provided evidence that the adjudicator thought supported my case. Should the tenants have been fined for wasting my time? Of course not.

Comms69

I do find it strange that checkout clerks are considered independent.


I mean they aren't, they're employed by the letting agent and paid for by the tenant. It's a complete joke.


Their future business is dictated totally by the letting agent and their whims and wishes.

che90

This is so helpful, thanks. Sorry you had to go through that.

The dishwasher scratch was a small, superficial surface mark. I mean, it was so small it wasn't even noted by the inspector and doesn't appear on the check-out report. What happens then?

AdrianC

che90 wrote: »

The dishwasher scratch was a small, superficial surface mark. I mean, it was so small it wasn't even noted by the inspector and doesn't appear on the check-out report. What happens then?

The landlord have to prove that it was caused during your tenancy, and that it is not fair wear and tear. Then they have to prove a reasonable figure for fixing it, adjusted for the remaining expected life.

So if they can prove that the damage was done by you, was not fair wear, and that a £100 door replacement is necessary on a 3yo dishwasher with an expected life of 5yrs, then you owe them £40.

che90

Thanks!

But how could he prove that this was us? It wasn't in the report and how much weight are his photos going to carry, taken a week after we returned the keys? He could have had workmen in and it could have been caused by them/him?

Comms69

che90 wrote: »

Thanks!

But how could he prove that this was us? It wasn't in the report and how much weight are his photos going to carry, taken a week after we returned the keys? He could have had workmen in and it could have been caused by them/him?

How long is a piece of string.


Look you either dispute it and atleast have a chance of getting something, or don't and get nothing.


you have nothing to lose.

AdrianC

che90 wrote: »

But how could he prove that this was us?

Check-in and check-out photos.

m0t

Yes as a tenant.

LL attempted to deduct £345 for cleaning and damage from our deposit.

Check out inventory showed photos of mess and damage, however photos also clearly showed that someone else was now living in the property when they did the check out (other peoples furniture, plates next to the hob). We didn't leave the property in a mess and had 4 people cleaning it for about 6 hours meticulously.

They had also taken photos of stained woodwork caused by improper preparation prior to painting (the stains were oils seeping out of unsealed knots in the wood) and marks on the ceiling caused by a leak in the roof.

We also didn't have an agreed check in inventory because they emailed it and it got caught in a spam filter. I had separately emailed them at the time about issues we discovered when we moved in that I had assumed they would add on to the inventory and then send the thing over and eventually just forgot about it.

LL didn't bother to submit evidence other than the check out report and the adjudicator ruled against them in their entirety.

To this day I still can't believe that they tried to claim money using a report that they had done after someone else had moved their stuff in.

aneary

FBaby wrote: »

Most claims are not frivolous, they are just the result of different perspectives on either side, which is exactly why it is a legal requirements that deposits are protected and parties have access to the ADR.

I can assure you that in both cases I had to resort to using the ADR thought that my claims were frivolous. I didn't think they were and the ADR agreed with me. Even that doesn't mean I was right(although I strongly believed that I was), just that I provided evidence that the adjudicator thought supported my case. Should the tenants have been fined for wasting my time? Of course not.

I think the LL should be fined. But only in certain cases how many times do LL claim cleaning, this is not due to different perspectives especially when the check in report says fair and the check out report is good! it's a nice little £180 bonus for them. With deposits being over a £1k in a lot cases people need that money back and will take the hit just to get as much back as possible quickly. If there was a fine the LL would think twice.