The Tenancy Deposit Scheme has published a new set of case studies on its site, illustrating how adjudicators approach a deposit dispute when landlords and tenants cannot reach an amicable agreement between themselves.
It is part of a continuing campaign by the TDS to make deposit resolution open and easy to understand.
This latest set of examples cover redecoration problems at the end of a tenancy, where the tenant had done a better decorating job than the landlord.
Guidance notes deal with issues of ‘betterment’ and replacement costs, and also wear and tear.
The publication of these guidance notes and case histories follows consultation with the Members’ Forum of the TDS as well as incorporating the views sought from consumer organisations such as the National Union of Students, Citizens Advice and Shelter.
TDS chief executive Steve Harriott said: “Although disputes cannot always be avoided, by publishing the experience we have gained, we can help landlords and tenants and their letting agents to find an amicable solution without going through the process of Alternative Dispute Resolution.”
The full case studies and guidance notes can be found on www.tds.gb.com in both the Landlords and Tenants sections.
.png)
Comments
Like I said before, altough we have pulled our hair out at a lot of their decisions, the TDS have been more reasonable in their approach to disputes lately and I have to give them their credit where it is due.
A decision of theirs that we used as evidence helped us prove a case in court where we recently had to defend not returning a tenant's deposit until we were satisfied that they had adhered to the terms of the agreement in realising their obligations regarding utilities at the end of the Tenancy.
Thankfully, the tenant's claim was completely dismissed and he was ordered to adhere to the terms of the tenancy before his deposit would be required to be returned to him. Despite this ruling this individual (and it frustrates me immenesley that I am unable to name this person, despite them frivously using my name as well as my colleagues' personal information in his rants, yet he coawrdly hides behind his online persona) is still lying and claiming that he won the case to anyone that will listen and is doing so very publicly.
I just hope that the TDS continues its improved decision making process so that us as agents can look upon them as assisting in the case of disputes, rather than dreading a dispute going to them for arbitration knowing that any little thing could result in the Landlord losing money, despite the tenant clearly not adhering to their obligations.
Here's to common sense!
“Although disputes cannot always be avoided, by publishing the experience we have gained, we can help landlords and tenants and their letting agents to find an amicable solution without going through the process of Alternative Dispute Resolution.”
Or could they mean that the agent will have to do all the work of negotiating between the landlord and tenant to come to a successful conclusion and not have to get the TDS to do any of the work - but still pay the TDS a fee for each deposit registered?
@Industry Observer - well said! It is amazingly frustrating and often laughable how the TDS have dealt with disputes and arrive at their decisions.
We have had an award made to the tenant without the tenant providing any proof on their part whatsoever other than their initial statement being something along the lines of - 'Agent will not return deposit' and despite us providing lengthy and detailed information and proof of condition of property at both start and end of the tenancy showing conclusively that the tenant was liable for remedial works in excess of the deposit held, the TDS in all their wisdom saw fit to award all the deposit back to the tenant on the basis that they (the TDS!) hadn't recorded that we had requested an extension to the deadline due to office closures of our firm over Christmas!
A lot of their decisions haved ranged from the ridiculous to the bizarre - however, saying that we have seen a more reasonable approach in the last few months showing an improvement in the assessor's reasoning and decisions.
Perhaps the new management team lives more in the real world than the last. Let's hope!
Terrific!!
Can't you just imagine the comments TDS would have got from NUS, CAB and Shelter. It was the scurrilous UNSAFE DEPOSITS report from CAB circa 1997 that led us to where we are now with the TDP regulations.
The only thing TDS and the other two schemes need to do to make everyone happier but especially agents and Landlords, is use a bit more common sense and try to live in the real world a lot more. Frankly some decisions are only marginally less bizarre than ARLA's used to be when they did them in-house themselves, and some of those bordered on the bizarre.
They also need to acknowledge that yes while it is the tenant's money and yes the landlord does need to justify the deductions they propose provided it is not a vexacious or frivolous claim by a Landlord and presented by a 'reputable' agent perhaps they should give a bit more credence to the Landlord's arguments?
You only have to read some of these decisions and how they were arrived at, and the weight put on various elements of the evidence, and especially with TPO decisions and how they are reached, to realise how flawed a totally paper based decision making process can be.