Anyone used DPS adjudication process, seems like waste of time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anyone used DPS adjudication process, seems like waste of time

    Only a small dispute due to tenant not cleaning carpet at end of tenancy and limescale and water marks in bathroom. Contract states that carpet should be professionally cleaned (otherwise LL will charge tenant) and condition report stated no limescale, mould or watermarks in bathroom. Made a small deduction of £80 for said works. Tenant provided no evidence of carpet cleaning and reckoned only a light clean of £20 required! At the start of the tenancy the tenant moaned about the cleaning chemical smell on the carpet so it was re-washed without solution. Tenant agreed to £20 deduction but went to dispute for the remaining £60!

    Adjudication has come back with £20 in our favour balance back to tenant! It is not the money but next time the tenant will think and probably know that they can get away with substandard cleaning which does no one any favours. Anyone had similar stories? Main issue is that there was no photographic evidence at the start of the tenancy, loads of evidence of the limescale etc after the tenancy and the description at the start of the tenancy details that everything was clean and without issue. Not sure a way forward in the future as the wording in the condition report described everything to a very high standard at the outset.

    Mini rant over :-)

    #2
    Originally posted by scoobydo View Post
    ..... Main issue is that there was no photographic evidence at the start of the tenancy, loads of evidence of the limescale etc after the tenancy and the description at the start of the tenancy details that everything was clean and without issue. Not sure a way forward in the future as the wording in the condition report described everything to a very high standard at the outset......
    That being so, hardly surprised adjudicator decided as they did.

    I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

    Comment


      #3
      All of the protection companies express a preference for non-photographic submissions - as a matter of practicality.

      Part of the problem (I suspect) is that the DPS process has changed recently.
      There used to be a degree of back and forth, where the claims made by one side were shown to the other to allow a response.
      Now both sides submissions are made simultaneously and a decision made.

      That, in my view, renders the process much less useful.
      If one side simply makes something up, the other side can't respond, even if they have good evidence to show that the assertion is untrue.

      I would replace the clause requiring professional cleaning either by adding a specific fee at the end to cover the cost (with a price). Or, better still, removing it altogether - normal wear and tear is going to mean a carpet clean may be required after a tenancy.

      There's no such thing as a "professional standard" and no one's ever going to agree on what it should look like.

      However, in this case, the DPS seem to have simply agreed with the tenant that a light clean costing £20 was all that was required.
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #4
        Thanks jpkeates, that is more or less exactly what I have seen in this case. Crazy as I saw it as a cut and dry case, tenant didnt clean carpet was only there for 6 months, carpet was dirty and just needed cleaning, there is not company out there that will clean the carpet for £20 so expected to find in my favour as it was part of the terms of the tenancy. Crazy thing was that at the start of the tenancy it was commented how clean everything was as the tenants partner apparently had a mould allergy and gould go into shock if mould was present. Surprise surprise there was mould apparent on the silicone sealant that just needed bleach applied to resolve. But thanks again you have nailed that the process has changed is half the problem. Took over 3 months to reach this carp decision as well, imagine if I was holding back more money.

        Comment

        Latest Activity

        Collapse

        Working...
        X