TDSL is unjust in dispute resolution and won't see sense

[mind the gap]

It would take far, far too long to even begin to explain.

Try us. We're listening. We'd like to know.

[jta]

OK, I wont use them, but just one little question, are these disputes decided by someone who has at least a modicum of knowledge of housing law? Or is it whichever Tracey or Sharon picks up the paperwork that decides the case?

[Esio Trot]

As I have posted before, because of the lack of housing law knowledge by many arbiters coupled with the requirement to sign to accept the arbiters decision as final, where deposit protection disputes are involved NO LANDLORD/AGENT SHOULD EVER AGREE TO ARBITRATION.

If the landlord/agent does not agree to ADR, then the tenant has to use the normal court procedure.

There are three compelling reasons for landlords/agents not to use ADR

1. ADR is a very easy system for tenants to use - and its free. When push comes to shove, many tenants in dispute can't be arsed to make a claim in the county court, besides it costing them the court fee unless exempt.
2. Should a claim be made in the county court, landlords/agents can be reasonably confident that the judge has working knowledge of housing law.
3. Should the tenant not make a claim in the county court, despite letters to them from whichever TDS scheme has been used, the full disputed deposit will eventually be paid back to the landlord/agent.

At the risk of repetition, NEVER USE ADR

[m&m]

But surely the point with the whole thing is that it's irrelevant whether the tenant personally caused the stain on the carpet or the mould or whether it was the action of her children or guests or whoever? The fact is that these things happened whilst the property was under her care. Am I being obtuse?

[PaulF]

It would take far, far too long to even begin to explain.

[Preston]

I used to be an adjudicator for TDSL and agree that the system has too many flaws; that's why I was no longer required as I challenged some of their 'procedures' - an unwise decision ultimately.

Hi

That's interesting. Can you tell us more?

Preston

[mind the gap]

A report from a damp proofing company confirming no rising/penatrating damp would help i would think ?

Also an opinion from them as " experts" as to the cause.

Unless the damp has caused hundreds/thousands of pounds' worth of damage, it probably would not be worth paying for such a report, even If the TDSL accepted it. And presumably it is too late to commission it now anyway.

[PaulF]

I used to be an adjudicator for TDSL and agree that the system has too many flaws; that's why I was no longer required as I challenged some of their 'procedures' - an unwise decision ultimately.

[Rodent1]

A report from a damp proofing company confirming no rising/penatrating damp would help i would think ?

Also an opinion from them as " experts" as to the cause.

You say they have been drying washing - can you prove it ?

[mind the gap]

It is wrong that you cannot challenge the TSD's rulings.

How much money is in dispute? Could you sue her through a normal court for it? There has been a bit of discussion about that recently. Unfortunately, I think that if you have agreed to the TDS's 'binding' arbitration, you wouldn't get very far.

Sounds really unjust.

I use the DPS, but I haven't had cause to dispute a deposit's return yet. I wonder whether they are any better?

Does anyone have first-hand experience of their arbitration service?

[m&m]

We had photographic and video evidence which TDSL accepted. The tenant admitted she dried washing indoors, but said she opened windows when she did it (and this was enough for TDSL apparently). She denied staining the carpet!

[mind the gap]

My blood is boiling, so excuse me if my prose is a bit shakey!

We've been members of TDSL since the scheme opened and recently had our first dispute. They completey screwed it up initially (lost the paperwork & found against us by default for not supplying the paperwork and then had to backtrack when I produced proof of delivery and secured admission of receipt from a hapless staff member), but surprisingly that's NOT my complaint - it's much worse.

When we finally received the adjudication it was accompanied by a curt letter explaining that it was final and that no further correspondence would be entered into. We'd supplied a video inventory with our evidence showing that pristine condition of the property prior to letting and they accepted this. During the tenancy the tenant had spilt something on a carpet and had ruined the decor in a couple of rooms by letting mould build up because she dried washing indoors.

However (and this is the humdinger), TDSL found against us because we had not supplied any evidence that the tenant's acts or omissions caused the mould or the staining!!!! Short of having CCTV in the house 24/7 how the HELL COULD WE???

How on earth is any landlord supposed to win a dispute? Has anyone any thoughts on what we did wrong (if anything), any similar experiences to us, or any suggestions for the future?

I really, really, do not want to renew our membership with TDSL.

Sounds like a monumental cock-up, doesn't it.

Did tenants dispute that they had caused the stain?

Did you have photographic evidence of it?

Sounds alarming, I agree.

[m&m]

My blood is boiling, so excuse me if my prose is a bit shakey!

We've been members of TDSL since the scheme opened and recently had our first dispute. They completey screwed it up initially (lost the paperwork & found against us by default for not supplying the paperwork and then had to backtrack when I produced proof of delivery and secured admission of receipt from a hapless staff member), but surprisingly that's NOT my complaint - it's much worse.

When we finally received the adjudication it was accompanied by a curt letter explaining that it was final and that no further correspondence would be entered into. We'd supplied a video inventory with our evidence showing that pristine condition of the property prior to letting and they accepted this. During the tenancy the tenant had spilt something on a carpet and had ruined the decor in a couple of rooms by letting mould build up because she dried washing indoors.

However (and this is the humdinger), TDSL found against us because we had not supplied any evidence that the tenant's acts or omissions caused the mould or the staining!!!! Short of having CCTV in the house 24/7 how the HELL COULD WE???

How on earth is any landlord supposed to win a dispute? Has anyone any thoughts on what we did wrong (if anything), any similar experiences to us, or any suggestions for the future?

I really, really, do not want to renew our membership with TDSL.