DPS ADR woes

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

    DPS ADR woes

    We moved out of our previous home in June after almost 6 years and could not come to agreement with the LL/LA about deposit deductions. Mainly due to their refusal to use apportionment.

    ADR started in September. We received a 4 line summary of LL evidence so requested to see all of their evidence. It was pretty shambolic and we felt sorry for the adjudicator! Our defense was concise and stated the relevant points plus referenced evidence (photos, correspondence etc).

    We submitted on the 12th October and patiently waited for it to run its course, allowing for the LL response.

    On 26th November we received an email to say that it was necessary to contact the LL for information with a deadline of 28th and a decision would be made whether they submitted it or not.
    On 2nd December, another email saying the same but with a deadline of 4th December. And then on 4th another email to say that the deadline was 8th.
    This feels incredibly unfair. And we have lost faith in the adjudication process. When we call the helpline, they can't tell us anything - not why or what the information they need is regarding.

    Have any of you, either LL or tenant experienced the same thing? If so, what kind of information was it? And did it give you more chance of getting a favourable outcome?

    Thanks for reading

    #2
    Withourt seiing all communications with DOS ADR, it is difficut toi assess their delay.
    If dissatiesd,you can sue LL in SCC for return of full deposit, the process is similar to ADR, but not nec free to applicant

    Comment


      #3
      We' re just had 3 of these but with different dates. No other communication and they won't tell us anything over the phone:

      We are contacting you in regards to the above deposit which is currently with an adjudicator.

      It has been necessary to contact the landlord to request further information for the adjudicator. The deadline for their response is 8 December 2014. The decision will be completed after this date, whether we have received a response or not, we will keep you updated with regard to the progress of the case.

      Comment


        #4
        You could almost be my Tenant from what you have described, as a LL with a similar tenant I can tell you that the DPS company will be torn if they have insufficient information from either party, all it takes for this date to slip is for either party to contact the DPS at the final hour with more information.

        In my situation in which my T has been gunning since July late in the process we submitted information which we did not consider relevant until the T started to make accusations which were unfounded, we discussed these with the DPS and they considered the additional information threw light on their accusations. To summarise they did the same as you in supplying very detailed information including dozens of pictures which made them feel that it was just a matter of time before a decision was made and their deposit would be returned in full, by doing so they failed to be reasonable and when at a late stage we were questioned by the DPS (and with the passage of time meant that I had more free time to deal with the dispute) we submitted a ton of relevant information that made their claims look unreasonable.

        This has been going on since July 2014 and we are now chasing the DPS for a decision because the table has turned!
        Long suffering Landlord.

        Comment


          #5
          It doesn't sound quite the same! We are happy to pay what we owe according to the rules. The LL/LA just did not want to give us a figure that stated clearly what we owed and why.
          We didn't submit tons of evidence. Just what was relevant. The LL/LA submitted tons of evidence most of which was not relevant and none of which was sorted or meaningful.

          I don't understand why the DPS says that a decision will be made whether they have the information or but then change their minds!
          If they don't mean that then they shouldn't say it.

          Going from experience, the LA is incredibly disorganised and has little understanding of how it should work and just can't get their act together

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by pardalis View Post
            The LL/LA submitted tons of evidence most of which was not relevant and none of which was sorted or meaningful.
            Sounds like the DPS are having to sort and apply it to your claim.

            A 6 year rental is always going to be problematic because the rules of apportionment are unrealistic (my opinion) when applied to one tenant over a period of 6 years compared to 12 tenants in the same time frame.

            Not much you can do but wait for them to come back to you.
            Long suffering Landlord.

            Comment


              #7
              In what way would you say they are unrealistic? As in 12 tenants would create more wear and tear than one?

              Comment


                #8
                From personal experience of tenants when they stay 6--12 months it is easier to agree on the start and finish condition because it is recent. On a long tenancy say 6 years plus it is very easy for the decision maker in a dispute situation to pretty much write off the majority of any value in carpets, decorating, bathroom and even kitchen units and worktops because of the per annum/percentage rules that they can allow. Bear in mind that the same deposit is taken regardless of length of tenancy this in my opinion is in favour of the tenant on a long term rental.

                The only way to avoid this is to have an annual inspection and make adjustments for any damage or wear and tear that is considered above the annual wear and tear, problem is that you end up hacking off a good tenant.

                Regards

                Goss
                Long suffering Landlord.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X