Hi,

I didn't call every time a bird came into my house, however I did contact once over the phone and complained once in person, which I thought was enough. I did have to let 4 birds out of the house in total. I was not informed of the precise nature of difficulties of fitting the cowell. I was just told that scaffolding may be required. However, I accept that the matter was more difficult than I had imagined.

Your team did not force themselves in, and that I never stated. However, if an agent shows up at my doorstep at the wrong time or date with a family or couple eager to view the property, how could I be so indecent as to turn them away? It does however, put me in a very awkward situation especially if I was not expecting visitors. Admittedly, this only happened twice, however I accommodated the tours both times.

Just thought I should mention that:
950 - 392 = 558.

558/950 * 100 = 59%. So the majority I did mention, was returned to me. It is true that you were awarded 61% of the disputed amount, but I ended up with the majority of my deposit back. 59% is greater than the 41% that was lost, meaning that it is the majority. So yes, this statement is 'wholly TRUE' on ALL points.

Spiteful and vindictive are wrong adjectives I believe. I am entitled to my views on my experience, as you are to yours. However, personal is correct. May I also suggest apposite and candid. My review was simply to reflect my experience with the letting agency, with which I wholly intend to never have the misfortune to deal with again, as you may be relieved to know.

Regards.

Jon, thank you for taking the time to write a review. It is such a shame that the content of which is mostly untrue. I would like to address each matter raised:
1. ‘they were all so quick to find me a half cleaned, half furnished flat’ - although your timescales to move were indeed quick, which we bent over backwards to accommodate, you viewed the property and let the property as seen. A professional three hour clean took place before you moved in, an oven clean and most carpets steam cleaned. The furniture was clearly described at our viewings and on all our marketing material.
2. ‘I contacted them multiple times throughout my tenancy about how birds were getting into my house’. Indeed this matter was reported via a property inspection in June. However you advised that a bird, singular, had found its way down the chimney. Your landlord did instruct a builder to investigate and suggested that a chimney cowell could be fitted but given the restraints of the property i.e. its height and grade II status meant that your landlord required English Heritage’s permission to put up scaffolding to insert said cowell as explained at the time and as I am sure you would be aware this takes a considerable amount of time. No further reports were made by you to our maintenance team from the property inspection of several birds coming down the chimney.
3. ‘they demanded that I let them show the property to prospective tenants’ My only response is to say that this is simply not true, none of the staff here would EVER force themselves into your home to conduct a viewing, quite the contrary.
4. ‘as suspected they obviously tried to take almost the entirety of my deposit and when declared that I would not stand for it and will dispute the claim to the TDS, the stopped correspondence completely’ – When the matter is referred to TDS, which is your right, then there is no further reason for us as Landlords agent and you as tenant to converse as communication has broken down and TDS act as the arbitrators.
5. ‘Absolutely ridiculous, lowly and thieving bunch of people. Obviously, I was awarded most of my deposit back’ – wholly untrue on ALL points. £576.80 of your initial £950 security deposit was disputed from the property check out. Only £184.80 was awarded in your favour. As reviewers can see in the cut and pasted wording from TDS independent adjudication report.

To conclude, the figures and TDS report speak for itself. This is a wholly inaccurate review, spiteful, personal and may I suggest vindictive.

TDS REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION

The parties to this case have been unable to resolve their dispute about the return of the tenant's deposit at the end of the tenancy. They have agreed to refer it to adjudication under the rules of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS), operated by The Dispute Service Ltd. This is an independent dispute resolution process in which the TDS Adjudicator will review the evidence submitted by the parties, and determine how the disputed deposit should be distributed.
This adjudication report does not repeat all the facts and evidence put forward by the parties, other than where this is necessary to explain the decision made. All evidence submitted by the parties has been considered by the Adjudicator. Where this adjudication decision does not refer to specific evidence submitted, this does not mean that it has not been take into account.
It is for the landlord to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant was in breach of their
obligations under the tenancy agreement, and that the amounts claimed are reasonable costs incurred or likely to be incurred as a result.
Our approach in dealing with deposit disputes is explained in full on the Tenancy Deposit Scheme website and in our guidance document How does the Independent Case Examiner divide a disputed deposit?
Case No: NOT DISCLOSED
ADDRESS OF PREMISES NOT DISCLOSED
TENANT(S) NOT DISCLOSED
LANDLORD NOT DISCLOSED
AGENT Letters of Distinction
AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT
£950.00
MATTERS IN DISPUTE AND AMOUNT CLAIMED
£480.00
£35.00
£61.80
£576.80
AMOUNT SUBMITTED TO TDS
£576.80
DECISION
The disputed deposit will be allocated as follows:
Tenant £184.80
Landlord £350.00
Agent £42.00
Total £576.80
REASONS FOR DECISION
After careful review of all the evidence received from the parties the reasons for this decision are given
below.
Both parties are equally entitled to rely on the check-in and check-out reports along with any supporting labelled and dated photographs as being the principal evidence in establishing the condition of the property at the start and end of the tenancy. A landlord is not entitled to betterment and must allow for fair wear and tear although the scope of this does not extend to cleaning.
Cleaning & Damage
The landlords’ claim, as forward by the agents, concerns a professional clean throughout the property
including the carpets and oven plus the replacement of a few light bulbs and the removal of some
unspecified rubbish. There is a separate claim for a repair to a damaged kitchen blind.
The tenant has generally accepted that some cleaning costs are due for check-out but said that the claim was excessive and there had been a few cleaning issues at check-in. He has disputed the full bulb claim as he said they were all working at check-out and he had left spares in the property which he could have fitted. The tenant has listed the rubbish claim but I could not see that he has either agreed or disputed the claim. He said that the kitchen blind was generally working as at check-in and a rod simply had to be replaced.
The check-in report has a general statement that listed items were in a good condition unless otherwise stated. A large number are shown as ‘G’ (good) including the kitchen blind although the report is less specific about the cleanliness of the property. The report did state that most, but not all, of the carpets had been cleaned in September 2013 and certain appliances were also clean. However, there is no check- in contractor’s cleaning documentation. The tenant(s) have signed the report document and not made any amendments to it.

The tenant has also signed a handwritten check-out document (on 19th August 2014) which appears to be the basis for the typed report itself which is dated 19th September 2014. It is not clear if there was an error in the tenant’s signature date. In summary, the report noted that the property required a professional clean throughout including the carpets, the kitchen blind had the rod missing and a few light bulbs were not working.

I have found a majority, but not all, of the overall landlords' claims to be due. I have awarded the landlords a total of £350.00. I believe that the carpet and oven cleaning costs were generally fair and are supported by both the check-in and check-out report findings. I have made part landlords' awards over other cleaning (needed some additional check-in evidence to confirm cleaned or professionally cleaned at that time which is being claimed now) and also the ‘non carpet’ costs for cleaning at check-out seemed a little high.
There was apparently minimal damage to the blind so I have made a landlords’ award within the above figure but reduced the claimed amount. I noted the tenant’s comments about the bulbs but based on the check-out report there were a few 'non-working' bulbs at check-out than noted at check-in. That said, the Dispute Service does not usually award costs for fitting bulbs (only the bulbs themselves) given the routine nature of the work and which is mentioned in the claim so I adjusted that final award figure as well.
The landlords’ rubbish claim seems to have been made at a later date by e-mail but I could not see any mention of this in the check-out report or perhaps more relevantly any other supporting evidence such as later photographs to show the rubbish to be removed. On balance, I have not made any landlords’ award for rubbish removal.
Award landlords total: £350.00
Arrangement fee
The agents said that the tenant was required to pay an arrangement fee for any work to be done at checkout.
The agents’ evidence mentions the check-out guidelines to tenants (copy amongst the papers) and
the tenancy agreement as confirming payment due of that charge of 10% plus VAT.
The agents mention clause 2.2 of the tenancy agreement as highlighting the charge although I could not see it mentioned there or elsewhere in the agreement itself. The charge is mentioned in the agents’ literature to tenants seen and I think it is fair that some agents’ award be made for arranging this work above at check-out. I was a little unclear how the original claimed figure of £61.80 had been arrived at. My award instead is for £42.00 based on my findings above. This figure comprises 10% of the £350.00
(£35.00) figure awarded plus VAT (£7.00).
Award agents: £42.00
In agreeing to refer the dispute to TDS you agreed to be bound by the Adjudicator's decision. This
decision cannot be appealed except by applying to the Court. Should you chose to do this we recommend that you seek independent legal advice. Please note there are strict time limits involved and any costs incurred are likely to be significant.
Independent adjudication completed by The Dispute Service Ltd
Contact Details
Tenancy Deposit Scheme
The Dispute Service Ltd
PO Box 1255
Hemel Hempstead
Herts HP1 9GN
Tel: 0845 226 7837
Fax: 01442 253 193
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.tds.gb.com