We were interested today to read 2 articles in the ‘Letting Agent
Today’ publication, one on the percentage of failed landlord claims as
per the DPS and secondly a piece referring to comments made by Alex
Britchfield, a Deputy Independent Case Examiner for TDS. The first indicates that of the DPS adjudications within a time period
since 2007, the large proportion (41.5%) found wholly in favour of the
tenant and just 19.1% wholly in favour of the landlord or letting
agent, with 39.4% resulting in a split award. On these figures, no wonder many people say that landlords are
discriminated against in favour of tenants. The second piece highlighted that all new tenancies should be subject
to an up-to-date inventory. “An inventory is a landlords’ opportunity
to demonstrate the condition of a property at the start of tenancy.
Out of date inventories, or those lacking sufficient detail, lead to
difficulties in quantifying any change in condition and therefore the
likely success of a future claim” says Alex Britchfield in the
article. In both articles it became clear that adjudicators need help in making
viable and fair apportionment of tenant’s deposits, and as indicated
in past blogs, the less appropriate or inadequate material an
adjudicator has at hand, the more likely they will rule in favour of a
tenant. In our view, they have little choice. To qualify this we ourselves recently had a classic example where a
tenant objected to all 129 dilapidations on a checkout report. The checkout was completed against an inventory with ample evidence of
condition and contents within a newly built and newly furnished 2
bedroom flat. The inventory was acknowledged as good by the adjudicator with each
item adequately identified with corresponding photographic support.
The problem came about with the checkout. The adjudicator awarded an approximate 60/40 split of the deposit in
favour of the tenant. The reason in his summary was simple. He said
that because there was a 100% tenant objection to all listed
dilapidations he was obliged to investigate each one. This meant
comparing the checkout item against the inventory item. He firstly said that in favour of the agent the fact that the
inventory was produced independently of the client was a plus. He further indicated that as each item was numerically identifiable it
made his task easier, another plus. He said that because the
photographic support in the inventory was clearly representative he
gave another plus. But when it came to the checkout, that’s where it
ended. Why you may think. The reason he said was that despite the clear written reference to
each change between inventory and checkout, the photos in the checkout
were not labelled adequately and therefore he had little choice but to
award those 40% worth to the tenant. He meant we believe that we had inadequate labelling of each photo
tying it to its referred dilapidation. That pedantic we thought! But
if that’s what’s required then that’s what we have to do from now on,
we decided. So back to the earlier points. Unless the evidence is clearly
representative at both start and end of tenancy and a landlord’s claim
is going to adjudication, then our experience demonstrates that the
tenant may receive all or part of the disputed claim. It’s not about favouritism or bias it seems, its possibly more about
common sense.
Today’ publication, one on the percentage of failed landlord claims as
per the DPS and secondly a piece referring to comments made by Alex
Britchfield, a Deputy Independent Case Examiner for TDS. The first indicates that of the DPS adjudications within a time period
since 2007, the large proportion (41.5%) found wholly in favour of the
tenant and just 19.1% wholly in favour of the landlord or letting
agent, with 39.4% resulting in a split award. On these figures, no wonder many people say that landlords are
discriminated against in favour of tenants. The second piece highlighted that all new tenancies should be subject
to an up-to-date inventory. “An inventory is a landlords’ opportunity
to demonstrate the condition of a property at the start of tenancy.
Out of date inventories, or those lacking sufficient detail, lead to
difficulties in quantifying any change in condition and therefore the
likely success of a future claim” says Alex Britchfield in the
article. In both articles it became clear that adjudicators need help in making
viable and fair apportionment of tenant’s deposits, and as indicated
in past blogs, the less appropriate or inadequate material an
adjudicator has at hand, the more likely they will rule in favour of a
tenant. In our view, they have little choice. To qualify this we ourselves recently had a classic example where a
tenant objected to all 129 dilapidations on a checkout report. The checkout was completed against an inventory with ample evidence of
condition and contents within a newly built and newly furnished 2
bedroom flat. The inventory was acknowledged as good by the adjudicator with each
item adequately identified with corresponding photographic support.
The problem came about with the checkout. The adjudicator awarded an approximate 60/40 split of the deposit in
favour of the tenant. The reason in his summary was simple. He said
that because there was a 100% tenant objection to all listed
dilapidations he was obliged to investigate each one. This meant
comparing the checkout item against the inventory item. He firstly said that in favour of the agent the fact that the
inventory was produced independently of the client was a plus. He further indicated that as each item was numerically identifiable it
made his task easier, another plus. He said that because the
photographic support in the inventory was clearly representative he
gave another plus. But when it came to the checkout, that’s where it
ended. Why you may think. The reason he said was that despite the clear written reference to
each change between inventory and checkout, the photos in the checkout
were not labelled adequately and therefore he had little choice but to
award those 40% worth to the tenant. He meant we believe that we had inadequate labelling of each photo
tying it to its referred dilapidation. That pedantic we thought! But
if that’s what’s required then that’s what we have to do from now on,
we decided. So back to the earlier points. Unless the evidence is clearly
representative at both start and end of tenancy and a landlord’s claim
is going to adjudication, then our experience demonstrates that the
tenant may receive all or part of the disputed claim. It’s not about favouritism or bias it seems, its possibly more about
common sense.