< back to news

Avoiding Dispute Resolution Made Easy

The decision to create a scheme to protect tenant deposits from unscrupulous or misguided landlords was obviously well-intentioned and long overdue. However, recent problems at the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDP) have highlighted some of the gaps in the theory of how the scheme would work in practice.

Perhaps the most glaring issue has been the tendency for agents to turn to dispute resolution rather than offer landlords a realistic assessment of their chances of success before the adjudicators. This has led to a backlog of cases waiting to be resolved and many tenants waiting to receive their money. It should be noted that a great many cases are decided in favour of the tenant.

There are a few key reasons why so many landlords lose when the case comes before an adjudicator. The two most important are:

An agent's responsibility
If the landlord has opted for management by the agent, then it should be the agent's responsibility to ensure both that the landlord is aware of the concept of fair wear and tear and that the inventory and associated reports are of the highest standard.

It is not just about the quality of the inventory but also about the agent trusting the experience and expertise of the clerk. As professional inventory clerks, we see so many types of properties (in all sorts of conditions) and encounter every variety of wear and damage to domestic contents and structure that we are always able to advise a landlord on a reasonable amount for a claim - and the likely outcome of taking the claim forward for dispute resolution.

The win-win-win situation
Avoiding dispute adjudication usually saves the landlord money, returns the appropriate amount of deposit more quickly to a tenant, and relieves an increasingly frequent headache for the agent.

It's all about knowing the facts and having the documents to back it up.

top >