Unfair and untransparent – avoid if you’re a guarantor or tenant I’m the father and guarantor of a former tenant whose flat became uninhabitable after flooding. The landlord’s agents told everyone to vacate and promised reimbursement for hotel costs. When that never happened, my son deducted the cost (£358) from his rent — after informing the agent, who agreed this was reasonable. Reposit later treated this as “unpaid rent” and used their so-called independent adjudicator, HF Resolution Ltd, whose directors have landlord business ties. They refused to name the adjudicator, citing “data protection,” which is absurd. Despite clear proof the building was evacuated, the case went against the tenant on the basis that he had not proved that the property was uninhabitable — and Reposit then took £358 from my bank card without consent. A completely opaque and biased process. Tenants and guarantors are far better off with a proper government-backed deposit scheme. Added after Reposit’s response: Unsurprisingly, Reposit now suggest that the rent was due because the landlord did not accept the withholding. But that is not why the adjudicator found against the tenant. The adjudicator’s decision stated: “While it has been acknowledged that some flooding occurred during the tenancy, … without any evidence showing the property was deemed uninhabitable, the tenant remains responsible for the full rent.” Habitability was never in dispute — the landlord’s own agents instructed all tenants to vacate and find temporary accommodation. Reposit’s claim that they had no control over the decision is plainly wrong: Reposit chose the adjudicator, a company with strong landlord ties and every incentive to find in favour of landlords. As to their point that “no evidence was provided that the landlord accepted the deduction,” this was in fact argued — and the landlord never sought payment after being told of the deduction. The adjudicator didn’t even mention this, proving how flawed the reasoning was Consumers deserve honesty and transparency. Reposit’s attempt to rewrite the facts of this case only reinforces why their process should be treated with caution