Extremely Unfair Experience With Reposit – TENANTS BEWARE! PLEASE NOTE: If you experience the same unfairness that I did, I STRONGLY recommend reporting it to the Property Ombudsman and relevant Redress Scheme. These bodies investigate procedural unfairness, and the only way companies are held accountable is when tenants file complaints. It doesn’t change your individual outcome, but it helps expose patterns of tenant mistreatment and can lead to systemic change. I used Reposit instead of a traditional deposit scheme because my landlord required it, and my experience has been extremely disappointing and unfair. Despite providing clear, time-stamped video evidence, a key return form signed by staff, email proof I reported and fixed smoke alarm issues, and proof I requested a checkout inspection five times, Reposit’s adjudication process ignored almost all my evidence. Their rules only accept landlord-produced “checkout reports” and treat tenant videos and photos as “unverified”, which means the system is stacked in favour of landlords. Even when the landlord ignored all of my checkout inspection requests, the adjudicator still relied solely on the landlord’s documents. The process did not feel impartial or balanced. As a tenant, I felt dismissed, powerless, and unfairly penalised despite acting in good faith throughout my tenancy. Also, a major RED FLAG appeared even before the decision was made: Reposit emailed me telling me to “prepare to pay” the landlord’s charges and outlining in detail the maximum amount I could owe. The tone of that message felt heavily landlord-favouring, especially since it didn’t mention anything about what would happen if my evidence was stronger or if I was not liable. At the time, this made me worry the process was not as neutral as advertised, and unfortunately the adjudication outcome confirmed those concerns (see the pictures attached of that email). I strongly advise tenants to be CAUTIOUS: Reposit is a private company, NOT a government deposit scheme, and their adjudication rules heavily favour landlords. If you are required to use Reposit, document EVERYTHING and be aware that your own evidence may not be even considered. REMEMBER, Reposit is not a government scheme. It is a for-profit private business, backed by investors. Its financial model depends on: charging tenants a fee instead of a deposit, charging landlords a subscription, protecting landlords against loss. Landlords choose Reposit, they bring business paying for Reposit subscriptions, tenants only pay once, so Reposit doesn’t need to keep them happy. This means there is a commercial incentive to keep landlords satisfied so they keep choosing Reposit for future properties. This creates a structural bias, even if nobody explicitly says “favour the landlord”. The entire system is built in a way that structurally benefits landlords, the rules make it easier for them to win disputes and tenants’ evidence is often treated more strictly, and “technicalities” favour their clients. Reposit is not motivated to highlight tenant-friendly outcomes. So, saying this they have their own commercial interests, and now I understand why many landlords and agents encourage tenants to opt for the Reposit option, as they can make charges up because they know they have won the battle if you fall in the trap of choosing this company over a traditional deposit scheme. Oh and the £60 they charge for a "dispute" is a complete SCAM and smoking mirror, making you believe they're impartial, because they already know they have to keep their client (landlord) happy and all your evidence is going to be automatically dismissed, so say goodbye to your "refundable" £60 too. They are not neutral in the same way government-backed schemes are.