Hi, Thank you for your review. I’m sorry to hear how strongly you feel about the outcome, and I do understand that dealing with end-of-tenancy damage can be stressful and time-consuming. We have reviewed flatfair reference 74316. The claim submitted for adjudication was £3,890, and the adjudicator awarded £1,346.49. This was not a blanket rejection of the claim. The award included £384 towards the damaged bath and £962.49 towards cleaning, window cleaning, appliance cleaning, garden tidying, stair carpet damage, décor issues, carpet protectors, microwave surround repair, toilet roll holder repair and replacement light bulbs. The reason the full amount claimed was not awarded was not because flatfair ignored the evidence. The adjudicator had to apply the same core principles that apply in a traditional deposit dispute: the landlord must evidence the condition at the start and end of the tenancy, prove the tenant’s liability, evidence the cost claimed, allow for fair wear and tear, and avoid betterment. For example, the bath claim was made for £1,890. The evidence included a lower cost of £640 for the supply of a bath and taps, alongside a higher internet example, but it was not clear why the higher figure should be used. The check-in report also recorded that the bath was already scratched at the start of the tenancy, although no crack was recorded. The adjudicator therefore accepted that damage had occurred during the tenancy, but awarded 60% of the evidenced lower cost rather than the full replacement amount. For the wider £2,000 claim, the adjudicator accepted a number of items and made an award. However, the full amount was not awarded because the costs were not individually itemised for each issue, the evidence submitted did not clearly support the full £2,000 claimed, and some matters were not sufficiently identified in the check-out report. On cleaning, the adjudicator also had to consider that the check-in report recorded the property as being in the process of being cleaned, but the final standard achieved at the start of the tenancy was not clearly evidenced. That meant a full deep-clean award could not fairly be made. We appreciate that you say your overall repair costs were higher than the award. However, adjudication can only award compensation for the charges submitted, evidenced and proven within the process. It cannot simply reimburse all later repair or refurbishment costs where those costs go beyond what the evidence supports, or where the legal principles of fair wear and tear and betterment require a reduction. We would not seek to remove a review simply because it is critical. We do, however, think it is important to clarify that the claim was assessed through an evidence-based adjudication process, and that an award was made where the evidence supported it. Best wishes, Damola Head of Customer Operations