I would strongly recommend that landlords carefully consider whether Flatfair is the right deposit scheme for them. I submitted a claim for £1,440 following a tenancy of approximately 3½ years, supported by the checkout report, invoices and other evidence. I accepted that fair wear and tear had to be taken into account and deliberately limited my claim rather than seeking to recover all of the costs I had incurred. The claim was ultimately rejected in full. My biggest concern was that an interim inspection report from 2023, which formed part of the evidence submitted, recorded the property as being in good condition during the tenancy. Despite this, the adjudication decision placed considerable weight on the absence of a check-in report from the start of the tenancy and awarded £0. I appreciate that adjudication has to be evidence-based and that the absence of a proper check-in inventory was a weakness in my case. However, I was disappointed that the 2023 inspection evidence did not appear to receive meaningful consideration when assessing whether deterioration had occurred during the tenancy. As a landlord, I found the outcome extremely frustrating, particularly having incurred considerably more in remedial costs than I was actually claiming. Following this experience, I would personally prefer to use a traditional deposit scheme in future and would advise other landlords to carefully consider the differences before choosing Flatfair.