Hi Sukhvinder, Thank you for your review. I want to start by being clear that we support landlords and take property damage claims seriously. Though we are not an insurance provider, we have helped thousands of landlords and paid out millions through our service, and where tenants are responsible, we work to ensure landlords recover what the evidence supports. In this case, the charges were not rejected by flatfair. They were considered through an independent adjudication process, which is the same kind of evidence-based approach that would apply in a traditional cash deposit dispute. Even with a cash deposit, deductions still need to be supported by check-in/check-out evidence and documentation showing tenant liability. Here, the adjudicator did make an award where the evidence supported it, including a contribution toward redecoration/mould treatment and cleaning. However, the larger charges were not awarded in full because the evidence did not clearly support full or in some cases, even partial tenant liability. For the mould and redecoration claim, the adjudicator accepted that there had been deterioration during the tenancy, but also noted that much of the decoration was already recorded as being in poor condition at check-in. They also found there was no specialist evidence clearly showing that the mould could be attributed solely to the tenants, rather than other structural factors. A contribution was still awarded, but not the full redecoration cost. For the large claim related to the kitchen units, no award was made because the check-in report had already recorded them as being in poor condition, and the evidence did not show deterioration beyond that starting point (The tenants also supplied evidence that they had raised the condition of the kitchen units at the start and during the tenancy). For the shower claim, no award was made because the check-out evidence did not show that the shower unit was damaged or non-functional at the end of the tenancy. After your initial challenge, the case was reviewed again by a second adjudicator, who reached the same outcome and found no error in the original decision. We appreciate this was not the outcome you had hoped for, and we understand why you are disappointed, however flatfair's service is fundamentally based on being fair to all parties involved and that means ensuring that tenants are only held responsible for charges supported by evidence. Best regards, Damola Head of Customer Operations

Thank you for your feedback. We are sorry to hear that you are dissatisfied with your experience and would like to take the opportunity to clarify the situation. With regard to the deposit, all deductions proposed are based on the independent check-out report and supporting evidence, including photographs and the inventory prepared at the start of the tenancy. These reports are carried out by third-party clerks to ensure impartiality. Where there is any disagreement, the matter can be referred to the relevant tenancy deposit scheme for independent adjudication, which we fully support. In relation to the condition of the property, we note your comments; however, our assessment must rely on the documented inventory and check-out process rather than informal confirmation. This ensures consistency and fairness to all parties. Regarding the return of keys, tenancy agreements require that keys are returned on or before the last day of the tenancy. Where this falls on a non-working day, tenants are expected to make prior arrangements with the office to facilitate return of the keys or use our post-box if the office is closed. In the absence of such arrangements, charges may apply in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement. These charges are not intended to be punitive but reflect continued possession and associated costs. We also acknowledge that you provided more than the minimum required notice, which we appreciate. However, notice periods and end-of-tenancy procedures are separate matters and are applied in accordance with the tenancy agreement. We are committed to acting fairly and transparently at all times and always take clients instruction.

We believe this review to be false as we have no Jamie’s in our software, emails or call library 🥰 …

Hi, We're sorry to hear about your experience. We’d love to learn more, so please reach out to us via support@flatfair.co.uk and we'll see how we can help. Best regards, Damola Head of Customer Operations

Thank you for sharing your experience Catherine. Although you had a fantastic experience with our sales team, we are truly sorry to hear about your disappointing experience with our lettings team. We strive to provide professional support … More

Hi Gregg, Thanks for your feedback, we're sorry to hear that you weren't satisifed with the outcome of your case. Please note that the tenant chose our deposit alternative service so no deposit was in place. I've reviewed the adjudication outcome for your case, including the adjudication report, tenancy agreement, email/WhatsApp correspondence, photographs, and the supporting cost evidence provided. Following the review, I found no errors in fact, law, or process. The rent claim was partially awarded (£250) because a rent statement/ledger wasn’t provided to evidence the full amount claimed after the tenancy ended; the only figure clearly supported on the balance of probabilities was the tenant’s £250 offer acknowledging partial liability. The remaining cleaning/dilapidations, gardening/waste removal, and carpet cleaning claims were not awarded due to a lack of independent baseline evidence (e.g., signed/independent check-in and check-out reports and/or clearly dated, verifiable documentation) to demonstrate the property condition at the start and end of the tenancy and to distinguish damage from fair wear and tear. I know that this was not the outcome you were looking for, but adjudicators must apply consistent evidential standards and can only award amounts that are properly substantiated. If you have any further questions, reach out to us via endoftenancy@flatfair.co.uk Best wishes, Damola Head of Customer Operations

Dear Gary, Thank you for sharing your experience. We appreciate how frustrating it can be when a claim outcome does not align with expectations, particularly where significant costs are involved. Going into the detail of your case, the adjudication decision was based on the evidence provided by all parties and on established principles that apply to end of tenancy disputes. The adjudicator accepted that the property was in a broadly sound decorative condition at the start of the tenancy. However, the evidence also showed that significant damp and mould issues developed during the tenancy and these issues were known to both you as the landlord and the managing agent. Crucially, the independent contractor’s report did not attribute the condition solely to tenant behaviour. On the contrary, it explicitly identified evidence of water ingress and recommended investigations into the roof, gutters, and loft space to diagnose an underlying cause, before any redecoration was undertaken. The contractor noted peeling wallpaper, black spot mould across multiple rooms, and the need to ensure the property was watertight to prevent recurrence This points to a potential building or maintenance issue, which remains the landlord’s responsibility under housing and contract law. While the contractor also referred to high internal humidity and advice given to tenants about ventilation, no technical or expert evidence was provided that could demonstrate that the widespread mould and damage were caused mainly or solely by tenant misuse, rather than by inherent damp or water ingress. In the absence of such evidence, an adjudicator cannot fairly conclude that the full cost of redecoration is a loss arising from tenant breach. As a result, the substantial redecoration element of the claim was declined, because it included works associated with resolving damp, mould remediation, and investigating water ingress. These are not costs that can be awarded against tenants unless clear causation by tenant behaviour is established. The fact that tenants did not agree with the charges was not, in itself, the deciding factor; rather, it was the lack of evidence linking the majority of the claimed costs to tenant liability. flatfair’s role is not to side with tenants or landlords, but to apply an independent, evidence-based assessment consistent with adjudication standards used across the sector. Where landlord responsibility for disrepair or inherent defects cannot be ruled out, awards must reflect that reality. We understand that this outcome is disappointing, but it reflects the fundamental requirement that claims must be supported by clear evidence of tenant breach and quantifiable loss. We remain committed to fair outcomes for both landlords and tenants, and we continue to encourage early investigation and resolution of issues such as damp and mould during a tenancy, to avoid situations like this arising at the end. Best regards, Damola Head of Customer Operations