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