I have serious concerns about the impartiality of this organization, which appears to be biased in favor of landlords despite claiming to be independent. I specifically highlighted a clause in the tenancy agreement stating that the tenant must be present for the move-out report, except in cases where the tenant is unable to attend. However, the adjudicator conveniently ignored this point in their report, while emphasizing landlord-friendly points, such as the requirement to report any damage via email. If the email reporting requirement is valid, then the clause about joint move-out report verification should also be valid. Additionally, the landlord submitted invoices for full replacements that included damages from another flat. The adjudicator's response was to reduce the price, but the reduced price was actually the original price from my tenancy. This decision is not only unethical but also far from the truth. I wish I could challenge it. Furthermore, the Flatfair services are not useful as they charge tenants on a yearly basis. If there is any adjudication, they require an adjudication fee, which is supposed to be refunded if the challenge amount is reduced by 50%. This adds an unnecessary financial burden on tenants.the charges wouldn't go down so you would eventually loose the fees. I also pointed out flaws in the move-out report. The landlord asked me to submit the keys on the 7th, the report was created on the 8th, but the real-time photos uploaded with a real-time photo device were dated the 9th, which is difficult to comprehend. I highlighted this to the adjudicator, but they completely ignored it. I would suggest opting for a traditional deposit scheme rather than these so-called easy services. These services could be biased towards landlords because if landlords disagree with them, they might lose business. With a deposit scheme, you have the option to challenge the landlord in a court of law rather than being bound by Flatfair's final decision.