View Agents

Manning Stainton - Wortley

Leave a View Agents Review Value my property

scroll down for more information

Manning Stainton - Wortley

A selection of reviews/testimonials by highest rating
(in some cases, not all reviews/testimonials will be displayed)

1.00 /5

I have been a landlord for 15 years, and this is without doubt the most unprofessional service provider to the industry I have ever come across. My recent tenants that used their scheme caused thousands of pounds of damage, all evidenced with photos and letting agent reports. The property is unmarketable and empty aa a result. However Flatfair's 'experienced independent adjudicators' found that a few hundred pounds was fair and appropriate - but provided no legal, financial or moral basis for this decision. I do not believe for one minute they have experienced adjudicators, and if they do then they are deluded as to the costs of repairs. They state their decisions are based on tenancy law, evidence and experience - none of which stacks up. They are 100% motivated to reduce the payout to landlords as it increased their risk of non-collection from the tenants, and erodes their margins after paying referral fees to the agents. It's a circular scam, and the only people that win are Flatfiar and the agents. This is an Ombudsman case in the making, they should be struck off for malpractice and profiteering - avoid this scam outfit at all costs.

review by Guy Tolhurst

Reply from agent

Dear Guy, Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. We appreciate your concerns and have thoroughly reviewed the details of your case to provide a clear response. The adjudicator’s decision was based on the evidence presented, including the inventory reports and photographic documentation. Unfortunately, a detailed breakdown of costs for each item that was damaged or missing was not provided. In such cases, it is appropriate for the adjudicator to rely on the inventory reports and assess reasonable costs, taking into account potential fair wear and tear. Regarding the freezer door, the adjudicator made a reasonable award based on experience with similar cases. Since the images provided showed internal damage but did not indicate the make, brand, or age of the appliance, it was not possible to assess the full replacement value. Without this information, a reasonable estimate was applied in line with industry practice. It is also important to clarify that it is not the adjudicator’s responsibility to construct a case on behalf of either party. No specific reference to damp or water damage was included in the check-out report and the adjudicator was not directed to any particular images. As a result, the adjudicator was unable to make an award for this aspect. With respect to the cleaning charge, tenants are required to return the property to its original condition. Since the property was not professionally cleaned at the start of the tenancy, the adjudicator appropriately reduced the cleaning charge to reflect this. We would also like to reassure you that our adjudicators are experienced professionals who apply their knowledge of tenancy law, industry standards, and the evidence provided to make fair and impartial decisions. While we understand that the outcome may not have met your expectations, we are absolutely confident that the correct process was followed. If you have any further questions or would like additional clarification, please do not hesitate to get in touch via endoftenancy@flatfair.co.uk Best regards, Damola Head of Customer Operations