Hi Tania, Thank you for feedback. Regarding flatfair's reputation, we have never been biased towards any party when it comes to resolving an end of tenancy case. We have clear, robust processes which direct all cases to a fair outcome and I'm happy to detail here how your case was resolved. Our platform provides the opportunity for tenants and landlord to negotiate end of tenancy charges. If charges aren't agreed, both parties have the option to raise a dispute so that the case can be settled by an independent adjudicator. Note that with a traditional 5-weeks' rent deposit, the procedure for settling a disputed case is the same i.e. via independent adjudication. For your case, charges weren't agreed between parties so the case was referred to an adjudicator and as part of this process, the final result is shared with all parties and this includes a detailed summary of the considerations made which led to the outcome for each charge. Regarding the damages charges, the adjudicator noted that a video had been provided as evidence with audio commentary. The video was undated and did not show the address of the rental property. Also there was no written evidence that may confirm that the video was from the rental property and was an accurate record accepted by the parties. There was no written report from a professional contractor / surveyor that may confirm how the damage occurred and whether this was an ongoing issue that may have been unseen and therefore unreported and also, no correspondence or mid tenancy inspection reports that may indicate that a leak was noticed and actioned by either the tenant or the landlord during the tenancy term. You also referred to the ‘loosing the bath overflow valve’. The adjudicator was not provided with evidence that there was any damage carried out or provided with evidence to support the claim that this was due to the tenant’s actions or whether it could have been due to a poor connection or a defective installation. Ultimately, any adjudicator (whether with flatfair's no deposit solution or with a traditional deposit scheme) can only consider the evidence presented to them and the law. The burden of proff lies with the claimant (in this case, you as the landlord) and I'm satisfied that your case was another example of a fair conclusion on this basis. Best regards, Damola Customer Operations Manager