Well, Nothing in this response from Jon does anything except confirm the full and accurate details of my original response - that the worktop was damaged beyond repair by Jon, that the agency recovery of costs was as signed for at the outset and entirely legitimate, and redecoration was required; in all cases the adjudication service takes a view about the lifespan of items that we tend to disagree with, but don't necessarily dispute further. The tenant opted to bring a dispute that resulted in an overall loss to him, and the agency's legitimate claims against the dispute were only reduced due to differing views of lifespans.
I welcome Jon's clarification of the points. I note that he does not answer any of the queries regarding time lost, etc, and does not withdraw his crude condemnation of staff efforts to resolve matters; that is not helpful to any meaningful consideration of matters further.

A McGarrick, Director

You say the existing damage to the kitchen top was slight, but the TDS still knocked you down by £111. Stating the amount you claimed "excessive". I made this point to your agents multiple times prior to raising the dispute, but to no avail. Same with the decoration - you wouldn't budge despite there being many more significant marks (photographed in the inventory), caused by the previous tenants. Nor would you provide copies of quotes.

I could pick apart the above further, but this is meant to be a review - I'll leave it with the bulk of the TDS report. Caveat emptor.



Damage

The agent claims £261.00 on behalf of the landlord as a contribution towards replacing the kitchen worktops following damage caused by the tenant. The tenant admits that some damage was caused but that this occurred while attempting to clean a previously damaged area.

The check-in report describes the worktop as damaged and lifting to the left of the sink. The check-out report describes the worktop as heavily marked by the sink with yellow/brown staining and also some brown spots near the hob. Photographs have been provided to show the damage.

Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the worktop requires replacement due to the damage that occurred during the tenancy. I appreciate the calculation provided by the agent but considering the existing damage near the sink I do not accept that this worktop could reasonably have been expected to continue for a further twelve years. I therefore find that the amount claimed excessive and instead award £150.00 to the landlord which I deem reasonable in the circumstances.

Award to landlord: £150.00


Redecoration

The agent claims £134.00 on behalf of the landlord which represents a contribution towards the cost of redecorating the kitchen and bedroom. The tenant disputes the claim stating that the d©cor in the kitchen had reached the end of its useful lifespan and the claim is excessive.

The check-in report describes the kitchen and bedroom d©cor as having light marks. The check-out report describes some heavy splashes/marks to the kitchen walls and some heavy marks and chips as well as some pen marks by the window in the bedroom.

I accept that the kitchen and bedroom required redecoration but the agent has provided an invoice showing that the walls throughout were decorated for the amount used by the agent to calculate the costs just for the bedroom and kitchen. Additionally, d©cor in a rented property lasts between three and five years and for a kitchen it is at the lower end of the range given the amount of use the room will receive. I therefore find the amount claimed to be excessive and instead award £50.00 to the landlord as a contribution towards redecoration of the bedroom.

Award to landlord: £50.00


Other

The agent claims a dilapidation fee of £120.00 which is disputed by the tenant as excessive. The tenancy agreement provides for the landlord to claim a fee in accordance with the tariff of charges. The tariff of charges provides for a fee of £120.00 in this case as the amount awarded for dilapidations exceeds £100.00. I award £120.00 to the landlord as claimed.

Award to landlord: £120.00

Jon's comments paint a picture that doesn't square with the facts: first, the initial estimates for works were provided as a direct result of Jon signing for and agreeing the long list of issues that were found at his check-out. He then came back to question and challenge aspects of those costs, which we have no problem with a client doing, and we reduced the bills directly attributable to him as a result. We would not go any further and Jon raised a formal TDS dispute. It is important to note that at NO point in that dispute does the TDS raise the slightest question of the agency seeking betterment, so Jon's assertions that imply this agency does not understand or follow best practise when handling dilapidations is a very poor misuse of this kind of review site - factual accuracy must be the basis of these debates otherwise they are worthless.
It is important to note that the TDS reduction in the amount actually awarded to Jon related solely to their view of the value of the remaining life of an item; we estimated a life for the item Jon acknowledged he had damaged beyond repair, TDS made an assumption of a shorter life - the fact that Jon destroyed the useful purpose of an item was not in dispute (I quote from the TDS adjudication report: "...(the item) requires replacement DUE TO THE DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED DURING THE TENANCY").
The item would have remained perfectly useable without Jon's actions; he casually brushes off this fact by saying it was already damaged - but this was slight and would not have affected its ongoing utility.
It's also disappointing that in the free pre-checkout service we provide to all tenants, 7 out of 13 items listed referred to the need for cleaning, which is never a deposit issue - and yet at the actual checkout there were STILL undisputed deductions for cleaning.
As for attempting to sort out what are brushed off as Northwood "screw-ups", the loss of time between 8th July and 3rd August due to the failure of Jon's e-mail facilities made any attempt at resolution by us almost impossible. The Agency, led by Gosia who is unfairly maligned, tried hard to correspond and sort matters out between us before it went to dispute, but Jon's self-acknowledged e-mail issues made this extremely difficult - if there was a waste of time, it did not arise here.
The services we provide do include a detailed set of photos at the outset that we encourage clients to sign as a record of ingoing condition: if this takes an hour, so be it, as it is a useful protection for all parties at the checkout - in this instance it provided clear evidence that backed up the agency's claim for dilapidations that TDS used in their adjudication. A fee for handling all the work involved in putting right damage in this case was signed for at the outset and entirely supported by TDS.
I reject this unbalanced review which simply asserts aspects of a deposit dispute that were largely decided in the Agency's favour. There is always room for discussion and we would generally welcome this, but where a client acknowledges he has caused damage, signs formally to confirm this, and then brings a dispute anyway I fail to see that this is a matter for comment unless the true facts are fully communicated. One-sided attacks on the integrity of staff seeking to resolve matters in wildly unpredictable circumstances will always warrant a counter viewpoint which this note represents.
AMcG, Director