Join the Residential Landlords Association

Member Forums - Report Post

If you wish for the RLA to contact you regarding this report please remember to provide contact details.

Please Note: - This facility is for reporting of abuse or other breaches of the forum rules. Please do not use this facility to reply to the post as your response will not appear here - to reply please use the quote option.
  1. Please do not post RLA enquiries in these forums. Any enquiries should be sent to info@rla.org.uk.
  2. Please note that the initial message in any forum conversation on this website is viewable by the public.
  3. For security reasons, please do not include your membership number within the title or body of your forum post.
  4. You must not include any personal details relating to your tenants, such as their names and addresses, in your postings.
  5. You must not use the forums to advertise your service or business. Please use the RLA's suppliers guide for all advertising purposes.
  6. Any content deemed as advertising, inappropriate or does not meet the RLA's code of conduct will be removed from the forums.
  7. The RLA cannot be held responsible for any posts made in these forums by non-RLA staff
Report a post:
Bloke said: Posted on: 06/06/2019 09:34

I have just had a decision from the TDS that I consider unfair.

The system requires that I say I will accept the decision of an adjudicator and offers no other choice in the matter. I don't consider that requirement to be in line with natural justice.

Could the RLA make a case against the TDS requirement that landlords have to accept the opinion of one anonymous adjudicator, without a proper hearing in person, with no personal representation nor any right of appeal?

About my case: The adjudicator made great play that I should not 'gain' from use of the deposit yet said little about the point of a deposit being there to cover losses for which the tenant is responsible. I have had to replace carpets that the tenant allowed cats to pee over - carpets that were probably good for another 10 years or more, yet somehow I have 'gained' by replacing them. Roughly, the figures are approx £620 costs, against which I expected £460 (the deposit amount) allowing £160 for the 'gain' to me. The adjudicator awarded £90 on the £60 the tenant had admitted, so giving me less that quarter of the cost of a forced replacement that only became necessary because of the bad tenant. To me that is a ridiculous conclusion and makes me wonder why I pay for inventory and for TDS fees and go through the time consuming bother of having to load evidence on-line if I am going to suffer stupid decisions like that.

The net effect by the way is that I won't allow animals from now on!

Additionally, I have had to raise issue with the TDS about their web-site. I login via the RLA site, but instructions from the TDS assumes that I have a TDS login which we don't have - so it was incredibly confusing and required phone calls to navigate the process. I have written a full report of the problems for the TDS. They do say (verbally) that they are reworking their web-site. Given that this is a bother that relates to the RLA log-through, the RLA should be aware of this and ask to be informed of the process of addressing the issues that I raised with them.

Landlord & Investment Show London Olympia 2019
Residently
99 Homes
John Pye Auctions