PDA

View Full Version : TDSL is unjust in dispute resolution and won't see sense



m&m
13-03-2009, 16:42 PM
My blood is boiling, so excuse me if my prose is a bit shakey!

We've been members of TDSL since the scheme opened and recently had our first dispute. They completey screwed it up initially (lost the paperwork & found against us by default for not supplying the paperwork and then had to backtrack when I produced proof of delivery and secured admission of receipt from a hapless staff member), but surprisingly that's NOT my complaint - it's much worse.

When we finally received the adjudication it was accompanied by a curt letter explaining that it was final and that no further correspondence would be entered into. We'd supplied a video inventory with our evidence showing that pristine condition of the property prior to letting and they accepted this. During the tenancy the tenant had spilt something on a carpet and had ruined the decor in a couple of rooms by letting mould build up because she dried washing indoors.

However (and this is the humdinger), TDSL found against us because we had not supplied any evidence that the tenant's acts or omissions caused the mould or the staining!!!! Short of having CCTV in the house 24/7 how the HELL COULD WE???

How on earth is any landlord supposed to win a dispute? Has anyone any thoughts on what we did wrong (if anything), any similar experiences to us, or any suggestions for the future?

I really, really, do not want to renew our membership with TDSL.

mind the gap
13-03-2009, 16:45 PM
My blood is boiling, so excuse me if my prose is a bit shakey!

We've been members of TDSL since the scheme opened and recently had our first dispute. They completey screwed it up initially (lost the paperwork & found against us by default for not supplying the paperwork and then had to backtrack when I produced proof of delivery and secured admission of receipt from a hapless staff member), but surprisingly that's NOT my complaint - it's much worse.

When we finally received the adjudication it was accompanied by a curt letter explaining that it was final and that no further correspondence would be entered into. We'd supplied a video inventory with our evidence showing that pristine condition of the property prior to letting and they accepted this. During the tenancy the tenant had spilt something on a carpet and had ruined the decor in a couple of rooms by letting mould build up because she dried washing indoors.

However (and this is the humdinger), TDSL found against us because we had not supplied any evidence that the tenant's acts or omissions caused the mould or the staining!!!! Short of having CCTV in the house 24/7 how the HELL COULD WE???

How on earth is any landlord supposed to win a dispute? Has anyone any thoughts on what we did wrong (if anything), any similar experiences to us, or any suggestions for the future?

I really, really, do not want to renew our membership with TDSL.

Sounds like a monumental cock-up, doesn't it.

Did tenants dispute that they had caused the stain?

Did you have photographic evidence of it?

Sounds alarming, I agree.

m&m
13-03-2009, 16:48 PM
We had photographic and video evidence which TDSL accepted. The tenant admitted she dried washing indoors, but said she opened windows when she did it (and this was enough for TDSL apparently). She denied staining the carpet!

mind the gap
13-03-2009, 16:55 PM
It is wrong that you cannot challenge the TSD's rulings.

How much money is in dispute? Could you sue her through a normal court for it? There has been a bit of discussion about that recently. Unfortunately, I think that if you have agreed to the TDS's 'binding' arbitration, you wouldn't get very far.

Sounds really unjust.

I use the DPS, but I haven't had cause to dispute a deposit's return yet. I wonder whether they are any better?

Does anyone have first-hand experience of their arbitration service?

Rodent1
13-03-2009, 17:07 PM
A report from a damp proofing company confirming no rising/penatrating damp would help i would think ?

Also an opinion from them as " experts" as to the cause.

You say they have been drying washing - can you prove it ?

Paul_f
13-03-2009, 17:10 PM
I used to be an adjudicator for TDSL and agree that the system has too many flaws; that's why I was no longer required as I challenged some of their 'procedures' - an unwise decision ultimately.

mind the gap
13-03-2009, 17:37 PM
A report from a damp proofing company confirming no rising/penatrating damp would help i would think ?

Also an opinion from them as " experts" as to the cause.



Unless the damp has caused hundreds/thousands of pounds' worth of damage, it probably would not be worth paying for such a report, even If the TDSL accepted it. And presumably it is too late to commission it now anyway.

Preston
13-03-2009, 17:38 PM
I used to be an adjudicator for TDSL and agree that the system has too many flaws; that's why I was no longer required as I challenged some of their 'procedures' - an unwise decision ultimately.

Hi

That's interesting. Can you tell us more?

Preston

Paul_f
13-03-2009, 17:40 PM
It would take far, far too long to even begin to explain.

m&m
13-03-2009, 18:40 PM
But surely the point with the whole thing is that it's irrelevant whether the tenant personally caused the stain on the carpet or the mould or whether it was the action of her children or guests or whoever? The fact is that these things happened whilst the property was under her care. Am I being obtuse?

Esio Trot
13-03-2009, 19:20 PM
As I have posted before, because of the lack of housing law knowledge by many arbiters coupled with the requirement to sign to accept the arbiters decision as final, where deposit protection disputes are involved NO LANDLORD/AGENT SHOULD EVER AGREE TO ARBITRATION.

If the landlord/agent does not agree to ADR, then the tenant has to use the normal court procedure.

There are three compelling reasons for landlords/agents not to use ADR


ADR is a very easy system for tenants to use - and its free. When push comes to shove, many tenants in dispute can't be arsed to make a claim in the county court, besides it costing them the court fee unless exempt.
Should a claim be made in the county court, landlords/agents can be reasonably confident that the judge has working knowledge of housing law.
Should the tenant not make a claim in the county court, despite letters to them from whichever TDS scheme has been used, the full disputed deposit will eventually be paid back to the landlord/agent.

At the risk of repetition, NEVER USE ADR

jta
13-03-2009, 19:30 PM
OK, I wont use them, but just one little question, are these disputes decided by someone who has at least a modicum of knowledge of housing law? Or is it whichever Tracey or Sharon picks up the paperwork that decides the case?

mind the gap
13-03-2009, 19:42 PM
It would take far, far too long to even begin to explain.

Try us. We're listening. We'd like to know.

agent46
13-03-2009, 19:44 PM
As I have posted before, because of the lack of housing law knowledge by many arbiters, coupled with the requirement to sign to accept the arbiters decision as final, where deposit protection disputes are involved NO LANDLORD/AGENT SHOULD EVER AGREE TO ARBITRATION.

etc etc


I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

I know of an agent who (so he could decide on company policy in such circumstances) has asked the TDS bodies on several occasions to give an indication of the qualifications and adjudicative experience of the arbitrators, but he hasn't even received a response to any of his letters. I think that says it all.

Chances are the arbitrators are a bunch of hastily trained lay people meddling in a discipline they don't understand.




I used to be an adjudicator for TDSL....

Why am I not surprised by that statement?

LMAO: I only saw the quoted passage after posting the above comments on the likely background of the adjudicators. It proves my hypothesis beyond doubt!



....that's why I was no longer required as I challenged some of their 'procedures' - an unwise decision ultimately.

Who was unwise?

(1) Was it unwise of you to challenge them, because it led to your untimely demise?

or,

(2) Was it unwise of them to remove you from your duties, because,

(a) It robbed TDSL of your Lord Denning-esque judicial wisdom?

or,

(b) You are plotting to wreak some form of ingenious and bloody revenge on TDSL for failing to recognise your unique genius? (the words "an unwise decision, ultimately" could sound quite sinister and threatening in the right context - even more so if you dressed up as an evil criminal mastermind in a manner similar to eg: The Joker)

jta
13-03-2009, 19:50 PM
I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

I know of an agent who (so he could decide on company policy in such circumstances) has asked the TDS bodies on several occasions to give an indication of the qualifications and adjudicative experience of the arbitrators, but he hasn't even received a response to any of his letters. I think that says it all.

So given that! Even though a paper has been signed to accept the decision, if the parties believe there to have been a mistake in law, could the decision be challenged? ( I think 'set aside' is the phrase)

agent46
13-03-2009, 20:21 PM
So given that! Even though a paper has been signed to accept the decision, if the parties believe there to have been a mistake in law, could the decision be challenged? ( I think 'set aside' is the phrase)

Ha ha, I wish you hadn't asked me that, because I actually attended a lecture last year on "The Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court to Stay Proceedings in Aid of Arbitration Agreements" (or something similar). Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question off the top of my head because the lecture was so dull that I fell asleep. :o

However, my gut feeling is that a party could have the decision set aside in such circumstances. I'll look it up and get back to you.

Arbitration Act 1996

s.69

Appeal on point of law

(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings. An agreement to dispense with reasons for the tribunal’s award shall be considered an agreement to exclude the court’s jurisdiction under this section.

(2) An appeal shall not be brought under this section except—

(a) with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings, or

(b) with the leave of the court.


As the TDP ADR is a special case, I don't know whether it is deemed to be an arbitration for the purposes of the Act (although I think it would, being a creature of statute). However, even if the TDP ADR was outside the scope of the Act, I imagine the same principles could probably be unearthed somewhere at common law, if one had the time and inclination to do the necessary research.

agent46
13-03-2009, 21:36 PM
The editing window timed out when I was in the middle of posting :mad:

As a general principle....

Arbitration Act 1996

s.69

Appeal on point of law

(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings. An agreement to dispense with reasons for the tribunal’s award shall be considered an agreement to exclude the court’s jurisdiction under this section.

(2) An appeal shall not be brought under this section except—

(a) with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings, or

(b) with the leave of the court.


As the TDP ADR is a special case, I don't know whether it is deemed to be an arbitration for the purposes of the Act (although I think it would, being a creature of statute). However, even if the TDP ADR was outside the scope of the Act, I imagine the same principles could probably be unearthed somewhere at common law, if one had the time and inclination to do the necessary research.

However, by s.87, it is possible for parties to agree to exclude the jurisdiction of the court. IIRC, the Housing Act or its associated SIs don't actually provide that the TDP ADR decision is final, but, I believe the individual schemes (who are empowered by to make rules) do. As the TDP ADR is voluntary, the parties' submission to arbitration may well count as such an agreement to exclude jurisdiction and the decision would therefore not be appealable. Nevertheless. s.87 only refers to the parties excluding jurisdiction of the courts on a matter relating to a point of law and not to the jurisdiction of the courts to disturb the findings of the arbitrator where there has been a serious irregularity (s.68). In this particular case, it appears there may have been such an irregularity, and so the decision seems to be, in theory at least, appealable under s.68.

Arbitration Act 1996

s. 68 Challenging the award: serious irregularity

(1) A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the
ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award.

A party may lose the right to object (see section 73) and the right to apply is subject to the restrictions in section 70(2) and (3).

(2) Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

(a) failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

(b) the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

(c) failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

(d) failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(e) any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

(f) uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

(g) the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

(h) failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

(i) any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.

(3) If there is shown to be serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award, the court may—

(a) remit the award to the tribunal, in whole or in part, for reconsideration,

(b) set the award aside in whole or in part, or

(c) declare the award to be of no effect, in whole or in part.

The court shall not exercise its power to set aside or to declare an award to be of no effect, in whole or in part, unless it is satisfied that it would be inappropriate to remit the matters in question to the tribunal for reconsideration.

(4) The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section.


s.87 Effectiveness of agreement to exclude court’s jurisdiction

(1) In the case of a domestic arbitration agreement any agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the court under—

(a) section 45 (determination of preliminary point of law), or

(b) section 69 (challenging the award: appeal on point of law),

is not effective unless entered into after the commencement of the arbitral proceedings in which the question arises or the award is made.

(2) For this purpose the commencement of the arbitral proceedings has the same meaning as in Part I (see section 14).

(3) For the purposes of this section the question whether an arbitration agreement is a domestic arbitration agreement shall be determined by reference to the facts at the time the agreement is entered into.

Sully
13-03-2009, 22:27 PM
ADR is a very easy system for tenants to use - and its free. When push comes to shove, many tenants in dispute can't be arsed to make a claim in the county court, besides it costing them the court fee unless exempt.


So an unscrupulous landlord could inproperly dispute for an amount below the "can't be arsed" level, not agree to ADR and L has a source of extra money just like the Bad/Good old days? Wouldn't that make dispute schemes completely pointless?

David.

mind the gap
13-03-2009, 22:32 PM
So an unscrupulous landlord could inproperly dispute for an amount below the "can't be arsed" level, not agree to ADR and L has a source of extra money just like the Bad/Good old days? Wouldn't that make dispute schemes completely pointless?

David.

Well...it wouldn't be quite so easy as the days when LLs could just pocket the deposit (almost as a perk of the job) and tell Ts to beggar off. Having to go through the hassle of going to to court over a few hundred quid when you might lose a good bit more than that if you fail to convince the judge that your claim is watertight...I don't think most LLs would bother, although I see your point.

And one would hope the average judge would have a firmer grip on the law than the people employed by the TDSL seem to have.

mind the gap
13-03-2009, 22:39 PM
Ha ha, I wish you hadn't asked me that, because I actually attended a lecture last year on "The Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court to Stay Proceedings in Aid of Arbitration Agreements" (or something similar). Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question off the top of my head because the lecture was so dull that I fell asleep. :o


I find it a great comfort to know that, like me, others have to sit through CPD sessions of stultifying dullness, too.

jta
14-03-2009, 06:32 AM
Ha ha, I wish you hadn't asked me that,

'twas only a little question guv, if I'd known it was going to be such a big answer............! :)

susanne
14-03-2009, 21:00 PM
thanks everyone for all research published on here - it will certainly give me some ammunition against DPS - if more than one LL takes on more than one Deposit Scheme in the same time frame - the media might see a "story " - well at least the Property Media might

MaryQK
16-03-2009, 11:10 AM
thanks everyone for all research published on here - it will certainly give me some ammunition against DPS - etc

Do let us know how you get on.

Gigabyte
16-03-2009, 11:46 AM
I realise this question has little to do with the thread title but its relevant to the TDS.

I've disputed some charges that my ex LL was claiming and aside from sending off all of the supporting documents, haven't had anything significant back. Checking online today and the status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?

jeffrey
16-03-2009, 11:49 AM
Checking online today and the status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?
"DICE"? Not a clue. Pick any of these, courtesy of http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/DICE:

DICEDNA Integrated Cybernetic Enterprises (TV show)DICEDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (University of Kent at Canterbury, United Kingdom)DICEDesign, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (game developers' conference)DICEData-Intensive Computing EnvironmentDICEDARPA Initiative in Concurrent EngineeringDICEDynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the EconomyDICEDiabetes in Canada EvaluationDICEDoD Interoperability Communications ExerciseDICEDanube Integrated Circuit Engineering GmbH & Co. (Linz, Austria)DICEDelivering Information in a Cellular EnvironmentDICEDefensive Information to Counter EspionageDICEDistributed Information Warfare Constructive EnvironmentDICEDigital Image Correction Enhancement (scanner)DICEDistributed Interactive C31 Effectiveness (simulation program)DICEDashboard Integrated Control Electronics (Saab)DICEDigital Interface Countermeasures EquipmentDICEDeployed Interoperability Communications ExerciseDICEDillon's Integrated C Environment (C compiler for Amiga)DICEDestroyed in a Colored Environment (hip hop artist)DICEData Integration & Collection EnvironmentDICEDeployable Independent Communications ElementDiCEDiscipline Choice in EngineeringDICEData Integration, Collation and Export (multiple data source aggregation environment)

mind the gap
16-03-2009, 12:18 PM
I realise this question has little to do with the thread title but its relevant to the TDS.

I've disputed some charges that my ex LL was claiming and aside from sending off all of the supporting documents, haven't had anything significant back. Checking online today and the status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?

Deposit In Chief Executive's (account)?

Paul Gibbs
16-03-2009, 12:35 PM
Adjudicator rolls one for T and one for LL - highest wins?

jeffrey
16-03-2009, 12:43 PM
Department of
Interference by
Central Government
Inquisitiveness.

agent46
16-03-2009, 14:39 PM
...status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?

Dodgy Independent Case Examiner?

My explanation for the 3 letters of the acronym (ICE) are correct, but I don't know what the "D" stands for.

However, I prefer Paul Gibbs' version. Given the adjudicators probable lack of legal qualifications, rolling a dice might actually be a fairer way of deciding disputes.

Sully
16-03-2009, 14:40 PM
I realise this question has little to do with the thread title but its relevant to the TDS.

I've disputed some charges that my ex LL was claiming and aside from sending off all of the supporting documents, haven't had anything significant back. Checking online today and the status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?

In TDS documents ICE stands for Independant Case Examiner. DICE = Designated Independant Case Examiner?

Gigabyte
16-03-2009, 14:56 PM
Sully you are a fountain of knowledge.

mind the gap
16-03-2009, 15:54 PM
In TDS documents ICE stands for Independant Case Examiner. DICE = Designated Independant Case Examiner?

Dim?
Dastardly?
Dehumanised?
Deregulated (ie does what he wants)?
Dogsbody?
Deconstructionist ?

..or probably, in this context, Disorganised.

Rodent1
16-03-2009, 16:20 PM
More likely to be:

Donut
Doppy
Dippy
Dullard
Dickhead
?

ah84
16-03-2009, 16:32 PM
As I have posted before, because of the lack of housing law knowledge by many arbiters coupled with the requirement to sign to accept the arbiters decision as final, where deposit protection disputes are involved NO LANDLORD/AGENT SHOULD EVER AGREE TO ARBITRATION.

If the landlord/agent does not agree to ADR, then the tenant has to use the normal court procedure.

There are three compelling reasons for landlords/agents not to use ADR


ADR is a very easy system for tenants to use - and its free. When push comes to shove, many tenants in dispute can't be arsed to make a claim in the county court, besides it costing them the court fee unless exempt.
Should a claim be made in the county court, landlords/agents can be reasonably confident that the judge has working knowledge of housing law.
Should the tenant not make a claim in the county court, despite letters to them from whichever TDS scheme has been used, the full disputed deposit will eventually be paid back to the landlord/agent.

At the risk of repetition, NEVER USE ADR

I would disagree with that, given my experience on a commercial property case where the judge had no clue about property.

jeffrey
16-03-2009, 16:37 PM
I would disagree with that, given my experience on a commercial property case where the judge had no clue about property.
But Esio Trot mentioned only Housing law.

Lawrence
17-03-2009, 13:52 PM
Assuming you're talking about us rather than Tenancy Deposit Solutions Ltd (TDSL), I'm sorry that you feel so aggrieved about our adjudication. Please let me have the TDS reference number. I will treat your blog as a formal complaint and investigate it following the procedure set out in TDS F Complaints procedure - for complaints about the way the ICE handled your case. I will post the outcome, suitably anonymised, as a further thread. Lawrence Greenberg, Inedpendent Case Examiner.

jeffrey
17-03-2009, 14:40 PM
Assuming you're talking about us rather than Tenancy Deposit Solutions Ltd (TDSL), I'm sorry that you feel so aggrieved about our adjudication. Please let me have the TDS reference number. I will treat your blog as a formal complaint and investigate it following the procedure set out in TDS F Complaints procedure - for complaints about the way the ICE handled your case. I will post the outcome, suitably anonymised, as a further thread. Lawrence Greenberg, Inedpendent Case Examiner.
This thread unfortunately conflates two LZ members' different problems.
M&M had a TDSL problem.
Gigabyte had a TDS problem.

agent46
17-03-2009, 19:16 PM
I would disagree with that, given my experience on a commercial property case where the judge had no clue about property.


Just out of interest, how do you know the judge "had no clue" about property?

Paul_f
18-03-2009, 21:29 PM
If Lawrence Greenberg is getting involved then all these posts might not be in vain; he's a decent bloke who listens to opinions expressed and I for one am pleased that he's agreed to look again at an adjudication.

I know and respect Lawrence's opinion, but there has to be another way as agents and landlords complain that adjudications are tenant friendly, and when I was briefly an adjudicator, felt that I was being pressured to comply with whatever the tenancy agreement stated and to ignore any potential unfair terms. Why was this? Adjudicators are most of the time not qualified to take into consideration legal matters, although they able to consult legal opinion from a prominent firm of solicitors. The problem is you'd be on the phone to them all day when you have barely 5 days to make a decision on a missive sometimes approaching the magnitude of War & Peace as in one of my cases. I was not prepared to award a landlord for full replacement cost of his insurance excess for carpets (£700) that were clearly about 30 years old and of little or no commercial value, and with no wear and tear factor taken into account, but I was overruled by another adjudicator who awarded the landlord the lot when I was unable to complete my report within the 5 days allocated! (I have other things to do and £175 is not exactly a compelling reason to "drop tools" for a few days to the exclusion of everything else, but they did pay me for my report.) I felt that it was biased towards the landlord. There were other factors where the landlord was clearly entitled to his money such as rent arrears, landlord's legal costs for repossession and damage by a dog, but the landlord had retained three and a half times the monthly rent as a deposit which I pointed out could have been a premium lease; I was told to ignore this!

I feel in this instance the tenant had little protection, but perhaps things have improved as it appears that tenants are now being given the benefit of the doubt. It also highlights a deficiency in the compilation of inventories, and I have always maintained an inadequate inventory does not protect the landlord; who draws up the inventory? Usually an agent so they need to improve their service and charge a decent amount for it. It needs to reflect the necessity of lots of time and accuracy that's required.

The case I've highlighted was pre TDS Ltd and was a TDSL case when an ARLA Member was a voluntary member of the scheme.

agent46
18-03-2009, 21:49 PM
Adjudicators are most of the time not qualified to take into consideration legal matters,

Out of interest, as a general rule, what is the background of a typical adjudicator?



I was not prepared to award a landlord for full replacement cost of his insurance excess for carpets (£700) that were clearly about 30 years old and of little or no commercial value, and with no wear and tear factor taken into account,

Surely the insurance company would pay out what they felt was a fair value for the carpet in its current state? They would then deduct the excess from this amount, send a cheque for the value of the net claim and the LL would have to meet the difference himself. In other words, the wear and tear has already been taken into account by the loss adjuster in the global settlment figure and no further adjustments to the excess are necessary, because this would amount to a double deduction.

Imagine a case where a carpet is £2500 new, but taking age and wear and tear etc into account, it is now only worth £1500. The LL has an insurance policy with a £500 excess. The insurance company correctly value the carpet at £1500, but taking the excess into account, they only pay the LL £1000. The other £500 is an uninsured loss which (presuming the tenants are liable for the damage) he is entitled to recover in full from them (the tenants). Additionally, the insurance company could, through their rights of subrogation, sue the tenants for the other £1000.

Of course, the situation would be different (and you would have been correct) if it was a "new for old" policy.

susanne
21-03-2009, 08:42 AM
If Lawrence Greenberg reverses a decision made by arbitrators, that will open the flood gates - so, whilst i wait with bated breath for his most welcome input on this thread, i am not optimistic that he will be able to change the decision. with the DPS - their decisions are NOT appealable (I had thought the same applied to all 3 schemes) - which is what makes this whole system so grossly unfair to both tenant and landlord, but especially to landlords in the recent climate of more and more anti-landlord decisions

agent46
21-03-2009, 08:59 AM
If Lawrence Greenberg reverses a decision made by arbitrators, that will open the flood gates...

Apart from anything else, it would be highly irregular.



i am not optimistic that he will be able to change the decision. with the DPS - their decisions are NOT appealable (I had thought the same applied to all 3 schemes) - which is what makes this whole system so grossly unfair to both tenant and landlord, but especially to landlords in the recent climate of more and more anti-landlord decisions

But did you read my post #17 (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=124627&postcount=17), especially the part concerning setting aside arbitration awards where there has been a serious irregularity? Regardless, s.87 does not simply allow the head of an arbitration body to overrule the decision of one of his junior arbitrators once an award has been made - there is a proper procedure to be gone through.

susanne
21-03-2009, 09:16 AM
thank you - i will consider this carefully over the weekend as it may affect my own situation and my own choice of a way forward with DPS