flatfair Avis 2 879

Réponse : flatfair

13 avr. 2026

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for taking the time to leave us a review. At flatfair, we put customer service at the core of everything we do, so we’re really pleased to hear that you found our renting process nice and simple.

Many thanks,
Team flatfair

Réponse : flatfair

Actualisé le 9 avr. 2026

Hi Sukhvinder,

Thank you for your review.

I want to start by being clear that we support landlords and take property damage claims seriously.

Though we are not an insurance provider, we have helped thousands of landlords and paid out millions through our service, and where tenants are responsible, we work to ensure landlords recover what the evidence supports.

In this case, the charges were not rejected by flatfair. They were considered through an independent adjudication process, which is the same kind of evidence-based approach that would apply in a traditional cash deposit dispute. Even with a cash deposit, deductions still need to be supported by check-in/check-out evidence and documentation showing tenant liability.

Here, the adjudicator did make an award where the evidence supported it, including a contribution toward redecoration/mould treatment and cleaning. However, the larger charges were not awarded in full because the evidence did not clearly support full or in some cases, even partial tenant liability.

For the mould and redecoration claim, the adjudicator accepted that there had been deterioration during the tenancy, but also noted that much of the decoration was already recorded as being in poor condition at check-in. They also found there was no specialist evidence clearly showing that the mould could be attributed solely to the tenants, rather than other structural factors. A contribution was still awarded, but not the full redecoration cost.

For the large claim related to the kitchen units, no award was made because the check-in report had already recorded them as being in poor condition, and the evidence did not show deterioration beyond that starting point (The tenants also supplied evidence that they had raised the condition of the kitchen units at the start and during the tenancy).

For the shower claim, no award was made because the check-out evidence did not show that the shower unit was damaged or non-functional at the end of the tenancy.

After your initial challenge, the case was reviewed again by a second adjudicator, who reached the same outcome and found no error in the original decision.

We appreciate this was not the outcome you had hoped for, and we understand why you are disappointed, however flatfair's service is fundamentally based on being fair to all parties involved and that means ensuring that tenants are only held responsible for charges supported by evidence.

Best regards,
Damola
Head of Customer Operations