outrageous

Outrageous is the only word to describe the decision of the external company hired by the DPS, who today have notified me they intend to award the full amount of the deposit to Christine. The breakdown of their decision has been sent, and it is interesting to see that they do not uphold her counter-claims in respect of lost keys, water damage, or lack of a forwarding address. What is absolutely unacceptable to me is that they have awarded the full deposit to her in respect of lost rent. The adjudicator has, according to the resulting paperwork, agreed that my tenancy at Avon Close should have been for a period of 6 months. Because I left after 4 months, even though I gave full verbal notice of intention to end, they have concluded that she is entitled to my deposit in lieu of lost rent.

The problem with all of the above is that I do not contend my tenancy period was ever agreed at 6 months. In fact, on the official AST F301E form, Christine has not even deigned to write a minimum term of tenancy in the space, or even a commencement date of my tenancy. Further, on her unofficial two-page addendum, entitled 'Additional and Highlighted Points', in big bright letters at the top are the words 'Minimum Period Two Months'. I verbally agreed this tenancy with her on the basis that it was, in fact, for a minimum period of two months, and this was witnessed by both my dad and stepmum. All of this is very strong evidence, which is why I cannot understand for a second how someone with half a brain, let alone legally trained, could have overlooked such glaring evidence.

I am actually shaking with rage as I write this. I have never felt such a strong sense of injustice in my life. I will be writing to the DPS, calling the DPS, and emailing the DPS until that money is back in my bank account, because I do not believe for one second that Christine is legally entitled to my money. The DPS is allegedly supposed to protect the interests of its patrons, i.e. tenants, and I am sure that national newspaper coverage would be ideal in highlighting how they are failing to uphold the principles on which they are based.

This is not over.