I had a really enjoyable day last week giving an inventory masterclass to the experienced team at Inventory House in London’s Docklands, who had asked me to consult on the format and content of their inventories. Their inventory product is already very professional and the guys really know their business inside out, so we were able to delve very deep into what makes a great inventory, touching on subjects as diverse as how deposit protection adjudicators arrive at decisions and awards, how to maintain admissibility of evidence for criminal court and how language is used to describe phenomena in quantum mechanics.
One of the recurring themes of the day was whether the deposit protection dispute model as currently practiced is sustainable and how the inventory industry, and other interested parties, might be able to influence any developments.
Several questions kept recurring which included:
Whether the methodology for resolving disputes through adjudication could be standardised, as there is a feeling that the standard of proof was interpreted differently across the schemes?
Whether the schemes could agree a baseline of expected lifespans for commonly claimed for items (such as carpet) in an average tenancy, to prevent landlords claiming with unrealistic expectations, or unnecessarily pursuing claims that are without merit?
A feeling that the trained inventory professional’s opinion is underused led to discussion of whether a (self?) regulated inventory industry adhering to common standards could remove some of the burden from the deposit protection schemes’ dispute resolution departments?
Answers on a postcard please...
