Better Inventories Required

Better Evidence For Landlords

I have been very busy recently getting a new project off the ground which could really change the fortunes of landlords and letting agents in deposit protection disputes. 

The Problem With Inventories

All too often landlords lose deposit disputes simply because their inventory evidence doesn’t show what they need it to show. Inventory clerks tend to focus their attention on any parts of the property that are already damaged, whereas what landlords require is an inventory that shows the property in it’s undamaged condition at the beginning of the tenancy. Only with concrete evidence that the property was in good condition to start with can the landlord show that the tenant is responsible for any change in condition - damage to the property.

Ordinary inventories tend to come with a dozen or so photographs by way of supporting visual evidence. It is simply not possible with a few photographs to categorically demonstrate the condition and cleanliness of every part of every wall, every metre of skirting board, or the inside of every kitchen cupboard. 

A New Inventory

I have been working closely with the Video Inventory Network on their video inventory training course, developing a system that enables inventory clerks to take an average of 60,000 still images per inventory to corroborate their work.

The Future Of Deposit Protection Disputes

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...

Mould: Condensation v Damp

A conversation with a client last week made me realise just how many deposit protection disputes are over the cost of repairing mould. As an adjudicator, I would dread claims relating to mould, not just because the pictures of black and green slime colonising walls would make my skin crawl, but because they always came down to the same argument, and sometimes it was very difficult to know who was right.

Some Thoughts On Inventories

A recent discussion on a linkedin.com group has sparked this weeks post. There has been a lively debate on the merits of independent inventory agents versus the perceived cost saving of landlords completing inventories themselves.

As a deposit protection adjudicator, it is reassuring to receive independently created inventories as you can be more confident that they are objective and, because the inventory agent wants