VeriSmart Blog

Of course they can. We don't always recommend it however, especially if as we see, some landlords’ inventories being inadequate in both content and layout.

One has to remember there’s only one reason for an inventory and its sister check-out, and that’s to support any claim made by a landlord against a tenant’s deposit. And as one can imagine, using a cooking metaphor, the poorer the ingredients, the possibility the poorer the meal. Unless the detail is in the inventory the less one has to work with at check-out.

As a nationwide team with thousands of inspections annually, we are sometimes required to use a landlord’s inventory at check-out, and despite advising both landlord’s and sometimes their agents of the ‘thin’ nature of these inventories, our findings are often minimal. As you might appreciate, we can only report on that listed and that seen, and as we have previously experienced, some landlords have claimed for something which was neither listed nor adequately evidenced.

A recent example demonstrates this when one of our colleagues conducted a check-out using a sparsely populated landlady’s inventory, and despite being advised that by going to arbitration she may lose her claim, she insisted on being compensated for items broken by the
tenant that were not adequately described.

Her follow-up complaint about her failed claim meant an opportunity to explain why, and the why was as expected; her inventory was in our opinion inadequate. For example she wanted compensation for a broken fridge handle which arbitration denied, the inventory listed ‘Fridge’ only. No handle listed, no description of the fridge, in fact no itemisation of anything including shelves, colour or make. Her response was ‘of course there’s a handle’ to which we asked, ‘was there?’

Other claimed for items were rejected on similar grounds, she said. And although we had no proof as to why, we assumed as with the fridge example, she had insufficient proof for other items being claimed for.

As indicated within the recently published tri-deposit-scheme document, independent inventories can carry some validity in their assumed unbiasedness. But it’s not only this. A good inventory clerk will provide detailed documentation, and along with support material such as photographs, they will clearly describe every component and content of a property as well as their condition both at beginning and end of tenancy. This will at least allow adjudication we believe, some ease in decision making.

So yes, landlords can provide their own inventories, however they may themselves be good inventory clerks as well as landlords, as by-the-way some of our clerks are.

I'm pleased to announce Inventoryclerk West Midlands has joined the Inventoryclerk.com Network.

Inventoryclerk West Midlands is run by Suki Tiwana. If you wish to contact Suki, you can find her contact details on her website and at the end of this blog post.

Suki is providing Inventory Services covering South Birmingham, Dudley, Halesowen, Redditch, Bromsgrove, Solihull and Coventry.

Inventoryclerk.com has a reputation in the industry for producing extremely high standard detailed Inventories in jargon-free language. Each report is easy to read and all follow the same clear format.

Inventoryclerk West Midlands

Contact: Suki Tiwana
Office: 0845 505 6028
Email: suki.tiwana@inventoryclerk.com

Well they don't, at least not in our view!

Ever since I started in the inventory business, now on the way to 15 years ago, letting agents have generally charged the landlord for the inventory and charged the tenant for the check-out.

This would have made sense pre-TDS, but since April 2007 I've argued that it should be the tenant paying for this due to the tenant's deposit being protected against the inventory.

It has been when communicating with agents that I get a mixed bag of responses with some confused as to why. However when I say that by charging the other way around they may have a competitive edge on their rivals, they see why.

Of the agents I deal with, most have taken this method on-board and agree this is a much better way of working. It certainly means that when competing with agents with lower fees they can slice off some of the original charge from the up-front amount paid.

Either way it seems sensible to us that a tenant should pay for the inventory and where required the check-in, and the agent pays for the mid-term and the landlord for the check-out.

It appears yes, according to a document produced by all 3 deposit
schemes, although not a resounding yes from how we read it.

The joint publication of a "Guide to Deposits, Disputes and Damages"
produced last week says that "All three deposit protection providers
have signed up to the guidelines in this document, and will continue
to operate their dispute resolution services using these principles".

The document goes on to talk about what evidence is admissible and
quote "Photographic evidence can be used to support, or defend a claim
against a deposit", however it says further "Video evidence can also
be useful where photographic evidence is unclear or unavailable".

This means we think that video is secondary as a form of evidence in
comparison to traditional photographic evidence and is to be used only
if inadequate photographic evidence is available.

For a long while we have looked at and even experimented with a number
of ways of documenting the condition and contents of rental
properties. Years ago when photographic support material was both
cumbersome and expensive, it was rare to supply photographs, but now
of course it's easy and very inexpensive and allows us to record an
infinite number of pictures to support written evidence.

Whatever photographic support material is used, it must be easily
useable, and as the document indicates "Only photos that are relevant
should be submitted. Ideally, ‘before and after’ photos should be
submitted with a clear narrative as to what the photo is showing e.g.
colours, item description, marks on surfaces etc".

This is difficult, cumbersome and maybe sometimes impossible with
video."There is nothing worse for an adjudicator to have to sit
through hours of video to get the problem area or to miss the issue
entirely", the report says.

Whatever method used, we're commited to making it easy for
adjudicators to decide on relevance and whether a claim is valid or
not. This means we will continue to provide highly detailed written
explanations of every component of a property and its contents along
with easily identifiable support material, including photographs. Any
other method will unlikely meet our standards, for now anyway,
although we're always on the lookout for anything which can enhance
the service we provide.

I was amused last week on seeing the recent video produced by Shelter
and starring Sean Lock. Amused at how crazy it appears that such a
landlord – as portrayed here - could exist, but also amused - on
showing friends this video – with their disbelief that such properties
could be real.

The sad thing is that in my and some of my colleague’s experiences, we
do see properties not far off this condition, although not necessarily
meeting landlords represented in this way.

In the space of less than 1 week, I have completed 3 check-outs on
properties that were in my view uninhabitable through damp. All 3
would warrant HHSRS enforcement orders if no remedy actioned. My
question is, “how could anyone have lived in such places?” And yet
they had, and in one case for more than 2 years.

All properties were in blocks of flats and all blocks were of a decent
standard, one in particular in a high-class area. So it wasn’t a
reflection of area or perceived economic class, these were all decent
properties as properties go.

What is surprising is no complaint had been made to the agents and
therefore landlords unaware of their properties’ condition.

Now without pointing fingers at anyone, tenant, landlord or agent, I
feel there needs to be better ongoing monitoring of properties, this
means good inventories, agreed check-ins, regular interim or mid-term
inspections and of course detailed check-outs.

But inspections and reports are pointless without action; we hear that
some reports sent to landlords still have no action taken, it seems
that agents are often ‘hands tied’ without landlord’s authorisation
and yet it’s the agent, we hear, who is likely to be perceived as the
rogue, not the landlord if tenant’s complaints are not dealt with
adequately.

We now issue warnings to agents at the rate of 16% of all properties
inspected, that such properties are unfit at some level, and yet we
are told landlords are reluctant to spend money on rectifying
problems.

If landlords and agents are to avoid HHSRS enforcement orders as well
as the often perceived view that some are rogues, there needs a shift
in attitude around what is a tenant’s right to have a ‘fit’ home. If
we in the industry can avoid dealing with properties deemed unfit,
then hopefully rented housing overall should improve.