Has the agent stolen from me?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Has the agent stolen from me?

    I had an inventory done in Feb prior to a tenancy starting. Those tenants have now left and a new inventory was done in July by the same clerk.

    18 of the photos in the new inventory are recycled from the feb inventory. I queried this, and the clerk removed one of the photos and claimed that only one photo remained from the feb inventory.

    The clerk has since emailed all photos taken in July, seeming to confirm that the photos were indeed copied from the feb inventory. Still no admission though.

    A third inventory was produced with fewer recycled photos, but several still remain. They refuse to produce an inventory containing no recycled photos. The company tell me that it is standard practise to use photos from older inventories.

    I've asked the Deposit Protection Service about this. They told me that, in a dispute, these recycled photos would be invalid.

    Anyone encountered this kind of issue?

    The validity of the pictures would depend largely on whether the tenant agrees that they represent the state of the property. If they are not dated an adjudicator will also not know that they are 'recycled' pictures.

    In any case, you hired a clerk to do a job and he didn't do it, so you shouldn't pay or you should ask for a refund.


      Never ever ever a standard way of working. I am a clerk, just is not right!

      That clerk and the company needs shooting!

      Are they or the company part of an Association - APIP and AIIC are the 2 main ones, you can look them up, though it should be on their paperwork, website etc, and, if they are, make a formal complaint. Do ask for your money back as you have not received the service you paid for. As you have been told by the people who know, the pictures are invalid and could call question on the rest of the inventory, in any dispute.




        Originally posted by Stef Cooke View Post
        Are they or the company part of an Association - APIP and AIIC are the 2 main ones, you can look them up, though it should be on their paperwork, website etc, and, if they are, make a formal complaint.
        Thanks for replies. No they don't seem to be members of either APIP or AIIC, have no website and don't seem to advertise... They are recommended by the estate agent. I find the trio of estate agent, expensive inventory company, and extortionate cleaning company, to be a bit too cosy :-/


          It's not any kind of standard practice.
          The company is charging you for a job that it isn't then doing (and it's frankly taking the pi55, it's not as if photographs are expensive to take).

          If you relied on that they did and acted on it (or didn't act when you should), that could be very expensive for you.

          I'd ask for my money back (at very least).
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


            How long before you can dump this trio?


              Soon as these tenants move out... Tough I doubt the other local agents are any better


                Has the agent stolen from me?

                I've had a dispute with the inventory company I used, because they have reused photos from an older inventory. The inventory company is the one recommended by the agents who let, but do not manage the property. I instructed the inventory company, and so they should invoice me directly (as they did last time) and I was then going to dispute the invoice using the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, the tenants moved in and paid the rent, the agent deducted their fee and the inventory companies fee... The agent surely has no right to take this money from me and pass it on the the inventory company, haven't they literally stolen from me?


                  Two related threads have been merged.
                  I also post as Mars_Mug when not moderating


                    Though I dont agree with it I guess it depends on what the photos were of and how old they were. If the photo was a true representation of the item and the tenant agrees and signs to agree with it wheres the problem.

                    I do agree though if a electronic copy was sent to a deposit scheme it would likely to be noticed when clicking on the "properties" of the photo when it was taken and therefore not helping the landlords case.

                    I would say it is just lasyness on behalf of the inventory provider and not best practice.


                      If the tenant and landlord agree on a set of photos then an adjudicator has no authority to throw them out.


                      Latest Activity