DIY Letting

[Ericthelobster]

Lorenzo: walls aren't a fixture/fitting/contents item, though.
Buildings with no walls aren't a good purchase, usually.

Yebbut you wouldn't have an inventory stating "wall"; you'd have "wall freshly plastered and painted magnolia with no blemishes other than a small dent near the lower door hinge"...

[jeffrey]

Yebbut you wouldn't have an inventory stating "wall"; you'd have "wall freshly plastered and painted magnolia with no blemishes other than a small dent near the lower door hinge"...

OK, OK, I yield!

[jeffrey]

The purpose of the inventory is to prove the condition of the building and fixtures at the initiation of the tenancy, it is not to just list fixtures and fittings.

Walls, ceilings, skirting boards etc are all subject to tenant damage and should be mentioned.

e.g. Suppose the tenant rips down wallpaper and paints the walls magenta? Without mention of walls and a description of the wallpaper, there is no proof they weren't painted magenta in the first place.

OK, OK, I yield!

[kfarmah]

So so the general concenus is that you can do it yourself, but it can alsobe done by a 3rd party. Also that you need a fully comprehensive inventory which may only come from a 3rd party.

[lorenzo]

So so the general concenus is that you can do it yourself, but it can alsobe done by a 3rd party. Also that you need a fully comprehensive inventory which may only come from a 3rd party.

I look at it this way:

Put yourself in the Magistrate's (or other adjudicator's) shoes and think which would most likely satisfy you as an impartial reflection of any dilapidations?

1/ One done by the LL, possibly imperfectly, possibly emotively.

2/ One done by an impartial, professional 3rd party.

[kfarmah]

Yeah I see your point. It shows a element of professionalism as well I guess.

[pcwilkins]

I look at it this way:

Put yourself in the Magistrate's (or other adjudicator's) shoes and think which would most likely satisfy you as an impartial reflection of any dilapidations?

1/ One done by the LL, possibly imperfectly, possibly emotively.

2/ One done by an impartial, professional 3rd party.

What not have a third option?

3/ One done jointly by the LL and T. If both have had a say in writing it and both have signed agreement to it, there can be no debate about fairness. And it would be free whereas I'm guessing option 2 wouldn't.

Peter

[lorenzo]

What not have a third option?

3/ One done jointly by the LL and T. If both have had a say in writing it and both have signed agreement to it, there can be no debate about fairness. And it would be free whereas I'm guessing option 2 wouldn't.

Peter

You could still both miss components of a comprehensive inventory. It might give you credibility with the adjudicator for those components mentioned, but won't help you at all with components not mentioned in the initial inventory. It is little better than 1/ and could cause disagreement as to the condition and/or wording.