Agents & Inventories Operational Process*

Deposit disputes, damage allegations, cleaning claims and condition arguments often turn on the quality of evidence created at the beginning of the tenancy.

• Was the property clean at check-in?
• Were carpets, walls, fixtures and appliances photographed?
• Were gardens, patios and external areas recorded?
• Were existing defects identified?
• Did the tenant have an opportunity to comment?
• Was the inventory signed or acknowledged?

PIMS believes agents should increasingly consider photographic or video evidence as part of routine inventory and inspection practice. Video can help show layout, condition, cleanliness, external areas and context that written words may miss.

• Dated check-in photographs.
• Video walk-throughs where practical.
• Close-up photographs of existing defects.
• Images of external paths, patios, gardens and access routes.
• Meter readings and appliance condition.
• Photographs at check-out from comparable angles.

The objective is not to film everything perfectly. The objective is to create proportionate evidence that helps explain condition later.

In many deposit disputes, the landlord or agent must show that the proposed deduction is reasonable, evidenced and linked to tenant breach rather than fair wear and tear.

• What was the condition at check-in?
• What was the condition at check-out?
• What has changed?
• Is the change beyond fair wear and tear?
• Is there an invoice, quote or reasonable calculation?
• Is the landlord seeking betterment?

Deposit disputes often become emotional. A landlord may feel strongly that the tenant should pay, but the evidence may not support the full deduction.

PIMS believes agents must manage landlord expectations early and explain that adjudication is evidence-based, not frustration-based.

• Explain fair wear and tear.
• Explain betterment risk.
• Explain why photographs and invoices matter.
• Confirm advice in writing.
• Document if the landlord insists on a weak claim.

Where the landlord and agent disagree about a deposit dispute, the agent may need to consider whether they can professionally continue to present the landlord’s position.

This may arise where the agent believes the proposed deductions are unreasonable, unsupported, excessive or inconsistent with the evidence.

• The claim may risk redress or complaint exposure.
• The evidence may not support the landlord’s position.
• The landlord may be seeking betterment.
• The agent may feel professionally uncomfortable presenting the case.
• The staff time may exceed the commercial value of the dispute.

PIMS believes inventories work best when supported by a tenancy agreement that defines tenant responsibilities, repair reporting, access, damage, deposit deductions and end-of-tenancy obligations.

The PIMS Tenancy Agreement includes important operational principles, including tenant obligations to report defects, cooperate with access and comply with the Reporting Repairs Addendum.

The Reporting Repairs Addendum helps establish a clear route for repair reporting and confirms that the tenant must notify the landlord or agent of repair issues. This can strengthen the defensive position where the tenant later alleges that the landlord or agent failed to act.

Open the PIMS Tenancy Agreement →

Inventories and inspection records can assist where a tenant later raises disrepair, mould, damp, safety or repair allegations.

PIMS believes a key defensive issue is often whether the landlord or agent was aware of the problem and given a fair opportunity to remedy it.

• Was the issue present at check-in?
• Was it recorded in the inventory?
• Was the tenant told how to report repairs?
• Was the issue ever reported?
• Was access provided?
• Was the landlord or agent given the opportunity to act?

Inventories and inspection records may also become relevant where the tenant alleges injury or loss, for example a trip hazard, defective flooring, loose slabs, unsafe steps or external defects.

In those cases, the agent may need evidence of property condition at tenancy commencement, inspections during the tenancy, tenant communications and whether any issue had been reported before the alleged incident.

• Was the area photographed at inventory?
• Was the area inspected later?
• Did the tenant report any hazard?
• Were photographs or videos retained?
• Was there a repair reporting pathway?
• Did the tenant alter or remove evidence after the event?

Check-out evidence should be capable of being compared with check-in evidence. If the check-in inventory is weak, the check-out report may be difficult to rely on.

• Compare like-for-like photographs where practical.
• Separate damage from fair wear and tear.
• Record cleaning condition clearly.
• Keep invoices and estimates.
• Avoid inflated claims.
• Record abandoned items carefully.

PIMS believes agents should help landlords understand that deposit deductions must be proportionate, evidenced and fair.

Agents are often judged by their records. An agent may have acted reasonably, but if the records are poor, the agency may struggle to prove it later.

• Inventory and check-in records.
• Tenant comments and acknowledgements.
• Inspection notes.
• Photographs and video evidence.
• Repair reports.
• Contractor communications.
• Deposit deduction correspondence.
• Landlord instructions and advice.

PIMS believes agents must balance operational risk against commercial return. Some disputes consume disproportionate staff time, damage the landlord relationship, create complaint exposure and offer little commercial reward.

• Is the evidence strong enough?
• Is the landlord being realistic?
• Will the deduction probably survive adjudication?
• Is the dispute worth the staff time?
• Could negotiation reduce risk?
• Is continuing to act exposing the agency?