Renting - Check in / Check out photos

alcaponey1982

Just about to open a dispute regarding the amount my landlord wants to take from me. I have just been through the check in/ check out document and none of the photos on the check in have a time and date stamp on?? The check out ones do.

I rang the company that carried out the check in/check out and questioned them on this. They seemed rather bamboozled that I had asked the question and did not really have an answer. The guy put me on hold to speak to a colleague (to obviously ask why this was not done) and he came back to me with an answer of "ummm errrr, we normally do time and date stamp them, errrr, but you don't need a time and date stamp on photos like that of they are on a document that has a time and date stamp":rotfl:

The most made up (oh !!!!!!, I better cover my back) answer I have ever heard. How can you compare 2 sets of photos between 2 dates, if only one set is time and date stamped. Its really not that hard to add any photo into a document and then just add a date to the document.

pmlindyloo

Did you take your own photos when you moved in with date and time?

Did you query the check in document/amend it and then sign it /refuse to sign it?

If not, then I really don't see how you can dispute what was written if you didn't do so at the time.

What is the dispute about?

DottieDam

The original photos should have a time/date stamp in their properties? If it's an issue!

alcaponey1982

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Did you take your own photos when you moved in with date and time?

NO

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Did you query the check in document/amend it and then sign it /refuse to sign it?

NO

pmlindyloo wrote: »

If not, then I really don't see how you can dispute what was written if you didn't do so at the time.

Didn't realise at the time they had to be time and stamped and was not to know this would differ 2 and half years on with photos then being time and date stamped?

pmlindyloo wrote: »

What is the dispute about?

A massively inflated bill that is about 5 times what it should be lol

Fosterdog

Are you disagreeing that the original photos are accurate? Either they are a true representation of the condition of the property on the date you moved in or they are not, having a time stamp doesn't change that. Even time and date stamps can be fraudulent because you manually set the time and date on the camera that you take the photos with. I could easily set my camera to this date in 2008 and take some photos today.

System

They don't have to be date stamped as long as they were part of the inventory that you signed.

CarrieVS

What are you disputing?
- Do you accept what they say needed doing and that it's your responsibility, but feel they're charging too much for it? (That's how I read your last post.)
- Or do you feel that (any part of) what needed doing is normal wear and tear or for any other reason not your responsibility?
- Or do you feel that they're charging you for things that didn't need doing?
- Or are they charging you for putting right damage that happened before you moved in (or cleaning to a higher standard, or what have you), using older photos as evidence that it hadn't?

Do you doubt the accuracy/authenticity of the check-in photos?
- Is the landlord/agency relying on photos that appear not to be the same ones you saw and (if I understand you correctly) signed your acceptance of at the start of the tenancy?
- Or did you sign the check-in document even though the photos were inaccurate (or without checking whether they were)?
- Or do they show the actual condition of the property when you moved in, but you're hoping that they won't be considered valid evidence, and intend to claim that the damage didn't happen during your tenancy if, on a technicality, they can't prove that it did?

If you feel that the bill is unfair for a reason that doesn't involve the check-in photos actually being wrong, I strongly suggest that you base your dispute on whatever grounds it actually is and not on the photos.

If the photos are wrong but you accepted them at the start, you may be morally in the right but I don't know that "there's no timestamp" will trump "you accepted them as accurate" in the eyes of the person making the decision.

If you accepted one set of photos and they're now producing a different set, claiming they are the ones you agreed were accurate, that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

G_M

So do the photos not accurately reflect the condition of the property at the time?
If yes, what's the problem?
If no, why did you sign off the inventry with those photos in it?


If your dispute relates to inflated costs, as you say, why are the photos even relevant? It seems you are accepting some damage has occurred but you are disputing the cost of that damage.


You will damage your own claims if you focus on an irrelevancy.

Pixie5740

Some context...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5907171/ignorant-landlord

I wouldn't spend too long responding to the OP.

saajan_12

alcaponey1982 wrote: »

Just about to open a dispute regarding the amount my landlord wants to take from me. I have just been through the check in/ check out document and none of the photos on the check in have a time and date stamp on?? - okay, do you disagree that they reflect the condition of the property at the start though? If yes, that's the point you need to address, not whether there is a date stamp. The check out ones do. - So you're definitely sure of when the check out pictures were taken. There's no requirement that they be consistent in having / not having a timestamp through.

I rang the company that carried out the check in/check out and questioned them on this. They seemed rather bamboozled that I had asked the question and did not really have an answer. The guy put me on hold to speak to a colleague (to obviously ask why this was not done) - of course, the call handler may not be privy to minute details, so they try to find out. and he came back to me with an answer of "ummm errrr, we normally do time and date stamp them, errrr, but you don't need a time and date stamp on photos like that of they are on a document that has a time and date stamp":rotfl: - You don't NEED a time/date stamp full stop, there are other ways of proving the date for example by a date on the document and your signature that the photos reflect the condition on that date.

The most made up (oh !!!!!!, I better cover my back) answer I have ever heard. - why? they have done nothing wrong. How can you compare 2 sets of photos between 2 dates, if only one set is time and date stamped. - by looking at the context of the pictures.. you know the date they were taken because you agreed to it at the time, the other set have a date stamp. What does it matter where the datestamp is? Its really not that hard to add any photo into a document and then just add a date to the document.

alcaponey1982 wrote: »

Didn't realise at the time they had to be time and stamped and was not to know this would differ 2 and half years on with photos then being time and date stamped? - they don't have to be datestamped. If its bothering you so much, just ignore the dates in the new photos.

A massively inflated bill that is about 5 times what it should be lol

The point is do the 'before' photos reflect the condition at the start.
If YES- then the datestamp wouldn't make a difference, you need to question whether the damages are your liability as opposed to fair wear and tear, or whether the quotes are reasonable.

If NO- then you would need to look at what proof the LL has of the date of the pictures. If you signed the inventory at the start, then that is great evidence that you confirmed the pictures were correct.

G_M

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Some context...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5907171/ignorant-landlord

I wouldn't spend too long responding to the OP.

Ah!


OP showed a considerable degree of unreasonableness to the LL, who sensibly chose to stop discussing matters infomally and made formal deduction proposals.


OP showed similar unreasonableness towards posters here who did not respond to him as he (presumably) wanted.


OP is now clutching at straws, but failing to focus on the relevant issue which is (again presumably) the perceived excessive cost of repairs being proposed by the LL