Twenty years spent judging whether work was done properly.

Emilecon reports on the condition of residential property. Two decades behind it were spent on the supply side of construction, pricing work, buying it, and then standing in front of it to say whether what was built matched what was promised.

That is a narrower skill than it sounds, and it is exactly the skill a tenancy dispute turns on. The difference between a settlement crack and an impact crack. Between a failed seal and condensation the tenant could have wiped away. Between a carpet at the end of its life and a carpet that has been ruined. Most of the arguments that reach a deposit scheme are arguments about that distinction, made by people who were never trained to draw it.

The reports read the way they do because of that background. Conditions are described precisely enough to be defended, damage is separated from age honestly enough to be trusted by both sides, and nothing is asserted that a photograph taken on the day cannot support.

The work is independent. Emilecon does not manage the property, does not hold the deposit and has no stake in where it ends up, which is the only position from which a schedule of condition is worth anything at all.