Depreciation Schedule Granny Flat

After receiving my report for the 2x properties on one...I am disappointed.
Before receiving the report I got the impression I would be getting 2 sets of figures but this is not the case. In the beginning, I did order 2 reports one for the house and one for the granny flat. I was asked if I wanted to do the 2 together in one would save some money. If I knew it would be like this I would have stuck to two separate reports advice I read in some other posts.

I need to start talking to some of their people...

 

Cost is often the wrong reason to make a choice.

If I was asked for advice I would have recommended NOT to do that.

 

The plant and equipment part is separated but the capital work is not. I rang and asked how does my accountant separate the capital work figure and I was told they shouldn't have to?
The report seems confusing compared to other company I have used.

 

What if the GF is rented and the main residence isn't or vice versa?

 

It's not going to be a big deal for them to separate it all into two Schedules. They would have all the information. Might charge you a bit extra, but shouldn't be much.

 

I cannot imagine why a report is prepared that would aggregate like this. If I had a client with two dwellings on one lot I would ask they be split as one dwelling could be used differently, or scrapped at a different time. Loads of examples : A garage that is stand alone. Two pools. So if there are three split systems did they just show this as one cost ?

How would they do a duplex. One report ???

Who prepared it ?

 

Hi Paul

I don’t want to reveal the name as it would not be fair. Given them the chance to talk to me. I am happy to pay extra that is not a problem. Might have to lodge a complaint and talk to their big boss.

rich.

 

'Twas us. Your comments above are completely valid and I'd given @Sheep112 incorrect advice. There are certain scenarios in which we can split things up within the report in the required way but in this case we couldn't. It's a software limitation that we're working on, pure and simple. In the meantime, I'm having this split into two separate schedules as the immediate work-around.

In some scenarios, that's fine. We always ask the right questions before doing it.

We do charge a bit extra normally but in this case it's on us--our error.

Eek!

 

We see little errors from all QS providers. However we do find that the larger players offer enhanced support and are always willing to review and fix things. I had one such case with a well known provider (not BMT) last week. After re-review it appears their treatment of acquisition elements (deferred depreciation) and reno costs (eligible) were all correctly completed but the client had omitted something concerning a replacement HWS and AC. All fixed with additional deductions and client was assured their report was now 100% correct where they thought it wasnt.

I do find the less you pay the less support there is. I have had clients told that fixing evident errors will cost them and they blame the client info. The diligent initial info is something the larger popular providers seem to do well.