Does Innago support video inspections?

Walking the Damage Report, step by step

Most platform capability questions get answered by a marketing page. This one is better answered by walking the flow the way a tenant walks it, because that is where you find out precisely which step accepts media and which does not. According to Innago's published help center documentation (help.innago.com), the tenant path runs like this.

1. 1

   The landlord initiates it, in one click

   According to Innago's product announcement (innago.com), landlords "can initiate a streamlined inspection process with one click during the lease creation setup." The lease builder has a checkbox, and existing leases get an Initiate Damage Report action from the lease detail menu.

2. 2

   The tenant opens it from their dashboard

   A Complete Now button appears at the top of the tenant dashboard at login, opening a side panel with an introductory slideshow. Innago's tenant-facing help article notes the tenant can click No Damage to Report if the unit is clean, which is what makes this practical to send on every single move-in.

3. 3

   Each item is logged by location, item, condition, description media enters here

   This is the load-bearing step, and Innago documents it precisely:

   "you'll input the item that had damage ('Window'), and select the condition of the item from the dropdown menu. You can add any additional details in the Description field, and you'll have an option to upload a photo as well."Innago help center, tenant guide to completing a Damage Report

   A photo. Singular, optional, and attached to an item the tenant already decided to report. Innago's own published example report is consistent with that reading: four reported items, one image each.

4. 4

   A summary page, then comments, then a disclaimer

   According to Innago's product announcement (innago.com), the tenant "will see a summary page after they fill out the damage report," showing every location in one place, and "they can click on a location to add more items or view their notes/pictures." Drafts can be saved and finished later.

5. 5

   Both parties sign, and the PDF is filed

   The tenant signs, then the landlord reviews and signs, or rejects with feedback. Innago is explicit that rejection is not a dead end: you can reject a report "as many times as necessary until everyone signs," and send reminders through the platform. The finished PDF lands under Leases & Files.

Read that flow as a design statement and it is a coherent one. Innago built a signed legal record, not a media capture tool. Every element serves admissibility: named parties, a per-item condition vocabulary, a disclaimer, countersignature, and an audit trail. That is a genuinely useful thing to hand a small landlord for free, and most of the free tier of this market does not offer it at all.

What the finished report actually contains

Innago publishes a complete example Damage Report alongside its help documentation, which is unusually transparent and lets you audit the output without an account. The structure is exception-based: it records the items the tenant chose to report, not a room-by-room sweep of everything in the unit.

Two things follow from that structure, and both matter more than the video answer.

First, the disclaimer puts the completeness burden on the tenant. Anything not listed "may be considered my responsibility upon vacating," which is a reasonable and common clause, and it is also the exact reason coverage is the risk rather than format. A tenant filling out a per-item form reports what they thought to look for.

Second, because the report is exception-based, the unit's undamaged condition at move-in is documented only by absence. When a dispute arrives twenty-two months later, the question is rarely "was the broken cabinet noted." It is "what did the bedroom carpet look like on day one," and an exception list is silent on that by design. This is the same tradeoff we mapped in video versus photo rental inspections: a checklist captures what the form asked for, a walkthrough captures the room.

Where video does and does not appear in Innago

We searched Innago's full help center corpus, 359 published articles, for every reference to video. The result is worth stating precisely, because "no video inspections" is true while "no video anywhere" is not.

The pattern across all four surfaces is the same one we found auditing the rest of this category: photos are the documented medium, and video is either absent or handled as a pointer to something hosted somewhere else. That is not an oversight. It is what happens when a person has to open and read every submission, which is the constraint we unpack in what tenant-guided inspections are.

The API surface, and what it tells you

Innago publishes a real developer hub. According to the Innago Open API reference (docs.innago.com), the documented surface is organized around nine object families: properties, property units, leases, tenants, applicants, invoices, payments, expenses, and maintenance tickets, authenticated with an x-api-key header. There is also an external-reference mapping layer, which lets an outside system attach its own IDs to Innago entities and look them back up, a thoughtful touch for anyone syncing two systems.

What is not in it: the words inspection and damage report do not appear anywhere in the published reference. There are no endpoints for creating, retrieving, or listing a Damage Report, and no media endpoints outside maintenance. The one documented attachment path is on maintenance tickets, and its ceiling is stated plainly in the schema:

Ten files, 20 MB each, delivered as a base64 byte array in the request body. That is a sensible envelope for a handful of repair photos, and it tells you what the endpoint was designed to carry. According to Innago's published FAQ (innago.com), API access is offered to users who want to build custom integrations, and Innago pairs it with an in-house development team that helps partners connect, which is a notably hands-on posture for a free product.

What this means once you are past a few dozen doors

The failure mode operators describe is not the platform. It is the review queue. Every Damage Report that comes back is a document somebody on your team has to open, read, compare against what the unit looked like at move-in, and turn into a decision about a deposit. That work scales linearly with door count, and it does not care which software produced the PDF.

Innago solves the first half of that problem completely and for free: the record exists, it is signed, and it is filed against the lease. The half that stays open is judgment. Someone still has to know whether that scratched floor is new since move-in, and whether it is damage or ordinary wear. We wrote about how that second half is being automated in AI damage detection for long-term rentals, and audited the rest of the field in our roundup of which property management software supports video inspections.

Working alongside Innago

RapidEye sits next to the platform rather than replacing it. Your tenant or your staff records a walkthrough on a phone, RapidEye reviews the footage against that unit's own move-in baseline, and your team opens a result instead of a submission: what changed, room by room, with the evidence attached. Innago keeps doing what it does well, which is holding the signed record. The long-term rental overview covers how that fits an existing stack.

Quick FAQ