RICS Tech Partner AI review
for valuation reports.

Built by a practising MRICS surveyor. Faster review, fewer oversights,
and reports that stand up under scrutiny.

Request a demoAbout WriteUp
01

Approved RICS Tech Partner

Accelerating meaningful technology for RICS members.

02

Responsible AI

Your work stays yours – no training AI models or reports stored.

03

Built by a valuer

Created by a practising MRICS Chartered Surveyor.

An audit on a redacted draft.
FIG. 01

Catching what a manual review might miss.

Spotting errors, flagging risks, and surfacing inconsistencies before they slip through. All in just a couple of minutes.

01.1

Capital value mismatch

Error found
Front cover and executive summary both quote a Market Value of £1,750,000. The valuation rationale on page 14 concludes at £1,570,000 — a difference of £180,000 not explained anywhere in the report.
The detail

Scans every mention of value — cover, summary, schedule, rationale, conclusion — and flags figures that don't reconcile.

01.2

Incorrect area schedule

Error found
Area schedule lists Flats 1, 3, 4 and 5. Flat 2 is described in the body text and shown on the floorplan but has been omitted from the schedule. Total floor area understates by 86 sq m and capital value by an estimated £450,000.
The detail

Cross-checks the floorplan, body text, and area schedule. Flags any unit described but not measured.

01.3

Yield inconsistencies

Error found
The rationale states a net initial yield of 6.25%. The rent (£185,000) and capital value (£2,800,000) cited, allowing for purchaser's costs of 6.8%, imply a net initial yield of 6.18%. Either the yield, the rent, the value, or the purchaser's costs is misstated.
The detail

Re-tests every quoted yield against the rent, value, and standard purchaser's costs. Flags combinations that don't add up.

02.1

Inconsistent comparable analysis

Error found
Three comparables are tabled with rates ranging from £485 to £540 per sq ft. The subject is valued at £465 per sq ft, below the bottom of the range, but the rationale describes the subject as “consistent with the upper quartile of recent transactions in the area”.
The detail

Reads the comparables, forms a view on how each relates to the subject, and flags conclusions that don't follow from the evidence.

02.2

Tenant covenant contradiction

Error found
Investment summary describes the tenant as “a strong covenant with audited accounts and a long trading history at the property”. Schedule of leases on page 9 records the tenant entering administration in February 2026.
The detail

Reads the report as one document. Flags covenant statements that contradict the lease schedule or tenant data elsewhere.

02.3

Unexpired term inconsistency

Error found
Body text refers to the property as “long leasehold” and concludes it is “good security for long-term lending”. Lease abstract on page 6 shows 64 years unexpired — below the 80-year threshold of most major mortgage lenders. The rationale does not address how the unexpired term affects mortgageability or value.
The detail

Reads the lease abstract alongside the market commentary. Flags conclusions that ignore the unexpired term.

03.1

Lender-specific clause missing

Error found
The addressee lender's standing valuation instructions require explicit confirmation that the property would let within 90 days of vacant possession at the rental figure quoted. The report quotes a market rent but does not address marketing period.
The detail

Upload lender guidance notes once. Each report is then checked against those specific requirements alongside the standard checks.

03.2

Client-specific requirements

Error found
This client's standing instructions require comparable evidence to comprise at least 4 sale and 4 rental transactions completed within the last 6 months. The report includes 3 sale transactions, two of which are dated 9 and 11 months prior to the valuation date. The rationale does not address why the criteria has not been met.
The detail

Upload custom client criteria once. Select the client and the audit checks the report against those requirements alongside the standard checks.

03.3

Cladding/EWS1 disclosure missing

Error found
The subject is described as a residential apartment block of 8 storeys, constructed 2008. The report does not address external wall systems or reference an EWS1 form. Most major lenders require explicit comment on EWS1 status for residential buildings above 11 metres.
The detail

Recognises building height and applies the addressee lender's thresholds. Flags any required disclosure — such as EWS1 — that's missing.

Accept, reject, or amend —
the report stays yours throughout.

From the founder

“As a practising MRICS valuation surveyor, I know how long it can take to get reports ready to leave your desk. I started using AI in my own practice to speed up my QA process by flagging any errors and inconsistencies.

I realised it would be useful for others, so I built WriteUp to create a second pair of eyes. A practical layer of support that keeps the surveyor in control, de-risking their reports, and giving back time to spend on more valuable work.”

HO
Harry OsborneMRICS · Founder, WriteUp

Priced to earn its place
in your process.

Solo
For individual registered valuers.
One user, includes 50 report audits per month, full access to the AI Audit features.
£89 / mo
Request a demo
Team
For valuation teams and lender-side QA.
5 users, includes 300 report audits per month, full access to the AI Audit features.
£299 / mo
Request a demo
Enterprise
For panel managers and lender QA programmes.
Unlimited seats, custom volume, dedicated onboarding.
Custom
Talk to us

With a 30-day money-back guarantee.

Try it on your own work.

Book a demo with the founder, run your reports through it live, and see what it catches.

Book a demo