How RICS Compliance Software Supports Review

A valuation report can be technically sound and still contain a problem that should not reach the lender. The market value may be stated as £2,450,000 in the executive summary and £2,500,000 in the valuation section. A comparable may be described as 1,200 sq m in the evidence table but analysed on 1,020 sq m. These are not valuation judgement errors. They are the kind of inconsistencies that arise when a report is amended under pressure.

RICS compliance software provides a structured second review before the report leaves the desk. It does not decide the value, select comparable evidence or replace the registered valuer's judgement. Its job is to read the report as a whole, test the information within it against defined requirements, and flag points for the surveyor to consider.

What RICS compliance software should check

A useful review tool needs to do more than search for words such as "market value" or "EWS1". Reports contain the same facts in several places, often expressed in different formats. The meaningful task is to establish whether those facts reconcile.

Take a retail investment valuation with a passing rent of £180,000 per annum and a stated yield of 7.25%. If the report gives a capital value of £2,600,000, the implied yield is closer to 6.92% before allowing for purchaser's costs. That may be correct if the narrative explains a special assumption, a blended yield or a different income basis. If it is not explained, it needs reviewing before issue.

The same applies to lease information. A report may refer to an unexpired term of 8.4 years in the valuation rationale, while the tenancy schedule gives a lease expiry date that indicates 7.4 years. One figure may have been calculated from an earlier valuation date. One may simply be a drafting remnant. Either way, the surveyor needs to see it.

The most helpful software flags the apparent conflict and identifies where it appears. It should not present a correction as fact. The report author remains responsible for deciding whether the point is an error, a legitimate difference in definition, or something that requires clearer explanation.

Read the report as one document

A Red Book valuation report is not a collection of isolated sections. The basis of value, assumptions, valuation date, property description, comparable evidence and conclusion all need to support one another. Manual review is essential, but it can be difficult to hold every figure and statement in mind after several rounds of amendments.

This is where document-wide checking has practical value. It can compare a stated floor area in the property description with the area used in the valuation calculation and the areas attributed to comparables. It can flag where one comparable is analysed on a gross internal area basis while the subject property is discussed on a net internal area basis without an adjustment or explanation.

Consider an office report where the subject is recorded as 10,500 sq ft NIA, but the calculation applies £425 per sq ft to 11,050 sq ft. A difference of 550 sq ft produces a £233,750 movement before other adjustments. The right figure may be 11,050 sq ft, perhaps following a revised measurement. But the report should be consistent, or it should explain why the figures differ.

A report-wide audit can also identify contradictions in tenant commentary. If the covenant section describes the tenant as an established national operator, but the risk section refers to a recently incorporated special purpose vehicle, both statements may be true only if the lease has been assigned or guaranteed. Without that context, the reader is left with an unresolved point of risk.

Check the instruction, not just the report

Compliance is not limited to the Red Book. A report also has to meet the terms of the individual instruction and the firm's own review criteria. For secured lending work, these requirements may cover matters such as marketing periods, minimum comparable evidence, assumptions, special assumptions and disclosures relevant to the property.

A generic document checker cannot reliably assess these points unless the criteria are set out clearly. The tool needs to test the report against the applicable instruction, rather than applying the same checklist to every valuation.

For example, an instruction may require a stated marketing period where the valuer considers the market has been affected by liquidity or purchaser demand. It may require an EWS1 disclosure for a relevant residential block, even where the form has not been provided. The absence of a required statement does not necessarily mean the valuation conclusion is wrong. It does mean the report may be incomplete for its intended purpose.

The audit method should be transparent. A reviewer should be able to see that the tool searched for the required disclosure, found no reference, and flagged the omission. That is more useful than a vague warning that a report has a low compliance score.

Build review into the point of issue

The strongest use of RICS compliance software is usually near the end of report production, after the surveyor has reached and documented their opinion. It is not a substitute for checking source documents, inspecting the property or exercising professional scepticism over evidence.

A practical workflow is straightforward. The draft is uploaded for review, the software checks figures, calculations, repeated facts and instruction-specific criteria, and the surveyor considers each finding. Some points will be corrected. Others will be dismissed because the report already provides an explanation that the tool has not fully understood. A final human review remains necessary before sign-off.

This approach is particularly useful where a director or senior surveyor is reviewing work at volume. Rather than spending the first pass checking whether every capital value has been repeated correctly, they can focus their attention on valuation rationale, evidence quality, assumptions and judgement. The repetitive work still matters, but it should not consume all the available review time.

It also reduces confirmation bias. Once a surveyor has worked through an instruction, drafted the report and reconciled the conclusion to the evidence, it is natural to read the document through the lens of what they intended to say. A second pair of eyes, including a structured automated review, is more likely to ask whether the document actually says it consistently.

What to ask before using a review platform

For valuation firms, the practical questions are not only about what the software can flag. They are also about confidentiality, control and accountability.

Ask where report data is processed, whether it is encrypted, how long it is retained, and whether it is used to train external models. Client and lender information should remain controlled and protected. Ask whether users can see the source of each finding, rather than receiving an unexplained result. A tool that cannot show its workings is difficult to use in a professional review process.

It is also worth asking how the tool has been designed. Valuation terminology is precise. Market rent, passing rent, ERV, gross internal area, net internal area, equivalent yield and unexpired term cannot be treated as interchangeable labels. A platform built around valuation-report review should recognise these distinctions and assess them in context.

WriteUp, a RICS Tech Partner built by a practising MRICS Chartered Surveyor, is designed for this specific task. It reviews draft valuation reports against Red Book standards, lender instructions and firm criteria, while leaving every finding for the surveyor to assess. Its processing is private and encrypted, with no report storage or model training.

Better review supports better judgement

The case for software is not that a machine is better placed to value property. It is that a machine can repeatedly check the same document for a £50,000 figure mismatch, an omitted disclosure or a calculation that does not reconcile, without becoming tired or relying on memory.

The professional value remains with the valuer: deciding which evidence is relevant, how risk should be reflected, whether an assumption is reasonable and whether the report gives the client a clear, defensible opinion. A well-used review tool simply helps ensure the document supporting that opinion stands up under scrutiny.

Before issuing the next report, consider where your current review process relies on someone remembering every repeated figure, date and instruction requirement. That is often the most useful place to add a second pair of eyes.