Property monitoring is easy to sell and hard to verify. You are hundreds or thousands of kilometres away, so the only evidence you will ever have that the service is any good is the report that lands after each visit. That makes the report the product, and it makes knowing what a good one looks like the most useful thing you can learn before hiring anybody. Here is the standard we hold ourselves to. Hold us to it.
The same photographs, from the same positions, every time
A photograph of a gutter tells you the gutter was clear on the day. The same photograph taken from the same spot for twelve months tells you when it stopped being clear, and roughly how quickly. Only one of those is worth paying for.
Ask a prospective provider whether photo positions are fixed per property and set on the first visit. If the answer is that the technician photographs anything that looks relevant, you are buying a scrapbook.
Measurements where a number means something
"Some dampness on the north bedroom ceiling" is an impression. "Damp patch on the north bedroom ceiling, approximately 30cm across, moisture meter reading 18%" is information, and it can be compared against next month.
It also survives being forwarded. An insurer, a trade or a buyer's lawyer can do something with the second sentence and nothing at all with the first.
Findings kept separate from recommendations
What was observed and what somebody thinks should be done about it are different categories, and mixing them is how a report starts quietly selling. A good report states the finding, then states the recommendation, and makes clear which is which.
If the recommendation involves paying somebody, the report should say whether the provider benefits from that. Ours does, in the report, at the point of the recommendation.
A date, a time, and who was there
Every report should record when the visit happened and which named person did it. This sounds bureaucratic until the first time you need to demonstrate to an insurer that the property was being checked on a schedule.
It also makes the service accountable in a way that a monthly "all fine" email is not.
What was not checked
A report that only lists what was inspected leaves you to assume everything else was fine. A good one is explicit about what is out of scope: the crawlspace that could not be accessed, the room that was locked, the roof that could not be walked.
Providers dislike writing this down because it looks like a gap. It is the opposite: it is the difference between a record and a reassurance.
A phone call when it matters
Some findings should not wait for a report at all. A provider whose entire communication model is a document filed at the end of the day has not thought about what happens when the door is open.
Ask what triggers a phone call rather than a report entry, and whether that judgment sits with the person on site.
Key takeaways
- Fixed photo positions set per property. Without them you have snapshots, not a record.
- Numbers where numbers are possible, so this month can be compared with last.
- Findings and recommendations separated, with any commission disclosed at the point of recommendation.
- Date, time and the name of the person who attended.
- An explicit list of what was not checked, and a rule for when you get a phone call instead.
Own a property you are not living in? See what a monitoring visit covers, compare the plans, or tell us about the property.
