Sample report
See the client-ready report before you order it.
This sample shows the full paid output using a fictitious property: realistic leasehold risks, document-backed findings, missing-document prompts, practical questions, and the downloadable PDF. It is the same structure used for the fuller report step.
Fictitious addressClient-ready formatFull sample outputDownloadable PDF
Sample property
Flat 8, Calder Court
18-22 Wren StreetBristol BS1 6AQ
Fictitious sample matter created for product demonstration.
How to read this sample
This page shows the output someone would actually send onward after the review.
What this sample proves
- The paid product is a full written report, not a teaser page
- The sample uses a fictitious address and a realistic leasehold scenario
- The format is built to be shared onward with a buyer or colleague
What to look for while reading
- How the report separates recurring costs from one-off cost exposure
- How missing files are surfaced explicitly instead of hidden
- How the questions section turns findings into an action list
Where it fits
- A cleaner explanation after the pack is received
- A structured basis for follow-up questions
- A buyer-ready summary that is easier to send on than the raw pack
Quick vs full
Use the toggle to see what creates the upgrade tension.
Quick Findings gives the fast signal. Full Report unlocks the explanation, evidence, questions, PDF, and exports.
£29 Quick Findings
Fast signal, deliberately short.
No long explanations. No PDF handover. This is for deciding whether the matter needs a deeper write-up.
- Risk score and severity count
- Pack completeness percentage
- Documents detected
- Missing documents
- Top 3-5 issues
- Key numbers only
Explanation unlocked in Full Report
Why the Section 20 wording matters, what it could do to buyer confidence, and what to ask next.
Document reference shown in Full Report
Evidence links back to the source document and highlighted clause in the verification view.
£59 Full Report
Clarity and confidence, not just a longer page.
Unlock this when the findings need to be explained, verified, forwarded, saved, or used as the working record. Upgrade later for £35 after Quick Findings.
- Plain-English explanations
- Why each issue matters
- Source evidence and document references
- Questions to ask
- Buyer-ready PDF
- Spreadsheet exports
Document-backed explanation
The full report explains the practical implication, cites the document, prepares the follow-up question, and includes the PDF/export pack.
Report format
The downloadable PDF is part of the report, not an afterthought.
The layout is meant to work on screen, in email chains, and as a saved PDF that can be referred back to later.
What this sample covers
This page already shows both the output and the practical handover story.
The sample report is now the single proof page. It shows the finished output, the kind of issues surfaced, and the sort of handover summary someone would actually send onward after review.
Sample PDF
A fuller sample report you can inspect properly
The sample PDF is a realistic stand-in for the paid output. It includes the executive read, cost summary, likely delay points, document-backed issues, missing-document prompts, and a cleaner handover summary.
- Executive summary and overall risk posture
- At-a-glance risk score, pack completeness, and confidence level
- Recurring cost summary and service charge trend
- One-off cost exposure and seller/buyer liability questions
- Priority flags with document references and verification links
- Missing documents checklist and follow-up questions
- Completion requirements, restrictions, and transaction friction
- Buyer-ready handover summary and downloadable PDF
Embedded preview
Loading PDF preview…
Embedded browser preview. If it does not load, open the PDF in a new tab.
Trust-first verification
The sample now shows how a finding links back to the actual source clause.
The report is only useful if someone can verify it quickly. This section uses a mixed-format sample pack and the same verification workbench logic used on real matters: click the issue on the left, then inspect the exact cited clause on the right.
What to test
- Click a finding and LeaseLens jumps straight to the cited PDF, JPEG, email, or text source.
- The yellow overlay is drawn from deterministic coordinates or text-map matching, not hand-placed demo boxes.
- This is the part that reduces verification from a separate search task into a direct review workflow.
Mixed source set
This example includes 22 source documents across the formats LeaseLens is expected to handle in practice.
PDFScanned PDFJPEGPNGGIFHEICDOCXTXTEMLMSG
Verification workbench
Loading the OCR verification sandbox
The interactive split pane is client-rendered so the viewer does not flash a broken server-side layout before hydration completes.
Preparing OCR-backed evidence viewer
Generating the resizable panes, citation controls, and image highlight overlay.
Equivalent to about £351 per month
Mentioned, but adequacy still needs to be checked
Building-level premium in the sample insurance schedule
Preview first, then order the fuller report only if it would be useful on the live matter
Executive read
What the client or colleague should understand within a few minutes
This sample property may still be workable in principle, but the pack points to elevated cost uncertainty. The strongest pressure points are likely one-off works exposure, a materially rising recurring charge, and incomplete evidence on how well the reserve fund covers future spend.
- This is a plausible purchase, but the pack does not yet read as clean, cost-certain, or lender-ready.
- The decisive issue is the unquantified interaction between Section 20 works, reserve fund capacity, and seller/buyer liability at completion.
- The recurring cost picture also needs care: the current service charge is already materially higher than historic accounts and the next budget direction is still uncertain.
- The building-safety wording should be converted into a signed lender-facing position before exchange rather than left as a general managing-agent update.
- A buyer or adviser could proceed only after the missing evidence is produced and the main cost exposures are reduced to clear numbers.
Service charge trend
Representative extracted figures from the sample accounts and budget
£2,9402022
£3,1802023
£3,5652024
£4,2152025
What is most likely to cost money
- Unfinalised Section 20 contribution for roof, rainwater goods, and lift lobby works
- Possible 2026 service charge rise if fire-door and reserve catch-up lines remain in the budget
- Reserve fund may not be enough to absorb planned works without an additional demand
- Insurance premium and escape-of-water excess are material and claims history is missing
- Completion admin, notice, certificate, and deed fees total at least £695 on current evidence
- Ground rent remains £225 per year and should be checked against lender policy and any review wording
Priority flags with evidence
High
01Major works exposure is real but not yet pinned to Flat 8
Plain-English summary
The pack includes draft Section 20 material for roof covering, rainwater goods, and lift lobby fire-door works. The block-level tender range is shown, but no final Flat 8 apportionment is supplied.
Why it matters
This is the main one-off cost risk. A buyer can complete before the final demand is served and still inherit the practical liability if the lease and completion position are not clarified.
Follow-up question
Please confirm the current Section 20 stage, the latest likely Flat 8 contribution, whether any notice has been served, and whether the seller will retain any liability for pre-completion works.
Document reference
Section20_roof_lobby_notice_draft.pdf, page 3: 'Current tender returns indicate a block-level range of GBP 385,000 to GBP 462,000; individual leaseholder contributions will follow once apportionments are checked.'
High
02Building-safety wording is not yet lender-ready
Plain-English summary
The managing agent update says fire-door and compartmentation items remain in scope and that final lender wording is being prepared. The pack does not include a signed current EWS1 or equivalent lender-facing confirmation.
Why it matters
This can delay mortgage sign-off or trigger extra conveyancer enquiries even if no immediate remediation bill is stated. The problem is uncertainty, not just cost.
Follow-up question
Please provide the latest signed lender-facing building-safety statement, confirm whether any remediation remains outstanding, and state whether any costs are expected to be passed to leaseholders.
Document reference
Building_safety_update_Apr2026.jpg, page 1: 'Fire-door programme remains in scope and lender wording is still being updated.'
Medium
03Service charge has risen sharply and the 2026 direction is not settled
Plain-English summary
The supplied accounts and budget show the annual charge increasing from £2,940 in 2022 to £4,215 in 2025. A draft spreadsheet also projects £4,760 for 2026 if fire-door and reserve catch-up lines remain in the budget.
Why it matters
The increase may be justified, but it changes affordability and should be explained before the buyer relies on estate-agent outgoings or mortgage affordability assumptions.
Follow-up question
Please explain the main drivers of the increase, identify any one-off catch-up items, and confirm whether the 2026 projected charge has been approved or is still draft.
Document reference
Service_charge_accounts_2022.pdf, page 6; Budget_2025_demand_scan.jpg, page 1; service-charge-schedule.xlsx, Charges tab.
Medium
04Reserve fund exists but looks under-explained against planned spend
Plain-English summary
The reserve fund balance is stated as £47,850, but the pack does not include a reserve policy, target balance, or a clear note showing how the fund will be used against the roof and lift lobby programme.
Why it matters
A reserve fund reduces immediate shock only if it is adequate and actually allocated to the relevant works. Without that, the buyer still faces balancing-demand risk.
Follow-up question
Please provide the latest reserve fund statement, target reserve policy, and planned allocation against the roof, fire-door, and lift lobby works.
Document reference
Reserve_fund_note.txt: 'Reserve fund balance at year end was GBP 47,850. No target reserve figure was supplied with this note.'
Medium
05Insurance evidence is incomplete for a higher-risk block profile
Plain-English summary
The schedule shows a building-level premium of £38,760 and a £5,000 escape-of-water excess, but the full wording and claims history are not in the pack.
Why it matters
The premium and excess are not automatically unreasonable, but they should be reconciled with the block's claims history and any building-safety or water-ingress issues.
Follow-up question
Please provide the full insurance policy wording, last three years' claims summary, broker schedule, and confirmation of the Flat 8 contribution to the premium.
Document reference
Insurance_summary.png, page 1: 'Buildings insurance excess for escape of water is GBP 5,000.'
Low
06Completion requirements are fragmented across notes and emails
Plain-English summary
The pack refers to notice fees, deed of covenant, landlord certificate wording, and possible licence-to-assign approval, but there is no single clean completion fee schedule.
Why it matters
This is unlikely to be the headline decision point, but it can create avoidable late-stage delay if the buyer's solicitor has to chase the managing agent for a definitive list.
Follow-up question
Please provide one consolidated completion requirements note covering notices, deed of covenant, landlord certificate, licence-to-assign position, payment instructions, and VAT treatment.
Document reference
completion-fee-screenshot.jpg, page 1: 'Certificate, deed of covenant and notice fees total GBP 695 inclusive of VAT.'
Likely transaction drag
- Lender or broker may ask for signed building-safety wording before accepting the file
- The buyer's solicitor is likely to raise enquiries on the missing Flat 8 works apportionment
- The managing agent has not supplied one definitive completion requirements schedule
- Reserve-fund adequacy is asserted indirectly rather than shown through a target policy or works allocation
- Insurance wording and claims history are incomplete for a block with active works and water-risk indicators
- Some pack documents appear to be working notes, screenshots, or partial updates rather than final position documents
Next step