This is an illustrative sample, not a real assignment. Every name, place, date and measurement below is invented to show the shape of a VerifyKe report. There is no real parcel, client or person in it, and no real coordinates appear anywhere.

Inspection report

Land and property check — comprehensive checklist

Case reference: SAMPLE-0000
Version: Version 2 (corrected)
Issued: Illustrative — no issue date
Property reference: SAMPLE-PLOT-A (illustrative — not a real parcel)
Visit date: Illustrative visit — no real date
Visit conditions: Single daytime visit, dry conditions
Inspector: Field inspector (name withheld in sample)
Reviewed by: Reviewer (name withheld in sample)
Locality: Synthetic locality. No real place, address or coordinates appear in this sample.

Why this version was reissued

Version 1 recorded the access track as murram throughout. A follow-up photograph (E-09) showed the final 200 m is unimproved earth. Finding 3 was corrected and reissued. Version 1 is retained in full.

Earlier versions are never overwritten. Version 1 remains on the case and stays available to the client.

Findings at a glance

Consistent with evidence reviewed×2
Clarification needed×1
Significant discrepancy observed×2
Not verified / unable to check×3

These are counts, not a score. VerifyKe does not combine findings into an overall rating, and never converts a check it could not perform into a pass.

Executive summary

The parcel exists at the location indicated and broadly matches the description the client was given. Two matters need attention before the client relies on this report. The seller's claim that electricity is connected on the plot was not supported by what we saw: the nearest visible supply is a transformer on the approach road, with no service line running to the parcel. Separately, only three of the four beacons described to the client were located. Four checks could not be completed at all and are marked as such — most importantly the parcel size, which no phone GPS reading can establish and which requires a licensed surveyor.

Scope of this assignment

The checklist below was agreed with the client and frozen when they accepted the scope. Later changes to our service templates do not alter what this report covers.

Physical visit to the parcel indicated by the client
Compare the site against the description and claims the client was given
Photograph visible beacons and record their positions
Wide-angle photographs, close-up evidence and a walkthrough video
Record access route, observed road width, condition and surface
Observe electricity and water infrastructure on or near the site
Record neighbouring developments and immediate surroundings
Speak to available local contacts where they consent
Document discrepancies and unresolved questions

Findings

Finding 1

Consistent with evidence reviewed

Is there a parcel at the location I was given, and does it match the description of the site?

What we observed: A parcel was located at the position the client indicated. It is unfenced, gently sloping, under light scrub with three mature trees along the northern edge. An inspector walked the site and recorded a GPS position at the approximate centre with a reported accuracy of 4 m.
Assessment: The site as found is consistent with the description the client supplied.
What this does not establish: This establishes that a parcel exists where indicated and what it looks like. It does not establish the parcel's legal boundaries, its registered size, or who owns it. The GPS position is a phone reading, not a surveyed coordinate.
Evidence: E-01
E-02
E-03

Finding 2

Clarification needed

Are the boundary beacons in place? I was told there are four.

What we observed: Three concrete beacons were located and photographed, at the northern, eastern and southern corners. No beacon was found at the western corner. The inspector searched an area of roughly 15 m around the expected position. Ground cover there is dense.
Assessment: Three of the four beacons described to the client were found. The fourth was not located on this visit. It may be present under cover, displaced, or absent.
What this does not establish: Seeing a beacon does not establish that it marks a legally correct boundary, that it sits where the registry records it, or that the parcel's dimensions are as described. Only a licensed surveyor can confirm any of that.
Suggested next step: Engage a licensed surveyor to establish the boundary and confirm the fourth corner. We can arrange a return visit to attend the survey and document it, under a separate scope.
Evidence: E-04
E-05
E-06

Finding 3

Significant discrepancy observed

How good is the access road? I was told it is murram all the way.

What we observed: The approach leaves the main road and runs approximately 1.8 km to the parcel. The first ~1.6 km is murram, observed width between 5 and 6 m, rutted in two sections but passable in a saloon car on the day of the visit. The final ~200 m is unimproved earth, observed width narrowing to about 3.5 m.
Assessment: Access is not murram all the way, as the client was told. The final stretch to the parcel is unimproved earth and noticeably narrower.
What this does not establish: Observed width is what we measured on the ground. It is not proof of a legal road reserve, a registered easement, or any right of access. Passability was assessed on one dry day and says nothing about the wet season.
Suggested next step: Ask an advocate to confirm the access is a recognised public road or a registered right of way, not a neighbour's tolerance.
Evidence: E-07
E-08
E-09

Finding 4

Not verified / unable to check

Can the site be reached in the rainy season?

What we observed: The visit took place in dry conditions. Two local contacts said independently that the last stretch becomes difficult after heavy rain, one saying a saloon car cannot make it. The inspector saw dried rutting consistent with vehicles moving through mud, but did not witness wet conditions.
Assessment: We cannot confirm wet-season access. What is recorded here is what two people told us, plus ground marks consistent with their account.
What this does not establish: Statements from local contacts are recorded as statements. We did not independently verify them and they may be mistaken or interested. A single dry-day visit cannot establish seasonal access either way.
Suggested next step: A repeat visit during the rains would answer this directly. It can be added to a recurring oversight schedule.
Evidence: E-09
E-10

Finding 5

Significant discrepancy observed

The seller says power is connected on the plot. Is it?

What we observed: No service line, meter, pole or connection point was observed anywhere on the parcel. The nearest visible infrastructure is a transformer on the approach road, roughly 400 m away by the inspector's pacing, serving a cluster of homesteads to the east. Low-voltage lines run along the road but stop short of the parcel.
Assessment: What we saw does not support the claim that power is connected on the plot. There is distribution infrastructure nearby, which is a different thing.
What this does not establish: A visible power line does not confirm a working connection, available capacity, or permission and cost to connect. We did not test any supply and did not contact the utility. Distance was paced, not surveyed.
Suggested next step: Ask the seller for the account number and a recent bill. A quotation from the utility will establish what connecting actually costs.
Evidence: E-11
E-12

Finding 6

Not verified / unable to check

Is there water? I was told there is a borehole on the neighbouring plot.

What we observed: A capped borehole head with an electric pump housing was observed on the adjacent parcel to the south, visible from the boundary. A caretaker present at the time said it serves three households and that the owner allows neighbours to draw water. The inspector did not enter the neighbouring parcel and did not operate or test anything.
Assessment: A borehole exists nearby. Whether the client would have any access to it is unresolved.
What this does not establish: A visible water source establishes none of: water quality, yield, dependability, or any right to draw. The caretaker's account of a sharing arrangement is a statement, not a verified agreement, and any such arrangement could end.
Suggested next step: If water matters to this decision, a hydrogeological assessment and a written agreement with the borehole owner are the things that would settle it.
Evidence: E-13

Finding 7

Consistent with evidence reviewed

What is around the plot?

What we observed: Four completed homesteads lie to the east within roughly 300 m. One partially built structure at slab level sits immediately to the north. Land to the west is under maize. No commercial or industrial activity was observed within sight of the parcel.
Assessment: The surroundings are residential and agricultural, consistent with the client's expectation.
What this does not establish: This is what was visible on one day. It does not establish what is approved or planned for neighbouring land. Approved developments nearby would not be visible from the ground.
Evidence: E-14
E-15

Finding 8

Not verified / unable to check

Is the plot really 50 by 100 feet, as advertised?

What we observed: Not attempted. The inspector recorded GPS positions at the three beacons found, but this equipment and method cannot establish parcel dimensions to any useful standard.
Assessment: We did not check this and cannot answer it. It is outside what a physical visit with a phone GPS can establish.
What this does not establish: Phone GPS readings carry several metres of error and do not produce surveyed coordinates, parcel dimensions or registered area. Nothing in this report should be read as confirming the advertised size.
Suggested next step: A licensed surveyor is the only way to answer this. We can commission one on your instruction, with their scope and fee disclosed to you separately.
Evidence: None — this check was not carried out.

Evidence index

Every item is held privately against this case. Capture time is recorded where the device provided it and is left blank where it did not — we never substitute upload time for capture time. Metadata can be missing or altered, so a timestamp or geotag alone is not proof that a file is authentic.

Ref	Type	Source	Description	Capture time
E-01	photo	Field observation	Wide view of the parcel from the north-eastern corner±4 m	Capture time recorded on the device
E-02	video	Field observation	Walkthrough of the parcel, boundary to boundary (2 min 40 s)	Capture time recorded on the device
E-03	measurement	Field observation	GPS position recorded at the approximate centre of the parcel±4 m	Not recorded
E-04	photo	Field observation	Concrete beacon, northern corner, with scale reference±5 m	Capture time recorded on the device
E-05	photo	Field observation	Concrete beacon, eastern corner±4 m	Capture time recorded on the device
E-06	photo	Field observation	Ground cover at the expected western corner, no beacon located	Capture time recorded on the device
E-07	video	Field observation	Journey video from the main road junction to the parcel (agreed route)	Not recorded
E-08	photo	Field observation	Murram section of the approach, showing rutting	Not recorded
E-09	photo	Field observation	Final unimproved earth section, narrowing to approximately 3.5 m	Capture time not recorded — device metadata absent
E-10	document	Third-party statement	Inspector's note of two local contacts' accounts of wet-season access, recorded with their consent	Not recorded
E-11	photo	Field observation	Transformer on the approach road, serving homesteads to the east	Not recorded
E-12	photo	Field observation	Parcel frontage showing no service line, pole or meter	Not recorded
E-13	photo	Field observation	Capped borehole head on the adjacent parcel, photographed from the boundary	Not recorded
E-14	photo	Field observation	Neighbouring homesteads to the east	Not recorded
E-15	photo	Field observation	Structure at slab level immediately north of the parcel	Not recorded

Image slot

In a real report, the photographs and video referenced above appear here, served privately to the client.

Image slot

No map is shown in this sample. Plotting invented coordinates on a real map would misrepresent the work.

Limitations of this report

This report records what our inspector observed on one visit, in dry conditions, during daylight. Conditions at other times may differ.
We do not certify legal ownership, title authenticity or boundary correctness. Nothing here substitutes for a search by an advocate or a survey by a licensed surveyor.
GPS positions are phone readings with several metres of error. They are not surveyed coordinates and do not establish parcel dimensions or area.
Statements from neighbours, caretakers and other local contacts are recorded as statements. We attribute them; we do not independently verify them.
We did not enter any neighbouring parcel or occupied structure.
This report does not tell you whether to buy. It gives you documented findings and names what remains unresolved so you can decide, or take specialist advice.

Still unresolved

Where is the fourth beacon, and does the boundary run where the client was told?
Is the access route a recognised public road or a registered right of way?
Can the parcel be reached by vehicle in the rainy season?
What would connecting electricity actually cost, and is capacity available?
Would the client have any enforceable access to the neighbouring borehole?
What is the parcel's registered size?

Suggested next steps

Put the electricity discrepancy to the seller in writing and ask for the account number and a recent bill.
Engage a licensed surveyor to establish the boundary, the fourth beacon and the registered size. We can attend and document the survey under a separate scope.
Ask an advocate to confirm the access route's legal status alongside the title search.
Consider a return visit during the rains to settle seasonal access.

These are suggestions based on what we found. They are not advice to buy, to proceed, or to withhold payment — those decisions are yours, and where they turn on law, survey or engineering they need the relevant licensed professional.

This is what a VerifyKe report looks like. If you have a question about a property in Kenya, tell us what you need to know and we will scope it before anything is committed.

Request a check