Yes — you can commission a Schedule of Condition that is primarily photographic. However, a photographic-only record is rarely the strongest option, and in many situations it can be a false economy. The most reliable Schedule of Condition reports combine photographs and written description because the written element is what makes the photographic evidence clear, searchable, and defensible.
This article explains when a photographic-only schedule may be suitable, where it can fall short, and how to make a photo-led record as robust as possible.
1) What people mean by “photographic-only”
In practice, a photographic-only Schedule of Condition usually means one of the following:
- a folder or PDF of photographs with minimal or no notes,
- photographs with basic captions (“kitchen wall”, “rear elevation”), but no defect descriptions, or
- a photo set arranged by room, but without clear location referencing or written condition statements.
The issue is not the photos themselves—good photos are essential. The issue is whether the record is usable as evidence when a question arises later.
2) Why written descriptions matter (even if you have excellent photos)
A) Photos don’t always capture fine defects
Hairline cracking, slight undulation, minor staining, and subtle changes in finish can be:
- difficult to see in normal lighting,
- easily missed in wide shots,
- washed out by reflections or shadows.
A written record allows the surveyor to say: “hairline crack present at X location, approximately Y length” even if it is hard to see in a photograph.
B) Photos can lack context and repeatability
Even with many photos, disputes often arise because someone later asks:
- “Which wall is that?”
- “Where exactly was this taken?”
- “Is this the same corner as the later photo?”
Written location referencing (and systematic structure) solves this problem by making the record repeatable and easy to compare.
C) Photos alone can be interpreted in different ways
A stain might be read as “new damp” by one person and “historic mark” by another. A written schedule helps lock the meaning down at the time of inspection:
- what was observed,
- where it was,
- and the extent of it.
3) When a photographic-only schedule might be acceptable
A photo-only approach may be reasonable where the risk is low and the purpose is limited, for example:
- a simple record of a small area (e.g., a single wall/elevation)
- minor works with minimal likelihood of dispute
- short-term access arrangements where both parties are cooperative
- a budget-led “snapshot” where a fuller schedule is not proportionate
Even then, it is usually better to include at least structured captions and basic defect notes.
4) When photographic-only is not advisable
A photographic-only schedule is generally not recommended when:
- there are existing cracks or historic settlement
- the property is older or has delicate finishes (plasterwork, tiles, ornate detailing)
- the works nearby are high risk (excavation, structural alteration, demolition)
- external areas could be affected (garden walls, paving, retaining walls)
- there is low trust between neighbours
- you want the record to stand up to close scrutiny later
In these cases, relying on photos alone can lead to avoidable arguments about what is shown, where it is, and whether a defect was present.
5) If you do choose photo-only, how to make it robust
If a photographic-only schedule is being used, it should be upgraded so it behaves like evidence rather than a gallery. The key improvements are:
A) Use a consistent structure
- External elevations (front/rear/side), then
- internal rooms in a logical order (ground to top),
- taken clockwise from the doorway in each room.
B) Add strong captions (minimum standard)
Every photo should include:
- room name / elevation,
- the direction of view,
- and what it shows (e.g., “party wall – near rear corner”).
C) Include “context + detail” pairs
For each significant defect:
- take one wide shot showing where it is, then
- a close-up showing the detail.
D) Include reference points
- photograph corners, openings, junctions (these are where defects concentrate),
- include a ruler or scale reference for cracks where possible,
- keep the camera height/position consistent so comparisons later are easier.
E) Ensure image quality and storage integrity
- high resolution images
- good lighting, no blur
- embedded metadata (date/time), or clear file naming
- store in a fixed PDF or controlled archive so the record cannot be casually edited or mislaid.
6) A sensible compromise: “photo-led” rather than “photo-only”
In most situations, the best balance is a photo-led schedule with concise written notes, rather than a photo-only document. That approach:
- remains cost-effective,
- keeps the report readable,
- but avoids the evidential weaknesses that photos alone can create.
Even short written notes—properly structured—can dramatically increase the value of the record.
7) Practical conclusion
You can have a photographic-only Schedule of Condition, but whether you should depends on what you need the record to do.
If you want the record to stand up to challenge and genuinely reduce dispute risk, a combined report with:
- structured written descriptions,
- precise location references,
- and a properly organised photo record,
is almost always the stronger option.
Need a Schedule of Condition that is clear, robust and proportionate?
Email mail@howorth.uk or call 07794 400 212. Tell us your property type and what works are planned nearby, and we’ll recommend the right level of detail—whether photo-led or fully described—so your record is genuinely useful if you ever need to rely on it.