Two online agents have launched new ‘pay later’ options.
They include Sarah Beeny’s online agency Tepilo which yesterday introduced a choice of payment packages – one, a pay upfront and the other a new pay later option.
Another online agent, House Network, has introduced a similar pay later option, and has raised its prices.
Cracks also began to show in the online agency industry, with one of the players describing some upfront payment models as “taking the money and running”.
Tepilo’s pay upfront option costs £495, and the pay later model – labelled as ‘best value’ on the site – costs £795, or £180 more than that, to total £975, if customers use their own conveyancer.
The differences between the two packages are that the pay later option includes a premium listing on Rightmove, a For Sale board, professional photography and a floorplan. These services can all be bought separately by customers paying upfront, for a total of £330, bringing the total upfront payment to £825, or £690 upfront if the customer only wanted a floorplan and photography, generally seen by agents as the marketing cornerstones of most online listings.
Neither the upfront nor the pay later options includes an EPC, which can be purchased for an extra £90.
Television presenter Beeny had been running a teaser campaign via Twitter saying that a change on Tepilo would be unveiled yesterday.
The pay later option means that customers pay the fee either on the sale of their property, or six months from the agreement, whichever comes first. They must also pay if they cancel the agreement.
According to the terms and conditions: “By choosing the ‘pay later’ package, one of Tepilo’s panel of conveyancers will provide you with a discounted rate for your property purchase and/or sale, which you commit to using.
“If you do not wish to use a conveyancer from our panel, you will be required to pay an additional £180 inclusive of VAT on completion of your property sale.”
Yesterday another online agent, House Network, put its prices up by £100. Its site said it charges £699 upfront, the same for a pay later option plus a completion cost of £699, and a pay-on-sale option at £1,199.
A spokesperson told EYE: “The fee has been increased as the original £599 was a limited edition special bundle. The new price of £699 inc VAT includes Rightmove Premium, EPC and a for sale board, plus our fee wipeout guarantee. This new fee started on 29/12 to coincide with House Network’s rebrand, new website and TV advertising campaign (you can see the ad here FYI).
“The other two price options are brand new, meaning House Network customers can now sell their home with no upfront fee.
“Obviously, all three pricing options are much lower than a seller would pay to a commission-based high street agent on an average home.”
Meanwhile, eMoov said it had not raised its own prices for 12 months, and continues to offer a traditional no-sale, no-fee option at £995 on completion as well as a £595 upfront option.
Founder Russell Quirk said: “The pay later options of our competitors necessitate that their fee is paid even if the property does not sell. And research shows that some of them have a pretty poor record when it comes to actually selling.
“eMoov has been offering a straightforward, honest no-sale, no-fee option for several months, with no sole agency agreements, no tie-ins and no penalty fees.
“The approach is far fairer to the consumer than that of taking the money and running.”
Quirk said that eMoov would still offer both upfront and no-sale, no fee options.
Comments (21)
if you’re penny pinching enough to use an online agent, you’re going to take Beeny up on her pay later scheme and keep your pennies safe….then when it hasn’t sold go to a high street.
Beeny has just killed her business – cashflow dries up as no upfront monies come in…..tepilo closes again….
And this is where the crowd funding idiots come in to play. They take the risk, the directors take the salary in the meantime.
You are all crazy !!!!!!!!
I have been snooping around the on line websites. so you can sell based on no sales no fee or £9 p/w or pay something upfront or etc, etc.
It’s all crazy, these onliners have no new technology, no clever systems, no special skills or USP.
All they are offering is: No local newspaper advertising (pretty much) no high street shops, no accompanied viewings (unless you pay more) no new ideas, no disruptive technology. In fact they are offering a half baked excuse of an estate agents service and trying to fool anyone who will listen that they are doing you a favour !!
If you believe anything these fly by nights are offering then you are BATCRACK CRAZY !
What’s interesting is this is the only post that got any blogs.
LOL
According to math online agency fees are lower than the high street. As always, f*ck math. Dude if you prefer online to high street you’re probably a terrible person. You live in your parent’s basement and everyone you know hates you. Women are excluded from this on account of being mostly awesome.
Ok remember how online disrupted the industry? Me neither. Dude given the paradigm of their economics its easy to figure their fee would adjust. Had to. So yes, I’ve done worse things for Chinese food than listen to Russ & Sarah re-imagine their business but boy, “taking the money and running” was instant wood. Maybe we sit back and enjoy these guys articulate the very thing we put on blast the moment they rocked up. Good times.
I wish Watchdog would do a report on the claims by web only portals.
You are not alone. Why not write to them?
Its a numbers game with call centres, the only way they can make a profit. Not a single web only portal has been able to make the returns worth getting out of bed for. Yep they spout all sorts of figures but the reality is they need to sell something like 7+ more properties to one high street agent (based on their own fees and a stated high street fee’s) and offer less service. You still have to take out their costs for TV etc which makes it more like well into double figures and unsustainable at £495. The public in general haven’t been fooled by them as they are still a minor blip on the radar for selling properties. That £495 is actually £975 for the majority. The only thing the TV and internet has achieved is allow more people be fooled that cost is the important thing, Purple Bricks recent valuation with no capital is also a prime case of being conned.
“offering a straightforward, honest no-sale, no-fee option for several months, with no sole agency agreements, no tie-ins and no penalty fees” and NO EFFORT.
Still not the No Sale – No Fee scenario that house sellers expect. Sales businesses in every industry sector have to be competitive and incentivised.
Here is an interesting exercise if you are an agent.
Login to http://www.getagent.co.uk and add yourself as a pro agent (it costs nothing). Then search for the agent you are interested in using the ‘property data’ “uk estate agents” link at the very bottom left of the page (you will need to scroll down).
Now use the search bar at the top to enter the call-centre agent (or any other type) you are interested in; e.g. Tepilo, eMoov etc. and click on the highlighted name that appears below this.
Once the new screen appears, click on the ‘for pros’ link and take a long hard look at what is happening to listing numbers of these firms who are claiming they are disrupting the market and telling investors they expect to double market share every year.
Although useful for this exercise, I’m surprised you’re happy to support this kind of website/product. As far as I can see, it does nothing to support our cause and is publishing “facts” based purely on data without any attempt to qualify or provide context. As we all know, data is only half the story – if I recommend a mktg price of X but vendor decides to test the market at X + 10%, but ultimately it sells for the price I recommended. In this scenario, is it really fair that I’m then accused of only achieving 90% of the asking price?
I had a call from this lot recently stating that they had a seller in my area blah, blah and we were coming out as the best agent for them. They were happy to put us forward so long as we paid them 0.25% of our fee. I refused on the basis that I don’t agree with their flawed model, so they didn’t recommend us to the client, despite the fact that apparently we were the best agent for the property.
This makes a mockery of their model and clearly means that they will only recommend an agent if said agent is willing to pay their fee.
I think the method of monetisation of this type of data is going to be crucial for these sites but, the data is there and is going to become more and more prevalent.
Whether we choose to accept the terms of a given site such as getagent is up to each individual business. However, I suspect that various models will be trialled including free to use but with side advertising and, cross-selling etc. With getagent, the customer already has a list of agents so may simply choose to go direct if the site doesn’t effect an introduction.
In which case, what’s the point of their current commercial model?
I agree that this kind of data is becoming ever more available and, undoubtedly, people will try to peddle it to consumers as a way to “research” their choice of agent. However, as we all know, solely looking at data can be very misleading. In fact, as highlighted by the recent portal juggling coverage, many agents use underhanded tricks to game the stats.
Of course, vendors won’t understand this and will increasingly make decisions based purely on the data alone. Then, the danger is that decent, reputable firms will eventually take the “if you can’t beat them, join them” approach and focus on how to look good rather than how to be good.
What is fast becoming apparent is that all of these online firms are burning through cash at a fast rate and are still not striking a significant enough chord with house sellers. Their market hasn’t grown, PB have dominated what little of that market there is and the remaining firms, like Emoove, Tepillo and alike are beginning to look like the kebab shop in the virtual high street as opposed to the restaurant.
I would applaud them for introducing technology to the market except, despite their claims, they haven’t done that either. So all we have seen so far is an example of how listing on a portal can perhaps find you a buyer if you are prepared to spin the dice and not spend to long analysing whether in fact you were better off doing it yourself, but most sensible sellers are still opting for an agent ,more local, that they TRUST.
Call-centre agents cannot decide if they are passive intermediaries who are caught by the OFT description of estate agents or not.
Technology? Almost without exception in the call-centre sector, there is growing evidence of data irregularities on an almost biblical scale. This is either technology failure or, deliberate manipulation of the numbers to appear better/ more effective than they are. Neither of which allows these agents to come out smelling very fresh as consumers champions might wish.
Still trying hard with the new name or OEAs …. 😉
Trouble is Stephen listing properties on the internet with valuation advice gleaned from unwary agents or looking up values on a random number generator isn’t actually Estate Agency so it really is difficult to know what term to use.
They are a bit more than passive intermediaries but quite a way off what most people recognise as the local estate agent who is out and about in the local community.
To be fair Stephen, a centralised call-centre is exactly how your employer describes the business setup on the website/ prospectus though I challenge the use of the word ‘local’ used alongside.
By the way, who do I write to if I want to sue eMoov for damages? (I fell off my chair after reading Russell’s statement) 😉
couldn’t agree more – as more online adopt this model (wonder why?) they will see income levels slashed to a point of being an unsustainable business model…
Wow!
So let’s get this straight (as far as Tepilo & House Network are concerned):
1. Kick back from a “recommended” solicitor reduces the charge (yay – online conveyancer!)
2. You pay the fee up-front and save less than £200 or pay more after 6 months regardless of success.
And then (for all of them) it’s a call centre operation that’s miles away, knows nothing about the area your house is in and will not chase the sale once it’s agreed.
the ONLY problem we have is that the UK population has been “programmed” to buy on price alone for years now by discounts, sales, twofer deals, etcetera and us estate agents have done absolutely nothing but follow the trend.
It’s a mighty big hole we’ve dug ourselves.
“The approach is far fairer to the consumer than that of taking the money and running.” Russell Quirk
Surprised but heartened to hear Russel finally admitting what many have been saying about call-centre agents business model for sometime. Will he and the other call-centre agents now be returning all of the monies paid out by consumers who paid out up-front but didn’t sell?