Online agents are claiming considerable success.
In her latest TV advertising, Sarah Beeny says her business, Tepilo, sells hundreds of homes every month.
In the TV adverts she confidently repeats the claim and adds, “What else is there to say”.
The firm has told EYE that the claim is completely true, has been accepted as genuine, and approved for broadcasting.
Out of curiosity, we asked Tepilo how it could stack up these claims, in particular asking how many listings Tepilo is taking on each month and how many on average it is selling each month.
We also asked how Tepilo defines selling.
Tepilo declined to answer our specific questions, but Rebecca Glen, head of marketing at Tepilo, said: “In terms of the number of houses we sell per month, we can confirm that it is indeed hundreds per month as we stated in the advert.
“All figures and statements we make in our adverts have to be sent to Clearcast to be verified by them. They ensure everything is correct and truthful before allowing an advert to air. This was the case with this advert, as with all previous ones.”
Clearcast checks proposed adverts against the British Code of Broadcasting Advertising Code, effectively pre-approving them before transmission.
Meanwhile David Montero, YOPA’s local estate agent for south-east London and Bromley, tweeted: “Under offer within 24 hours & £20k+ over the guide prices? That’s a great day’s work!”
The property concerned was: https://www.yopa.co.uk/properties/details/8242
Meanwhile, easyProperty has announced the exchange of contracts on a £35m mixed-use property portfolio in east London and Essex.
Rob Ellice, easyProperty CEO, said: “This is the most significant deal we have achieved since establishing two years ago.
“It also happens to be the largest transaction by an ‘online agent’ both in terms of value and size.
“This deal helps illustrate our capabilities and aptitude – proving that we are a genuine full agency service ready to rival the traditional property companies.”
As a separate talking point, in yesterday’s Sunday Times Homes supplement, there was an article by Caroline Scott which, while carrying the headline ‘clutter’, was actually about online agents and advice for vendors conducting their own viewings.
Scott lives in a 1930s semi in south west London, and called in Kate Fox, of easyProperty, who also advises on the valuation.
Fox’s advice seems fine and Scott concludes: “I’m sold. I can’t think of single reason why you wouldn’t use an online agent.”
However, to be sure, she calls in Donna Littman, from local high street agent Dexters,
She is aghast, saying the property has been undervalued by at least £150,000.
Scott says: “If she’s right, the few thousand pounds saved in agents’ fees pale into insignificance.”
Comments (24)
I’m just a silly vendor with Tepilo. Shockingly bad customer service, photographer rude and inept (and really bossy insisting he do it himself then not moving things to get best shot). Valuations completely unrealistic, until the point when you start complaining about no viewings then the solution is to drop price even though you’re already 40k below what they suggested! And priced right according to other estate agents. I have doubts about the online/telephone booking system (people are starting to test this now and it’s failing) and forcing people to go through a registration process puts off buyers. The lack of personal interaction with buyers leaves it very much to their imagination and interpretation of photographs, without getting any of the encouragement to obtain the footfall and emotional link. Cannot say how disappointed we are – and still have to pay! Nicely played, Tepilo, nicely played.
I just checked out the stats from GetAgent data and it seems she may correct! This is a de-duplicated list so does not include properties that are relisted. The number of properties is new listings for that month. I appreciate that not all of these properties sell…..
month year new
1 2015 77
2 2015 120
3 2015 240
4 2015 345
5 2015 338
6 2015 290
7 2015 295
8 2015 274
9 2015 285
10 2015 252
11 2015 151
12 2015 187
1 2016 415
2 2016 688
3 2016 444
4 2016 360
5 2016 352
6 2016 375
7 2016 347
8 2016 300
9 2016 240
Now taking into account no agent has ever sold every property they take on in the same month or ever …. you figures of “listings” rather suggest she isn’t unless he achieves 40%ish instruction to sale every month and wasn’t she caught portal juggling this year?.
“I just checked out the stats from GetAgent data and it seems she may correct!”
HOW do you come to that conclusion?
The ‘stats’ you are referring to are LISTINGS, not SALES – which is what the advert claims to be in the “hundreds every month”.
“This is a de-duplicated list so does not include properties that are relisted.”
Again – HOW can you confidently state that.
The might of RIGHTMOVE can’t identify a #relisting – so why should we believe that a dating site can do any better?
Are your monkeys fed better peanuts?
You are showing the September 2016 listings figure as ‘240’.
Zoopla show the ‘Last 30 Days’ (therefore including 4 days of August ) as 229. A quick check shows EIGHTEEN of those to be August listings – leaving a maximum of 211 to have been listed within the month of September.
Care to explain?
I imagine those have been removed PeeBee.
We have been perfecting a machine learning algorithm to de-duplicate property listings for 2 years. Whilst it is not always 100% accurate, Online Agents are easy to match as they put in the full address into the Zoopla upload. Less worried about gazumping no doubt!
I did accept that the figures were listing figures. However, assuming an industry standard completion rate (64% ??) then it is likely the statement of “hundreds” is true.
But on-liners do not achieve that conversion rate and very suspicious. Warrants an independent scrutiny if to be believed, not assumptions.
“I imagine those have been removed PeeBee.”
Removed? Why would you possibly imagine that? Why would an Agent “remove” property listings?
You need to put a large chunk of meat on that particular ankle to get me gnawing at it, Sir.
“However, assuming an industry standard completion rate (64% ??) then it is likely the statement of “hundreds” is true.”
It would be correct in only NINE of the 21 months you have given your figures for… IF, that is, your assumed 64% of sales occurred within the same month that they were instructed.
But they weren’t – so your figures are 99.999%* likely to be incorrect.
* +/- 0.001%.
“We have been perfecting a machine learning algorithm to de-duplicate property listings for 2 years.”
I have been using my eyes and brain for almost 39 years to spot the tricks used by sharks and billshutters in our industry – and I’d pit them against your “machine” anyday of the week.
Any comeback, Sir?
Strike one..,.
Strike two…
Strike THREE. You’re out!
Was going to wait until tomorrow – somehow I don’t see the need.
You have no intention of re-engaging.
To be fair – I don’t blame you.
‘Tepilo is the name of an imaginary castle, described by Sarah’s father in stories he told her as a child, which is rather touching, as the perfect ‘your-home-is-your-castle’ metaphor’.
Now that is rather nice…….shame it may be spoiled by those imaginary profits?
I would say that every on-line valuation tool is illegal and any agent who uses such is failing under the Estate Agency Act and The Property Ombudsman code of practice …….. They should be banned for they cannot conform to the following, which has been basic estate agency work for decades ………………
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
The probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) Buyer and Seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised and each acting in what he/she considers his/hers own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in pounds sterling or in terms of financial arrangements comparable to; and (5) the price represents the normal considerations for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
You are right Woodentop but the problem is the numbers they issue aren’t part a contract between those who invent the number and those who believe the number.
Invariably it is agents who without caveat to protect themselves are shouting get a free valuation and are using the process to get a foot in the door who are going to be clobbered by the fall out.
I have done the numbers, anyone who has sold detached or semi detached properties since September 2010 should be aware of a significant undersell which I believe is caused by AVM advice on value and agents going along with the numbers vendors have primed themselves with, not knowing they’re wrong.
By definition ‘hundreds’ is any number from 100 to 999 and is so conveniently vague as to be meaningless.
I don’t blame Tepilo for not answering the question about how many properties they take on each month. They make no claims about that.
However they DO make a very public claim about the quantity being sold and it is legitimate to hold them to account for it – just as it is to ask how they define ‘selling’.
The fact that they will not answer the questions and will not come clean with a figure for the number sold each month speaks volumes. It will not do to hide behind Clearcast. That’s a cop out.
So come on Tepilo. Let’s have the figure and the definition of ‘selling’ please. Because unless you answer it is completely reasonable for any full service agency to discredit you by telling potential vendors that you are opaque about the reality of your claims.
I would suggest ‘hundreds’ is 200 to 999 as ‘hundreds’ is plural i.e. more than one.
Yes they should be able to confirm the exact number each day, week or month as they have that information. To generalise means you are vague to hide the truthful facts or put it another way, not doing as good as you want people to believe = dishonesty. There are more On-line companies that frankly are dishonest to the core.
The MINIMUM requirement for “…indeed hundreds per month as we stated in the advert…” to be factually correct is 200. Some might even say 201.
Hundreds is a plural therefore there needs to be at least two to be grammatically correct – and LEGALLY correct when in an advertising context.
Their stats make ‘interesting’ reading.
Companies like this need remember that there is an awful lot of information available in the cyberplace they inhabit.
so Caroline Scott will have a real agent around and a internet one each saying a different figure. She will go with the internet one but at the asking price of the real agent – win/win for her.
Uses the real agents experience and skill in valuation and then gives it to a cheaper agent who did not but is cheaper. Not very fair is it.
I ran my property through Tepilo’s system and it came out 30% less than what an agent with 20 years local experience reckons he can get for it.
In fact it was valued less than a sale recently agreed just down the road (which the local agent knew about even though he hadn’t sold it) which was a 3 bed semi against my 4 bed detached.
No amount of IT trickery or claims of online agents based in a land far, far away, will replace a local agent who knows not only his local market but also his local buyers who will pay a premium to get what they want where they want it.
I am always keen to try out valuation systems just to see if anyone can crack the holy grail of agency that I believe impossible. Last week I tried the Tepilo version ( it’s a white label of the usual junk). It delivered a figure so far out I called for an explanation and was told to get anything accurate I had to get an RICS valuation, at that point I gave up!
Someone has to get control of the mis-information being pumped out by online valuation systems. Because the numbers come from household name firms the public find it hard to comprehend how people like Sarah Beeny (off the telly) would make it up and would rely on a system they clearly haven’t tested.. The biggest injustice is the companies pumping out what are nothing more than random numbers don’t have a single responsibility to get the numbers right.
Whilst my professional head says that I can’t understand why these online agents with their online valuations haven’t been called to account by trading standards under the Consumer Protection Regs, part of me thinks the longer it goes on and the more they get discredited when people find out their neighbours sold for vastly more, the better.
If you have family heirloom worth tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, would you take it to the local flea market for a valuation?
As for another post below about using a local agent to value and then going to an online agent, I think an awful lot of sellers would be worried that the online agent would have little appetite in trying to get that higher price.
And that’s the second mistake, because the likes of Tepilo don’t ‘sell’ property, they just list and wait safe in the knowledge that win, lose or draw, they have your money. Ask any buyer out there if they’ve had a phone call from an online agent trying to sell them a property ie what a great area it is, how it’s been improved and extended, how the kids can play in the park it backs onto, how well you know the local school etc etc.
As the saying goes ‘You pays your money, you takes your chances’.
It is the amateur executors who are most at risk, those people who save the beneficiaries of an estate a few quid only to find everyone missed out and they as unpaid administrators are liable for the losses.