No Agent, a proptech lettings platform that launched only in September and which cuts agents out of the equation, has been valued at over £3.5m.
The business is now crowdfunding on Seedrs, aiming to raise £350,001 in return for 9.03% equity in its business.
Within the first 24 hours it had already reached 60% of its funding target.
It will use the money raised to expand its services, particularly in Wales and Scotland.
A clue to its business model is very much in the name, No Agent.
The highly automated platform claims to eliminate the need for landlords to use letting agents to perform tasks such as marketing, complying with regulatory requirements, booking viewings, conducting credit checks, and sorting out paying deposits and rent.
Charges to landlords are £29 per month outside London and £39 in the capital.
Its crowdfunding pitch says it provides a fully digital property management platform that automates the entire rental process, “putting landlords in control at every step, making it faster, easier and cheaper for them to let and manage their properties”.
The business is chaired by Gillian Kent, former CEO of PropertyFinder which was sold to Zoopla.
No Agent – which, despite its name lists on both Rightmove and Zoopla – says in its pitch that it is three months ahead of its customer acquisition plan and now has over 3,000 registered users. Rightmove allows the firm to list under the name NA Technologies.
In its new fundraising pitch, No Agent sets out its stall in no uncertain manner.
It says that traditional letting agents charge landlords high fees, averaging almost £2,000 in the first year, while tenants can pay £350 in fees.
It says that the market is both over-priced and under-served, with agents slow, unresponsive and inflexible, while repairs can be slow and expensive.
No Agent says it can save landlords £1,600 in the first year, while it charges tenants nothing. The offering also includes ‘one click’ compliance, together with the support of a property manager and legal helpline.
The business is headed by Calum Brannan as CEO and Max Fordham as head of lettings, while top housing law specialist David Smith, of Anthony Gold, is named as an adviser, owning no stake in the company.
Brannan said: “We put landlords in control at every step, making it faster, easier and cheaper for them to let and manage their properties.
“Soon the extortionate and unjustifiable fees that English letting agencies can charge will be a thing of the past – as they have been in Scotland since 2012. What will be interesting is how the industry reacts to the proposed changes.
“Companies will have to radically restructure and begin properly incorporating technology to become leaner, more efficient and cheaper to use. They’re going to have to innovate and adapt or lose market share to more tech-driven rivals.”
Kent claimed: “We’re the first company that’s fully integrated technology into its offering.”
https://www.seedrs.com/no-agent
Firm claiming to be UK’s first fully digital agent launches today
Comments (12)
Complying with regulatory requirements? No chance in hell
Looks like any other on-line agent to me. What protection is there for their clients, I can’t see any mention of membership of an ombudsman scheme, client money protection, or which deposit scheme is used.
The head of lettings, according to their website has been in property (not even lettings) for 8 years.
Fees might be cheap, but then I guess you get what you pay for, and that seems to be falling on the Governments deaf ears too.
Personally, I’d be very wary investing in this type of business model especially with their high over heads, coupled with increased regulation – I agree with others above, not sure they’ll be around for long.
With their approach you have to ask how long RM & ZPG will permit them to list and, once that goes, you then have to ask if they carry any value at all.
Why are they allowed on Rightmove, Zoopla etc. cutting out the agent ?
Agreed the “pre-money” valuation is very mis-leading. In fact two investors have pledged £202,803 between them, representing 99.25% of the value of pledges. The cash only materialises once the fund raise reaches the goal of £350,001, otherwise all bets are off.
The average “other investor” is pledging just £72. They’ve got some motoring to do to reach target.
Have these guys heard of openrent, rentify, upad etc… there seems to be millions of them, pretty much doing the same thing (but not too successful might I add) not to mention all the onliners as well, also, offering similar low ball services. Good luck to them. They, like their peers will most likely disappear when tighter regulations, tougher market conditions starts kicking in.
So Gillian…be honest, are you in this to improve service to each individual Landlord and Tenant…..or to line your own pockets as quickly as possible using other people’s money?
Like to see you take a lie detector test on this very question!
It’s this type of selfish opportunism that governments should really be cracking down on.
I have invested with Seedrs on several occasions, this valuation looks on the high side to me. It seems also that many of the people involved have little or ‘no-skin’ in the deal, certainly at the present time. Of the £204,259 currently invested £200,000 is from a single anonymous investor. I wish them luck, I think they may need it.
Another so called hybrid that will milk the “new age” for all its worth with not a care of the mess it will make for landlords.
“We put landlords in control at every step, making it faster, easier and cheaper for them to let and manage their properties”. LOL.
Nuts, completely forgotten why there are letting agents and landlords use them. At the coal face as they say. If may offer some glimmer of hope for the self managing penny pinching landlord but I would love to see how they intend to interview tenants and inspect properties within all the legislative framework or are they only doing half a job. Maybe we could have a look at their small print?
Let’s risk other people’s money to promote something to eliminate other people’s livelihoods and then make as much money for ourselves as possible. This seems the way of the world at the moment!
It’s not worth 3.5 million. The owner has said it’s worth 3.5 million.
It is like a small high street agent coming out saying their office is worth 20 million.
It’s not based on anything other than over inflated opinion.