x

Matthew Payne

Business & Property Consultant

515 Profile Views

About Me

Business and property consultant offering strategic consultancy services and executive coaching to property businesses and property people looking for guidance and support to fulfil their potential, become more compliant, commercial, effective and profitable.

Get in touch at aficionadoproperty.com or on 07970 773 847.

my expertise in the industry

I worked in the independent and corporate property world for 25 years, working my way up from trainee estate agent to Managing Director of a multi-million-pound estate agency in London delivering record profits in the years that followed. Working closely with my teams, clients and customers in sales, lettings, property management, land and new homes afforded me an intimate 360 degree understanding of a transactional residential property business and the people it served.

Matthew's Recent Activity

It will be interesting to see where NFOPP draw their line with regard to previously taken qualifications. It was the case that anyone that had done ARLA 1 & ARLA 2 for example had to resit the Level 3 technical Award as so much legislation had changed in such a short time. From memory that was about 2008 ish, and ever since everyone has been taking the current level 3 award in sales and lettings. I have heard claims that have not been verified that some people that have passed the Level 3 award since the change who have NOT paid a continuous membership fee every year to NFOPP have to now resit. I know up to 2018 this was not the case and rightly so, as many firms were not prepared to pay for every single member they had each year, as it mounted up to tens of £000s and for individuals, expecially younger people it was expensive at £200 a year. I sincerely hope NFOPP are not going to use this a vehicle to force people to resit a qualification they have already passed simply to generate more income. If the level 3 award is going to be the measure, then anyone that has passed it should not have to resit it, and with tens of thousands of people who have never done it anyway, I doubt there would be the capacity.

From: Matthew Payne 29 January 2020 08:25 AM

There clearly needs to be a distinction made between the Romans management team of February 2018 who rightly approached the CMA and instigated the investigation thus affording them no fine under the leniency policy, for the actions of the Romans management team that created and helped maintain the Cartel from 2008 to 2015.

From: Matthew Payne 23 January 2020 15:04 PM

At the very least there needs to be some value offering as an incentive to fill in a form, and clearly an online val alone isnt it where most people have done this to death over the last few years and know pretty much what their property is worth anyway, there are so many ways to stay up to date without filling them in. Even better still would be a more compelling reason to subscribe to that site more generally, where the user would receive a comprehensive variety of relevant content they might find useful or interesting which they may currently get from 5,6,7,8 other subscriptions. Most people want the information, but would like to try and consolidate the number of data sources and associated email traffic, not expand them further.

From: Matthew Payne 22 January 2020 13:44 PM

They have no excuse not to, it only needed an extra sentence set out in the correct way, in the appropriate place being added to their TOB.

From: Matthew Payne 22 January 2020 13:21 PM

Another well known defintion states, "approved by the UK government to help consumers.." The starting point has always been to provide support to consumers which is appropriate but only when that support is administered in a non partisan fashion. That has not always been the case in my experience. TPOS in spite of not upholding most complaints I received were still all too eager to make some kind of token award of compensation for £150 for "inconvenience" for the consumer having to spend the time pursuing the complaint in the first place. Targets to hit like anyone else.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2020 12:31 PM

This isnt new news, the Working Group havent met since May, this is a piece on Anthonys views, so not much has changed since the last article. If measures are introduced by mid 2021 that wont be the deadline for everyone to have passed for all the reasons stated above and others. Legislation may be in place by then, albeit, there is only so much time the House has to debate anything, and Brexit will dominate parliamentary time for the forseeable future, so many less important bills will get shelved until time allows as they have done since 2016, we will see if this is one. Look how long the Tenant Fees Act took from public announcement of intent to enactment. If it does come to fruition there would need to be a 2-3 year lead time not only to allow businesses and candidates time to prepare, but the organisations who will be approved to issue these qualifications to a potential 50,000 agents.

From: Matthew Payne 07 January 2020 10:39 AM

It says that electronic ID verification can now be considered as a reliable source, ie: they are satisfied that prop tech companies have beta tested it sufficiently if agents choose to use a firm that offers that. "..electronic identification processes, regulated, recognised, approved or accepted at national level by the national competent authority may be taken into account" It is not mandatory, so yes more smoke and mirrors.

From: Matthew Payne 06 January 2020 18:09 PM

Looks nice if you watch the video, and they are clearly very passionate about what they are doing, but not sure what is new. Either they are not doing a great job of promoting what is different or there is nothing different. Central ID for people and property is old hat and has been around for years, but that seems to be their big ticket item. Be interesting to see how these guys, Reapit and others get on, as there is definately a need for some consolidation in this area of the industry so I sincerely hope a revolutionary product comes along soon. Difficult to see the wood for the trees at the moment though, hence proptech advisory companies are being born to advise agents which bits of proptech are "best", who by the way are in no way influenced by who pays them the most commission.

From: Matthew Payne 06 January 2020 17:40 PM

Have you ever seen a supposed independent article with comment by anyone that is not a plug for their own position or business? It is all a bit one dimensional, there is stacks of it on facebook/linkedin. "John Doe says agents must get to grips with X, which is really hard, scary and difficult, but if they dont do it they will all perish in hell, 4 horsemen etc." The article/post ends with John conveniently turning out to be the chief exec of a business that can save them from this plight if they all buy his product. In this case a bit of a recruitment drive, which is taking its time. Their imminent launch was about 2 years ago, and its still imminent.

From: Matthew Payne 06 January 2020 17:09 PM

The Tories only interest with this policy is to reduce the size of the state. Conservative policy has always been based on a free market economy, where the nanny state as they see it should be strictly limited. Having all this stock move into the private ownership achieves that. I dont see that it is reducing opportunity now for families that need it as there are fewer properties in the social housing sector. They wouldnt be able to move into any of the 2.5 million properties that were sold anyway, they were being occupied by the people who have now bought them.

From: Matthew Payne 30 December 2019 10:32 AM

Completely agree Simon. There are way too many unknowns and too much to establish to commit any party to a financial penalty at the point of offer, and we have a system that doesnt promote disclosure by sellers. We also typically have old housing stock in this country that inevitably brings up potential issues for a buyer and their lender, not to mention the legals, chains etc. The only solution if we are to go down this road is full disclosure much earlier in the process, similar but more advanced to the idea on HIPs, building survey, complete legal pack incl searches etc so a buyer (and their lender) can then make an informed decision about whether to commit, at which point a NRD could be introduced. That is currently called exchange of contracts. The 19 weeks of work (if it needs to take that long) needs to start before someone puts their property on the market. You have to provide more information to buyers to sell a secondhand car, or a fridge on ebay, why does property seem to be the exception?

From: Matthew Payne 17 December 2019 08:57 AM

It would appear that running a profitable estate agency/lettings agency is maybe not as easy peasy as people from outside the industry believe, as they all seem to gravitate towards it claiming to be able transform the businesses they get involved in or purchase with revolutionary ideas that worked for them in retail, hospitality, leisure, dot.com or some other completely different industry. The common thread, very few of them know anything about property and everything that goes with it, but then strangely they surround themselves with people who know even less. All of these businesses have seen their profits plummet, the businesses much smaller than 2-3 years ago as well, and the agencies that seem to be prospering in the stormy weather like Connells, Savills and a host of smaller agencies are actually run by career property people.

From: Matthew Payne 10 December 2019 13:58 PM

Mainly to guard against litigation similar to the old Caveat Emptor used by Agents to admonish them from having accurate sales particulars. The surveying industry doesnt want the responsibilty of underwriting all these areas, so these recommendations are get out of jail free cards to protect them from the buyer and lender if later there are issues.

From: Matthew Payne 22 November 2019 13:34 PM

Another example of why the proposed rushed introduction of reservation agreements wont work in a practical sense which was nicely summarised in a Property Industry Eye article on 28 March. Relevant to this point why they won't work is due to a lack of full legal disclosure by vendors that makes them accountable. At best most vendors won't voluntarily highlight all the problems with their property, at worst, a good number deliberately conceal issues and hope they can get their sale over the line without a fall through or price reduction. I know 2 people near me currently with properties sold, one with a historic nasty boundary dispute with the neighbour, and the other with a big drainage issue. Neither matter disclosed to either buyer at the point of sale, and as it currently stands I havent seen anything that would protect either buyers reservation deposit in these cases when they decide to withdraw further down the line. If the MHCLG is genuinely only looking to stop people changing their minds as it is claimed, there needs to be complete transparency in place for that to happen. Too much smoke and mirrors as it stands that will only see far more cases in the Courts as people fight to recover these deposits.

From: Matthew Payne 19 November 2019 11:09 AM

Everyone's views are understandably influenced by the RM rate they are paying and whether they feel that is good value or not. A cooperative approach is the only way to tackle these price rises for independents anytime soon, which is effectively all the corporates have done. 600 branches, 800 branches carry a lot of negotiating muscle and they use it. RM won’t care about losing a handful of smaller agents who protest, and if anything, that adds fuel to the fire as they hike their prices even more the following year to those that are left to compensate. Rightmove has created this monster but not because of expense alone, but due to a very inconsistent and perverse charging model applied very differently to small independent and large corporate agents along with the fear factor its historic dominance has allowed them to create, that it is a necessity in your businesses if you want to succeed. A 1 branch independent agent is paying as much as 11 times more per branch than the biggest agents after they have had their corporate discount applied which they can also fix for 3 years, so the largest agents can choose to invest the saving in other marketing campaigns that generate them better quality leads from elsewhere, hence they are never critical of what it costs. (I know what they charged me as an independent and then when we became part of a corporate) Further, the rates quoted to the smallest agencies are so inconsistent, some might think RM is charging whatever they think they can get away with, as the fear with the smaller agents as with newspaper advertising 15 years ago, is RM is something they cannot manage without, and will destroy their business if they don’t have it. The more fear RM smell at each review meeting, the more expensive it gets. Ever wondered why they don't have a rate card and always want to agree new terms in a meeting? So, food for thought when you consider whether it’s worth the risk to leave… Firstly, the world isn't dependent on any portals property or otherwise anymore or has a loyalty to any particular app or website and clearly Zoopla has woken up to that. Apple, Google and others have made it so easy for us not to need to. The high tech has moved on monumentally in the last 5 years let alone the last 19. Google is only 2 years older than RM but look at how much it does now, how advanced it has become. When I look for property or anything for that matter I use Google, Siri if I’m out and about, not any particular portal and I get to see all of what I am looking for wherever it is listed, whatever website, and more people are doing the same. I used to go on particular sites, but search engine reliability has improved so much, and it is so much quicker. It’s a similar challenge for Amazon, I used to go there as my default, but I now trust Google to send me to the right places, give me the best choices, and I don’t shop on Amazon half as much as I used to, because in fact it’s not the cheapest place or has the best products all the time as they like RM would have you believe. Secondly, independently, if you are developing your own customer capture and engagement strategy at a local level in your communities and more broadly digitally with search engines always in mind, you can service the public to a large extent yourselves anyway, now that some (not all) of the Proptech that is out there has been road tested, improved and works. A combination of these means you will be able get in front of customers without dependence on RM, and perhaps that is what a lot of commentators here are finding. If you are already on Zoopla or OTM your properties will be easily found out there and on your own site, and a minimum £3000 a month saving for a small agency gives them a lot of options to do other things. Thirdly, consider the digital generations. My teenage kids don't use PCs anymore or type unless forced to, that's not even a cultural necessity for young people now to search for stuff they want to find, it’s all voice driven, Siri & Google Home. They don't know any different, they look at me with my laptop, typing away, sending emails manually, using the telephone like I'm some dinosaur. They run their lives front to back digitally through Google, Snapchat, Insta and YouTube. That’s it. No text messages, no browsers, no apps, no phone calls, no emails, no print media. They are your customers in about 5 years’ time, some older ones already are, are you ready for them? I note that most agents don’t have Insta or Snapchat accounts, some are not yet even on Facebook, or they are but never post anything, so maybe not. Soon will be the glasses with a heads-up virtual display in front of your eyes walking down the street, it’s not long. Apps have become passe already, who uses them, websites are mobile optimised, I’ve deleted most of mine? Thought tech is already here in the new F35, that’s next. Think Tony Stark, you will think or request 3 bed houses in Doncaster and they will appear in front of you in the middle of your kitchen for you to pull apart like virtual lego, and it’s not that far fetched. Google will take the lead role no doubt as always. RM was invented at a time when us 40 somethings were young and even we don’t use it anymore like we used to. Unless they have a secret masterplan, a revolutionary game changer about to be announced then they barely have no place in the lives of Gen Y and no chance whatsoever with Gen Z, they simply don’t communicate or operate digitally in a way that RM needs or expects them to. Should precious marketing resources be better spent elsewhere in context of value and relevance?

From: Matthew Payne 13 November 2019 22:23 PM

Is it any coincidence that the removal started in 2008 when the business was no doubt short of cash like many were, and desperate times for some businesses meant desperate measures. They have now returned the cash, but was it just cash? Where was this cash injection reflected in their accounts, did they take it all to revenue as well? If they did that's a £10m write off that needs to be reflected on top.

From: Matthew Payne 30 October 2019 16:20 PM

I wish her well, but I am not sure I understand her ambition for the next 2 years when she says she would be pleased to replicate the pace of the last 6 months which has been a 6 fold increase in that time, she cannot be referring to another 250 listings. That still only gets them to a revenue of £448k. And based on these numbers that supposedly would make an operating profit of £300k? What are these 65 people and herself being paid if costs are so low? Either way the model will have to change. They need a 20 fold increase in listings very quickly or their fees need to increase significantly. Same historic conundrum all online agents face.

From: Matthew Payne 29 October 2019 13:44 PM

A lot of established brokers struggle to justify fees of £400-£700, so I am not quite sure how a new business trying to establish some market share and credibility with customers is going to charge what I assume will be a fee higher than this if it is being branded as a one off lifetime fee, and force people at the same time to commit to them forever. Who commits to any contractual arrangement for life with their accountant, solicitor, insurer, and yes mortgage broker?

From: Matthew Payne 29 October 2019 11:21 AM

It needs resolving but adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already painfully slow process is not the solution. Buyer and vendor behaviour are a symptom of a broken system, not the system has become broken by their behaviour. Think of the practicalities of this proposal that would affect normal everyday people. A buyer can’t be expected to commit blindly to a transaction for 19 weeks, on the back of a handshake, with the vendor providing them with very little detail about what they are buying, hence they do their due diligence. In the 90s, things happened a lot quicker, a search took 2 weeks at most, an expedited search 48 hours, you could get a freehold deal over the line in 4 weeks. Unless you get the vendor to provide full disclosure, a survey in advance, to sign an affidavit that there have been no material omissions then there is still so much to establish, especially on leaseholds, hence subject to contract, subject to survey. Likewise, a vendor cannot be expected to make the same commitments for different reasons for 19 weeks, to a buyer who drags their heels. Does a buyer need to demonstrate their financial capabilities in the same way? Do you then need to go all the way down or up a chain to do the same thing? Then there is other mitigation, in a third of a year, a lot of life stuff can go on, people lose their jobs, get promoted, get pregnant, become ill, there could be many innocent and legitimate reasons why buyers and vendors could no longer honour their commitments. In the real world away from affluent parts of London where buyers and sellers no doubt keep £1000 in loose change in the centre arm console of their Bentleys, £1000 is a huge sum of money to jeopardise on a system that needs fundamental reform. Why should the average UK buyer spending less than £250,000 and saving sometimes for years to pull their deposit together, be told they have to put down a £1000 deposit that they will lose if they don’t proceed, which more often than not is not simply because they have changed their minds, hardly ever in fact. It’s title defects, survey results, down valuations, collapsed chains, search results, neighbours, personal challenges meaning they can no longer buy (or sell) at all because it has taken so long. The list is endless and one you can’t legislate for. If you do allow a huge list people will just declare that reason anyway, nothing will change. If you deny any mitigation list at all, you will punish people for things beyond their control. People will quickly work it out and the market will grind to a halt from the bottom up, people won’t move. It feels like a cottage industry is being created again like HIPs just to make some cash, not solve a problem. The wagons are circling, I note there are already a few companies popping up ready to go with these agreements. The focus should be on getting all stakeholders together lenders, lawyers, councils, agents, HMG and establishing how it can be done as quickly as it was 20 years ago, not force people to accept the current broken system because it’s quick and easy.

From: Matthew Payne 22 October 2019 12:08 PM

Like with anything the government has introduced in the recent past it has to be properly stress tested, something they havent done with many pieces of legislation in the PRS which has had a negative fallout on tenants as many predicted for example. We have seen a similar attempt at this in the past with HIPs that failed spectacularly. Any beta testing should very much include whether it would further reduce transaction numbers which is a real possiblilty. I put together 1000s of deals over years gone by, with persuasion, one off viewings, local VIP work, spotaneity many of which would not have happened if I had been asking people for £1000 up front and where they may not get it back. One of the biggest challenges is always how a fall through is determined. Reasons can be manipluated by buyers and vendors, and then there are countless other mitigations, loss of employment, divorce, bereavement, promotions at work, illness that may influence why a buyer or vendor does not proceed. Defining fault/blame fairly seems like an impossible task especially as one comment has already suggested. How do you determine what is a bad survey result for example? Is there such a thing as a clean survey on a Victorian property, they have all got a bit of damp or loose roof slates. Some buyers pull out over such things, others will use them as excuses to pull out if they have seen a better property. I can't see how there can a workable template, there are too many variables, but if you make it too black and white, ie pull out or dont pull out, then tranasction numbers will plummet.

From: Matthew Payne 21 October 2019 10:07 AM

Breaking News