x

Nick Richards

2885 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Nick's Recent Activity

I think you mean Westward Ho!, not Westward Ho :)

From: Nick Richards 03 December 2021 10:10 AM

Problem is, I don't think I have ever heard of your website until now, I don't think I've ever seen it suggested in any web searches and I'm pretty sure I haven't ever heard another agent or client mention it either. So, I just took a look. And I'm not that impressed with it either. It looks quite dated - and the tenancy fees you quote on properties are so dated, that they're illegal!... "Admin Fees The asking rent does not include letting fees. Depending on your circumstances and the property you select, the letting agent may also apply the following upfront fees: general administration fees reference fees (including credit checks, bank, guarantor, previous landlord, etc) application fees fees for drawing up tenancy agreements inventory fees, including check-in and check-out fees guarantor arrangement/application fees additional occupant fees pets disclaimer fees/additional pet deposit Fees may be charged on a per person, or per property, basis and will vary from agent to agent, so confirm before viewing." You have an awful lot to get right before you can make any sort if impact and for that you're going to need more cash from somewhere.

From: Nick Richards 19 November 2019 12:02 PM

Um... FindaProperty seven years ago... look for this on YouTube 'Find a Property iPhone App - Augmented Reality'.

From: Nick Richards 06 February 2019 11:11 AM

It's a shame they cannot spell 'launching' correctly.

From: Nick Richards 09 December 2016 10:17 AM

Probably time to get rid of all those globrix and Findaproperty stickers and logos too then?! Where's me scraper?...

From: Nick Richards 03 August 2016 10:51 AM

Great headline there. Nice work.

From: Nick Richards 10 June 2016 10:52 AM

If estate agents choose to display their fees, either as an amount or a percentage, are they not also legally obliged to make them inclusive of VAT, as per the Consumer Act of last year?! Thus, if the agents in question are actually displaying/advertising their fees, but not making them inclusive of VAT, then they are in breach of the law. Funny that there has been no mention of this so far.

From: Nick Richards 14 April 2016 12:33 PM

I'm sorry, but after watching the portal 'wars' and their impact on agency business over the last few years, I must comment on this... Lots of new portals tried to enter the existing market place, but pretty much all failed. Anyone remember the much vaunted Look4aProperty, backed by James Caan? - try to find any trace of it now - it's long dead. NeedaProperty succumbed too; it's only live now as Hauser bought the domain and technology. Others came and went too, or are barely clinging on somewhere - and I remember Google themselves getting in on the act, but then giving up once they realised what they had gotten themselves into. Zoopla would have been one of the also-rans too, if it hadn't been for the fact that the already established Property Finder was put up for sale. Before acquiring PF, Zoopla was rarely visited and looked like it was going nowhere, but then once they bought PF, they suddenly had all of PF's traffic. They were than able to consolidate this and through some clever mergers and acquisitions, incl with DPG, they reached the number 2 spot. If DPG had instead got their hands on PF, then they would still be the number 2 and Zoopla would be a footnote somewhere. And this is why Ian's policy of '1 other portal' makes perfect sense. With all the agents and thus all the properties pretty much found on either RM or Zoopla, why would a house hunter look anywhere else? Agents Mutual would find it nigh on impossible to gain any traction, unless they bought an already established and visited portal - and there were none left! And a 'no other portal' rule just wouldn't work - not for a brand new portal that needs to have some time to enter the public's consciousness. In short, RM milk us, Zoopla got lucky when they managed to buy PF - and then a little while later started to milk us. At least AM are trying to redress the balance somewhat and give us back some control; we just need to ride with it until the recognition and search engine listing picks up even more.

From: Nick Richards 27 July 2015 12:41 PM

I'm no fan of Foxtons (they are typical daft hair, fat tie estate/letting agents), but referring to the pub as '250-year-old' is really like Trigger in Only Fools and Horses having the same brush his entire career. The pub name may be 250-years-old, but the building it is in is from the 1960s and the actual pub itself is an absolute dump. It makes the pub in Shameless look like a Gordon Ramsey restaurant.

From: Nick Richards 05 June 2015 11:27 AM

Breaking News