PPS’s Response Reinforces Our Concerns
This is posted as a separate review only because the edit function did not appear to accommodate the addendum we wished to make to our original review. It relates specifically to PPS’s public response and their post-settlement characterisation of events. Our original review, remains intact.
We do not propose to re-run the entire dispute here, but PPS’s response contains statements that should not be left uncorrected.
First, we have not previously sold a business through PPS. We bought our business through PPS over 11 years ago. Separately, my brother-in-law sold a business through PPS, and my husband assisted him as liaison during an extremely difficult personal period. That was a separate matter involving different clients. It is not the same as us personally selling through PPS before, nor does it justify the claim that we had a “complete and proven understanding” of how PPS would later apply its terms in a failed transaction.
PPS says its contracts are explicit and that it acted with complete transparency. Our concern was how the terms were explained and then later applied where no sale completed. PPS’s own email dated 30 October 2025 stated that their “fixed fee of £3,700 + VAT will be due upon a successful completion of the sale.” That condition was never met.
No sale completed. No contracts were exchanged. No premium or sale proceeds were received.
PPS refers to “qualified buyers” at full asking price, but neither proceeded to a completed sale. Describing them as qualified does not change the outcome.
We do not accept that we “stalled” transactions or suddenly changed our story. The possibility of staff involvement was mentioned from our initial communication in July 2025 and again later. It was not a new explanation invented after PPS pursued its fee.
PPS also refers to “immense effort” and “hard work already completed”. For balance, PPS arranged two viewings. Neither resulted in a completed sale. We provided the photographs and listing wording ourselves, and PPS did not attend the property.
The suggestion that a family bereavement was mentioned “solely to inflict reputational damage” is particularly unpleasant. It was part of the real-life context in which this dispute unfolded. To dismiss it publicly in that way says more about PPS’s approach than it does about our review.
PPS says it offered “significantly reduced figures” to settle matters amicably. That is not a fair reflection of our experience. Had there been a genuinely meaningful reduced offer at an early stage, this matter would very likely have settled without court proceedings, mediation, debt recovery involvement or public reviews. At mediation, there was no meaningful movement on the principal sum.
Settlement was not acceptance that PPS’s interpretation was correct. We paid pragmatically to end a time-consuming dispute. The matter was settled; it was not judicially determined.
Since PPS has chosen to raise settlement publicly, it is also fair to record that PPS requested payment to a third party rather than to the named claimant, despite no assignment or court direction being provided to us. That position changed after it was challenged.
A Yell review was temporarily hidden following a report. After we provided supporting correspondence, Yell reinstated it.
Since posting our reviews, a number of business owners have contacted us asking for further detail. Where appropriate, we have provided relevant correspondence so that they can review the documents for themselves and make their own informed decision about whether to instruct PPS.
PPS’s response has not caused us to doubt our review. It has provided readers with a further example of the tone, framing and selective presentation of events that caused us concern in the first place.
16. september 2026
Uopfordret anmeldelse
