Key Facts
| Company name | Spring Move |
|---|---|
| Also trading as | Spring; Spring Move; Springmove |
| Companies House no. | 12112825 |
| Incorporated | 19 July 2019 |
| Year founded | 2007 |
| Corporate structure | Standalone private limited company |
| SIC code | 68100 |
| Operating model | Direct cash buyer (mixed internal/external funding) |
| Geographic coverage | UK-wide from Croydon headquarters |
| Typical offer | Unknown |
| Typical timeline | Marketing and review evidence suggest very fast cases can complete in around 7 days to 2 weeks, but some cases take materially longer depending on chain and transaction complexity. |
| Legal fees | Unknown |
| TPO member | Yes |
| NAPB member | Yes |
| Official website | springmove.co.uk |
PSW Company Index
Three independent measures, built from verifiable data rather than the company's marketing: how its offer compares with the cash-buyer sector, how quickly it completes, and how openly it operates. Every input is shown so you can check the working.
Transparency signals
Good-practice signals
- Member of The Property Ombudsman (TPO)
- Member of the NAPB
- Complaints procedure published
- Typical offer level disclosed
- Data protection / privacy in place
- Independent redress / ombudsman route
- Legal fees policy stated
Contract red flags
- Conditional or hidden fees noted
- Late price-reduction pattern
- Tie-in / exclusivity required
- Early contract before completion
- Requires use of their solicitors
- Restricts marketing elsewhere
- Exit penalties mentioned
How these are calculated. Offer Fairness ranks the company's stated offer (as a % of market value) within the cash-buyer sector — all cash offers are below open-market value. Completion Speed is the fastest completion the company advertises, shown as a fact, not a score, because most firms advertise a similar best case; confirm any timescale in writing. Transparency adds points for TPO/NAPB membership, a published complaints procedure, a disclosed offer level, data-protection registration, an independent redress route and a stated legal-fees policy, and deducts for contract red flags; only publicly verifiable signals score. Full methodology.
Company Overview
Spring appears to operate as a substantial residential property trader and home-buying operator rather than a simple lead-generation site. The latest audited accounts state that the principal activity continued to be property trading, with turnover arising from property sales and property stock held for sale on the balance sheet. The strategic report also points to activity in home buying, part exchange and related growth initiatives. Reviews suggest that the model works across several routes in practice: direct purchase, part exchange, chain repair, partner referrals and onward resale of acquired stock. Multiple reviews from agents and partners describe Spring owning or controlling properties for resale, while homeowner reviews describe guaranteed-sale style transactions and licence-to-occupy arrangements after completion. Taken together, the evidence suggests a hybrid operating model: Spring appears able to buy directly, but also works through partner-driven and transaction-management routes rather than relying on one simple “cash buyer” path.
Products, Services & Process
Property types accepted
Residential — any condition
- Contact the company by phone or online form to provide property details.
- Receive a no-obligation indicative cash offer, typically within 24 hours.
- If the offer is of interest, a formal valuation is carried out.
- A formal offer is made. If accepted, solicitors are instructed.
- Choose a completion date to suit your circumstances.
- Contracts exchanged and funds transferred on the agreed date.
Fees & Pricing
Spring’s pricing appears to be based on an underwriting model rather than a simple estate-agent market appraisal. Historic review replies and the accounts evidence suggest use of independent valuations, surveyor input, comparable sales, internal underwriting and marketability assumptions. The accounts also state that stock valuation relies on external valuations by chartered surveyors, and note that properties are typically purchased at around 85% of market value. Reviews show a split pattern: many successful customers describe the offer as fair within the context of speed, certainty and chain resolution, while dissatisfied reviewers often focus on low offers, use of lower or time-constrained valuations, or disappointment that the final offer did not match headline expectations. The recurring pattern suggests that Spring prices risk, speed, resale margin and transaction complexity into the offer rather than aiming to match open-market value. That can make the service attractive for sellers prioritising certainty and timing, but frustrating for sellers expecting a price close to the ordinary marketed sale value.
What Offer to Expect
Cash-buying companies pay below the open market in exchange for speed and certainty. The benchmarks below are worked on the current UK average house price of £270,080 (HM Land Registry / ONS UK House Price Index, June 2026). Your own figure depends on your property's value and condition.
On the UK-average £270,080 home, a cash offer works out at roughly £203,000–£230,000. Open-market figure is before agent and legal fees. Source: HM Land Registry / ONS UK House Price Index, June 2026.
| Route | Typical proceeds | On a £270,080 home | Typical speed | Sale falls through? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash-buying company | 75–85% of market value | £203,000–£230,000 | 7–28 days | Very low |
| Open-market sale (estate agent) | Close to full market value, minus agent & legal fees | ~£270,080 less fees | about 5–6 months (≈25 weeks) | roughly 25–35% (about 1 in 3) |
Offers can fall below 70% for properties needing significant work.
Benchmarks: HM Land Registry / ONS UK House Price Index; Rightmove; Zoopla; Propertymark; TwentyCi. The cash-offer range reflects independent consumer guidance, not figures supplied by cash-buying companies. Illustrative only — verified June 2026.
Cash Sale vs Estate Agent vs Auction
How the three main ways to sell a home compare on the factors that matter most to sellers.
Spring Move's figure is its advertised fastest completion — confirm any timescale in writing. Approximate time from agreement (or listing, for the open market) to completion. Sources: Rightmove; Zoopla; Propertymark; TwentyCi.
| Factor | Cash-buying company | Estate agent (open market) | Auction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical proceeds | 75–85% of market value | Close to full market value (minus fees) | Variable — reserve plus hammer price |
| Typical timeline | 7–28 days | about 5–6 months (≈25 weeks) | ~6–10 weeks (incl. 28-day completion) |
| Sale falls through? | Very low | roughly 25–35% (about 1 in 3) | around 15% |
| Fees to you | Usually none — buyer covers legal costs | Agent commission (~1–2%+VAT), legal, EPC | Auction/entry fees, legal pack |
| Effort required | Minimal | Viewings, staging, chain management | Legal pack, viewings, reserve setting |
Sources: Propertymark; TwentyCi (fall-through); Rightmove; Zoopla (timelines); HM Land Registry / ONS UK House Price Index (prices). Verified June 2026.
Funding & Completion Stability
Springmove’s accounts show a sizeable operating business, with turnover of £77.6m, property stock of £59.4m and active trading in residential property. That supports the view that this is a real transactional operator rather than a light-touch introducer. However, the same accounts also show net current liabilities and negative net assets at year end. The notes indicate reliance on parent/group support, and the accounting policies and balance sheet show meaningful use of bank borrowing and group funding. This suggests completion capacity is not best described as simple “own cash only” buying. Instead, Spring appears to operate with meaningful funding support and lender/group dependence. That does not prove instability in any given deal, and the audited accounts were prepared on a going concern basis. But structurally, the company appears more funding-dependent than a debt-free balance-sheet buyer. For PSW purposes, this points to a nuanced position: operational scale and active trading are clear strengths, while funding dependence and deficit balance sheet mean sellers should clarify which entity is buying, how the transaction is funded, and when an offer becomes fully formal.
Reviews & Reputation
Review patterns are mixed but broadly service-positive. Recent positive reviews heavily emphasise communication, speed, part exchange, chain repair and partner/agent relationships. A notable share of praise appears to come from estate agents, developers or other intermediaries rather than only direct sellers. Negative reviews recur around offer level, valuation methodology, delays in cases that did not proceed, and dissatisfaction where the expected price and actual offer diverged sharply. The overall pattern suggests Spring performs strongly on transaction handling and partner-led solutions, but pricing remains the main friction point in less successful seller experiences.
- Part-exchange specialist — strong fit for new build developers
- Claims £300m guaranteed funding
- No fees or hassle compared to traditional sale
What reviewers praise
- Early reviews reference very low offers — some sellers reported large deductions
- Limited review presence outside Trustpilot
- Limited independent review evidence
Common complaints
Complaints & Common Issues
Public evidence gives a clearer picture of practical transaction control than of formal legal drafting. Reviews suggest Spring can offer structured moving solutions such as licence to occupy after completion, part exchange and chain repair. That implies Spring may take a more interventionist role in transaction management than a simple introducer. At the same time, the evidence reviewed here does not clearly establish whether Spring uses exclusivity agreements, option agreements, assignment/novation clauses, or other restrictive contractual devices as a routine feature. Public-facing review responses do show that pricing can remain conditional on valuation, survey inputs and transaction circumstances, and some historic negative reviews describe late-stage pressure or attempts to revise terms. Those reviews do not prove a standardised contract model, but they do suggest that sellers should not assume the initial commercial understanding is the final binding position until legal documents are issued and checked. The strongest PSW conclusion is that Spring appears capable of controlling and progressing transactions operationally, but the documentary evidence currently reviewed is not enough to state the exact level of seller lock-in or contractual flexibility across all cases.
Customer Support
| Phone | Not published — see official website |
|---|---|
| Not published — contact via website form | |
| Response time | Within 24 hours |
Regulatory & Compliance
Company History & Timeline
- 2007Incorporated: 19 July 2019
Ownership & Leadership
| Current directors | C Henderson; S D Miller-Bourke; S Shaheryar. |
|---|---|
| Prior related entities | Yes Springmove Limited appears to sit within a wider group structure. Earlier reviewed public material in this chat also linked the trading operation to Spring Operations Limited and group parents including Olympia Partners / NPT-linked entities. |
| Registered address | Sunley House, Bedford Park, Croydon, CR0 2AP. |
Spring Move vs Alternatives
How Spring Move compares with other independently profiled cash buyers on the terms sellers ask about most. Figures are drawn from each company's own Property Sale Watchdog profile and reflect the same assessment methodology.
| Factor | Spring Move (this profile) | The Property Buying Company | Open Property Group | We Buy Any Home |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical offer | Unknown | Typically 15%–35%+ below market (based on reviews) | Below market / variable. Review evidence includes sellers who explicitly accepted a lowe… | Commonly marketed as up to c.80–85% of market value; review evidence suggests some outco… |
| Typical timeline | Marketing and review evidence suggest very fast cases can complete in around 7 days to 2… | Advertised fast (7–28 days); reviews suggest often longer or variable | Marketed as within 7 days, sometimes 24 hours or 6 weeks; review evidence ranges from un… | Headline claim: around 7 days or less / in a timeframe that suits the seller; review evi… |
| Legal fees | Unknown | Free | Free | Seller pays own |
| TPO member | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| NAPB member | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PSW risk rating | Medium Risk | Medium Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk |
All comparison companies are independently profiled on Property Sale Watchdog. Compare key terms, memberships and risk ratings before committing to any single buyer.
View The Property Buying Company profile → View Open Property Group profile → View We Buy Any Home profile →
Pros & Cons
Pros
- Specialist part-exchange capability for new-build buyers
- Claims £300m guaranteed funding — strong financial backing signal
- TPO and NAPB member
- Recent Trustpilot reviews are predominantly positive
Cons
- Earlier reviews reference very low offers — some sellers report large unexpected deductions
- Limited review presence outside Trustpilot
Frequently Asked Questions
Spring Move is registered at Companies House (number 12112825). TPO status: Yes. NAPB status: Yes. Sellers should verify proof of funds and the contracting entity before proceeding.
The typical offer range for Spring Move is not clearly published. Sellers should request a formal offer and compare it against independent estate agent valuations before deciding.
Based on publicly available information, Spring Move states typical completion is Marketing and review evidence suggest very fast cases can complete in around 7 days to 2 weeks, but some cases take materially longer depending on chain and transaction complexity.. Actual timelines may vary depending on property type, legal complexity, and the route used.
Spring Move TPO membership: Yes. NAPB membership: Yes. Both organisations require members to follow a code of practice and provide sellers with an independent redress route. Sellers should verify membership status directly with the relevant bodies.
Based on available information, Spring Move’s legal fee policy is: Unknown. Sellers should confirm this directly with the company and check whether any conditions apply to legal fee coverage.
The late price reduction pattern for Spring Move is recorded as: Occasional. Sellers should ask the company to confirm the formal offer in writing, clarify what conditions could cause the price to change, and at what stage the offer becomes legally binding.
Spring Move primarily buys residential properties in any condition across the UK. The company states it will consider properties regardless of condition. Sellers with unusual or commercial properties should confirm eligibility directly with the company.
Sellers whose main priority is achieving the best possible price should be cautious. The evidence suggests Spring’s offers are driven by underwriting, speed assumptions, resale risk and transaction complexity, not by a straightforward “what would this fetch on the open market?” approach. Sellers should also be cautious if they are relying on headline valuation estimates, online calculators or broa…
Who This Suits & Who Should Be Cautious
May suit sellers who…
This structure may suit sellers who place more weight on certainty, speed, chain resolution or move management than on achieving the highest possible open-market sale price. It may also suit people using part exchange, trying to secure a new-build or retirement move, or dealing with a fragile onward purchase where the practical benefit of becoming chain-free matters more than price maximisation. The repeated references to licence to occupy suggest the model may also suit sellers who need more flexibility around physically moving out after legal completion. Spring may be particularly relevant where a normal sale has already fallen through or where an estate agent, developer or partner has referred the case into a structured solution. The clearest fit appears to be for homeowners who understand the discount-for-certainty trade-off and want an operator that can actively manage the transaction rather than simply make an introduction.
Be cautious if you…
Sellers whose main priority is achieving the best possible price should be cautious. The evidence suggests Spring’s offers are driven by underwriting, speed assumptions, resale risk and transaction complexity, not by a straightforward “what would this fetch on the open market?” approach. Sellers should also be cautious if they are relying on headline valuation estimates, online calculators or broad marketing language without first understanding how Spring arrives at its working valuation and final net offer. Cases involving fragile onward chains may produce offers that reflect chain-saving value more than headline market value, which may not suit every homeowner. More broadly, because the reviewed evidence does not fully establish the contract structure used in every case, sellers should clarify the buying entity, level of commitment, any exclusivity or control clauses, whether marketing elsewhere remains allowed, and exactly when an offer becomes binding and no longer subject to revision.