HomeXperts

Five Fibre score: 5/100. Assess 5/20, Build 0/20, Launch 0/20, Grow 0/20, Amplify 0/20.

HomeXperts scores 5/100 on currently verified franchise-specific evidence, within the Not Franchise Ready band. The principal finding is an unresolved network-continuity issue rather than a judgement that the surviving Worcester estate agency delivers poor service. The original franchisor’s insolvency is verified, while the active consumer website belongs to a different local corporate entity. Old franchise systems cannot be credited as current without establishing who now operates and supports the network.

Companies House identifies Home Xperts Limited, company 06914336, as incorporated in May 2009 and dissolved on 1 October 2024. The Gazette’s published insolvency schedule identifies the same company trading as HomeXperts, with a creditors’ voluntary liquidation appointment on 29 April 2019. This is a direct match to the historic franchising business, rather than an unrelated company-name resemblance. It materially changes how the earlier recruitment material should be interpreted.

Separately, Homexperts Worcester (J & G Properties) Ltd, company 14554475, is active and was incorporated in December 2022. The Property Ombudsman links that company number, the Worcester address and homexpertsuk.com. The current website identifies Jason and Gaya Barnett and markets local sales and lettings, with property listings and customer enquiries. Those sources establish a surviving local agency. They do not establish a replacement franchisor, an acquired national franchise agreement portfolio or a current network of independent owners.

• Assess priority: establish the present network and rights holder before assessing expansion. The historical franchise is real and well documented, unlike a company whose franchise designation has never been evidenced. However, a current local operator retaining a brand is not enough to prove ongoing network support or a valid new-owner opportunity. Identify any successor franchisor, the relevant agreements, the current owner roster and the support actually delivered. Until that is verified, the score cannot assume the historic commercial model remains available.

• Build priority: distinguish historic infrastructure from current provision. The older offer described an operations manual, extensive online documents, training videos, a central call centre, lettings assistance and business development support. The 2016 EWiF account also discusses technology and support-team investment. These are meaningful historical facts. They are not evidence that those resources remain accessible to current franchisees after insolvency. A login on the Worcester consumer site is not automatically the former franchise operating hub.

• Launch priority: stop old recruitment copy standing in for a present offer. Point Franchise and the professional company page still describe the opportunity and discovery meetings. The LinkedIn text explicitly discusses recruitment in 2015, showing why a recent search crawl does not make the underlying content current. The present consumer website does not provide an authoritative ownership package or current mutual selection route. Property valuations and landlord consultations are customer journeys, not franchise discovery.

• Grow priority: resolve eligibility before building a recruitment improvement plan. Historical press mentions new owner intake, national ambition and an expansion plan into Scotland. Those reports do not establish current monthly enquiries, source quality, conversion or available territories. Nor can current property leads be counted as potential franchise owners. The relevant next evidence is confirmation of an operating franchisor and its recruitment responsibilities, not a campaign designed to increase enquiries for an unverified opportunity.

• Amplify priority: identify which independent owners, if any, receive current support. Worcester’s property listings, contact details, valuation route and client reviews demonstrate a local customer offer. They do not prove national owner coverage or a continuing central acquisition programme. Earlier portal, social media and marketing support may have been valuable to the historic franchise, but its present operation must be established. Any valid network assessment would then connect seller and landlord demand to instructions, completion, management retention and net contribution at each owner level.

The old public material also contains inconsistent estate and cost descriptions. One directory shows thirty-six locations, while the old professional profile refers to more than forty-five personal agents; neither is a verified current active-owner count. Historical advertised invoiced commission, including a strong month at an exceptional operator, is not owner take-home profit. Older entry fees, operating charges, funding terms and qualification packages are not reproduced as a currently purchasable offer or used to infer present financial viability.

The original brand history identifies Sussanne Chambers as founder, with the concept developed in 2009 and franchising described from 2010. This is supported by contemporary interviews and award-organiser coverage. The workbook’s separate founder field currently names different people without supporting evidence in the sources reviewed. That discrepancy is flagged here rather than silently changing the unauthorised leadership column. Equally, Jason and Gaya Barnett’s present local involvement must not be relabelled as founding the national franchise.

The current recruitment-status field already says Inactive, while Publishing Status remains Published. The earlier franchise-status review appears to have treated continuing agency activity as evidence that the network survived. The present corporate and ombudsman evidence shows why those are different questions. The record should receive a separate publishing-status review unless an authoritative current successor network can be verified. This assessment does not change the status field because only the assessment and research-source columns are authorised in this task.

The zero allocations in Build, Launch, Grow and Amplify mean that current franchise-specific provision was not verified. They do not erase the documented historical systems or assert that current local operators have no expertise, technology or customers. Similarly, the low overall band is a rubric result under the present eligibility uncertainty, not a consumer warning about the Worcester agency or a claim that every former owner stopped trading when the franchisor entered liquidation.

The practical outcome is to prevent a live local business, stale recruitment pages and a dissolved franchisor from being combined into a fictional current national opportunity. Preserve the historic evidence, establish any successor relationship and then decide the Index status through the correct authorised process. Recruiting more owners or assigning points for obsolete infrastructure would not resolve that underlying issue.