Property & WEG Management
PayProp
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by PayProp (Humanstate) · www.payprop.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
PayProp at a glance
- Vendor
- PayProp (Humanstate)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates PayProp 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. PayProp positions itself as property management software and a rental payment platform for letting agents — rent collection, real-time reconciliation and client accounts, not community administration. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
PayProp positions itself as property management software and a rental payment platform for letting agents — rent collection, real-time reconciliation and client accounts, not community administration. Its strongest area is maintenance and defects: repair ticket management is stated outright and contractor payments run through the Reapit integration. Five of six judges scored 3 there; the WEG administrator judge scored 0, seeing only defect intake and no public information on recurring statutory inspections or warranty periods. Community accounting and assembly and resolutions sit at 0 throughout, with no public information on a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys, reserve funds, owners' meetings or a resolution register. Owner self-service scored 0 to 2, resting on tenant-facing arrears reminders and a tenant-portal page captured without detail. Sovereignty scored 0 to 1: PayProp Ltd and Reapit Ltd are registered in England and Wales under the UK Information Commissioner's Office, and the policy documents transfers to group companies in countries such as the United States, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. The only pricing statement captured is "No long-term contracts".
Speaks for it
- Maintenance and repair ticket management is stated directly in the product.
- Contractor invoices and payments are automated through the Reapit integration.
- Incoming and outgoing transactions are automated in real time, with client accounts.
- Tenant arrears are managed through text and e-mail reminders.
- No long-term contracts are offered.
Held against it
- No public information on a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys or reserve funds held for a community.
- No public information on convening owners' meetings, recording votes or maintaining a resolution register.
- Contracting entities PayProp Ltd and Reapit Ltd are registered in England and Wales, with the UK Information Commissioner's Office named as supervisory authority.
- The privacy policy documents transfers of personal information to group companies in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
- No public information on document storage, version history, retention for community records or a handover export for a successor administrator.
Best for
- You run a UK letting agency and want automated rent collection, real-time reconciliation and payments.
- Your maintenance workflow is repair ticket intake with contractor invoices and payments handled alongside.
- You chase tenant arrears by text and e-mail and prefer no long-term contracts.
Avoid if
- You administer a German owners' community and need a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys and reserve funds held in trust.
- You must convene owners' meetings, record votes per agenda item and keep a resolution register.
- Your owners must log in for statements, documents and meeting papers, not only tenant arrears contact.
- Your community's records must stay with an EU entity or in a known hosting location.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage | 0 of 5 |
| Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung | 0 of 5 |
| Owner & tenant self-service | 1 of 5 |
| Maintenance, defects & contractors | 1.5 of 5 |
| Documents, retention & handover | 0.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The statutory financial cycle: business plan, annual settlement in the form the law and the BGH require, distribution keys, and the separate handling of reserve funds held in trust for the community.
0 — Not WEG accounting: general bookkeeping or a rental tool with no Wirtschaftsplan or Jahresabrechnung, or no accounting at all.
3 — Bookkeeping per property with templates or a basic generator for Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys entered per document.
5 — Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung generated from the bookings with configurable distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption), Hausgeld and reserves booked per community.
8 — Settlement in the post-2021 BGH form with the Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, Vermögensbericht produced, the Rücklage kept as a separate reserve with its own statement, heating-cost apportionment per HeizkostenV integrated, owner changes apportioned mid-year, and Hausgeld arrears tracked with dunning.
10 — The whole financial year is discharged inside the system: multi-community bookkeeping with strict per-WEG separation, trust accounting for reserves with its own reporting, settlement documents an accountant would sign, and the arithmetic auditable back to individual postings.
The WEG Administrator
The captured pages position this as rent-collection and reconciliation software for UK letting agents: client accounts, real-time reconciliation, and tenant arrears chased by text and e-mail. I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or reserve funds held in trust for a community. Nothing here would carry me through the March settlement run. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The vendor's own pages position this as payment software for UK letting agencies — rent collection, reconciliation and payments — and we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or reserve funds held for a community. As the owner who checks the settlement each year, there is nothing here whose arithmetic I could follow back to an invoice. 1
The Accountant
Everything captured positions this as a rental payment platform for letting agents — rent collection, real-time reconciliation, client accounts and tenant arrears — which is rental collection, not community accounting. I found no public information on a business plan, a statutory-form annual settlement with the settlement result shown separately, distribution keys, heating-cost apportionment, or reserve funds held in trust for a community. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Everything captured points at letting agencies: automated incoming and outgoing transactions, real-time reconciliation, client accounts and Making Tax Digital reporting for landlords. We found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or reserve funds held for a community — for my portfolios this is a rental payments tool, not WEG accounting. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages position this as a letting-agency platform for rent collection, reconciliation and payments, with Making Tax Digital reporting for UK landlords — a rental tool of a different kind. We found no public information on a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys or reserve funds held for a community. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages describe a rent-collection and payment platform for UK letting agencies — automated incoming and outgoing transactions, client accounts, arrears chasing by text and e-mail — and I found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement in the form German community law requires, distribution keys or a reserve held in trust. This is agent-side money plumbing, not community accounting. 1
Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Convening, running and recording the owners' meeting — including the resolution register the law requires the administrator to maintain, and the majority arithmetic that decides whether a resolution stands.
0 — No owners' meeting features at all; the product is not built for WEG administration.
3 — Invitation templates generated from owner data and minutes stored with the property.
5 — Invitations with an agenda sent to all owners, votes or attendance recorded per agenda item, and a Beschluss-Sammlung kept as a register in the system.
8 — Quorum and majority computed per resolution type including MEA-weighted and qualified majorities, proxies and voting restrictions handled, minutes generated from the recorded votes, and the register maintained continuously with amendment and invalidation notes as § 24 (7) WEG requires.
10 — The meeting is conducted in the system: hybrid or online meetings and written circulation procedures supported with their own legal rules, contested resolutions flagged within the challenge period, the register complete and exportable as evidence, and every entry traceable to the meeting that produced it.
The WEG Administrator
The positioning facts show a letting-agent rent platform, which is a different kind of tool from WEG administration, and this anchor level applies for exactly that reason. I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, recording votes per agenda item, or maintaining a Beschluss-Sammlung, let alone majority arithmetic or § 24 (7) WEG amendment notes. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages address letting agents and landlords, and we found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, recording votes or maintaining a Beschluss-Sammlung. Nothing in what was captured suggests the product is built for WEG administration at all, so the resolution register question does not arise. 1
The Accountant
The captured pages address letting agencies and tenancies throughout; I found no public information on convening or recording an owners' meeting, majority arithmetic, or a resolution register. A product whose own positioning is built for lettings is not built for community administration, and that is what the pages say. 1
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on convening or running owners' meetings, recording votes per agenda item, majority arithmetic or maintaining a Beschluss-Sammlung. The captured pages describe rent collection, arrears reminders and maintenance tickets for letting agencies, which is a different kind of tool from WEG administration. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The product is presented as software for letting agents, with tenancies, renewals and arrears as its documented concerns; we found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, recording votes or maintaining a resolution register. This is not built for WEG administration. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, recording votes per agenda item, or maintaining the resolution register an administrator is required to keep. The captured pages position the product for letting agencies, which is a different kind of tool from community administration. 1
Owner & tenant self-service
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How an owner exercises their right to see the records, and how much routine correspondence the portal removes: statements, documents, meeting papers, defect reporting.
0 — No portal or app for owners or tenants; the product is used by the administrator alone.
3 — A document area or app where owners or tenants can view documents shared with them.
5 — A portal or app with a personal login per owner and tenant showing their own documents and statements, plus a request or defect form that reaches the administrator.
8 — Owners and tenants scoped separately with correct visibility, meeting papers and voting available in the portal, defect reports with status visible to the reporter, and consumption or arrears shown per unit.
10 — The portal discharges the disclosure duty: every record an owner is entitled to see available on demand with an access log, tenant and owner views strictly separated, notifications for statutory deadlines, and enough self-service that routine correspondence largely disappears.
The WEG Administrator not rated — no public information
I found no public information on owner self-service. The captures include a tenant-portal page, but the confirmed facts say nothing about what an owner or tenant can see or do there — no login model, statements, meeting papers, or defect form appears — and everything else captured concerns letting agents collecting rent. 1 3
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages include a tenant portal page and describe arrears reminders reaching tenants by text and e-mail, so something tenant-facing exists — but we found no public information on an owner login, documents for owners, meeting papers or statements. For my neighbours and me, the right to inspect the community's records is not addressed anywhere on these pages. 3 1
The Accountant
The confirmed facts show tenants receiving text and e-mail arrears reminders — correspondence sent to tenants rather than a self-service area — and a tenant portal page appears among the captured pages though no facts from it were confirmed. I found no public information on personal logins per owner and tenant, document or statement access, meeting papers, or a defect form reaching the administrator. 1 3
The Portfolio Manager not rated — no public information
We found no public information on owner or tenant self-service. The only tenant-facing capability captured is arrears reminders by text and e-mail; a tenant-portal page exists among the captured pages, but nothing describing personal logins, documents, statements or defect reporting with visible status came from it. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The only owner- or tenant-facing capability in the captured material is arrears contact: text and e-mail reminders sent to reduce tenant arrears. A tenant portal page exists on the vendor's site, but the captured material gives no detail on what it shows, whether owners and tenants are scoped separately, or any access log over records viewed. 1 3
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
I found no public information on owner or tenant self-service: the only tenant-facing capability the captured pages show is outbound arrears reminders by text and e-mail, and the site's tenant-portal page was captured but yielded no fact I can judge. Whether an owner can log in and see their own records, statements or meeting papers is, on this evidence, unknown to me. 1 3
Maintenance, defects & contractors
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The building side: defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance obligations, contractor assignment, and the evidence trail when something goes wrong.
0 — No building-side features at all; defects and maintenance are outside the product's scope.
3 — Defects or tasks recorded per property with a status, and a contractor contact list.
5 — Defect tickets per unit or property with status and photos, contractors assigned with a work order, and recurring maintenance tasks with reminders.
8 — Warranty and Gewährleistung periods tracked against the responsible trade, statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire safety, drinking water) scheduled with proof of completion stored, quotes and invoices linked to the defect, and cost allocated to the correct account.
10 — A defensible operating record: every obligation, inspection and defect with its evidence and dates, contractor performance visible, budget consumption against the Wirtschaftsplan tracked live, and a history that answers the question of what the administrator knew and when.
The WEG Administrator
Maintenance and repair ticket management is stated directly in the product, and contractor payments are handled alongside a partner ('action contractor payments across Reapit and PayProp', 'Automate contractor invoices'). That is defect intake with a contractor workflow; I found no public information on recurring maintenance obligations, statutory inspections such as lift or fire safety, or warranty periods tracked against a trade. 1
The Advisory Board Member
Maintenance and repair ticket management inside the software is stated, and integrations cover maintenance reporting, contractor invoice automation and contractor payments via Reapit. That reaches simple ticket tracking with contractor payment; we found no public information on photos on tickets, work orders, recurring maintenance obligations or statutory inspections with proof of completion. 1
The Accountant
Maintenance and repair ticket management inside the software is confirmed, alongside integrations for a maintenance reporting platform and for automating contractor invoices and payments. I found no public information on photos per ticket, recurring statutory maintenance with reminders, warranty periods tracked per trade, or stored proof of completed inspections. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Maintenance and repair ticket management inside the platform is stated outright, and the integrations list a maintenance-reporting partner plus contractor payment actions through Reapit. That is ticket-level defect handling; we found no public information on recurring statutory inspections with proof stored, warranty periods tracked per trade, quotes and invoices linked to the defect, or costs booked to a plan account. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Maintenance and repair tickets are managed inside the software, and contractor payments are actioned through the Reapit integration. We found no public information on photos attached to tickets, recurring maintenance with reminders, statutory inspections or warranty periods tracked against a trade. 1
The Skeptic
The homepage promises "a simple and convenient way to manage maintenance and repair tickets", alongside a maintenance-reporting integration partner and contractor invoices automated through the Reapit connection. That is ticket intake with contractor payment on the side; I found no public information on recurring statutory inspections, warranty periods, quotes linked to defects or evidence trails. 1
Documents, retention & handover
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The archive and the exit. A Verwalter's appointment is finite by law, and the records belong to the community — so handover is a statutory event, not a support ticket.
0 — No document storage in the product; records are kept elsewhere.
3 — Central document storage per property with folders and upload.
5 — Document management per property and unit with search, documents linked to owners or units, and an export of a community's data or documents.
8 — Full-text search across the archive, version history, retention periods stated, documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, and a complete handover package (ledger, register, documents, master data) in open formats.
10 — Handover is a first-class feature rather than an obstacle: a complete, structured export a successor administrator can actually load, retention executed per statutory period, an access log over the archive, and no commercial friction placed in the way of a community leaving.
The WEG Administrator not rated — no public information
I found no public information on document storage, a searchable archive, retention periods for a community's records, or handover to a successor administrator. The only retention statement captured is the privacy policy's internal policy for personal information, which says nothing about the records a Verwalter must deliver when the appointment ends. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member not rated — no public information
We found no public information on document storage for a community, retention periods for its records, or a structured handover export to a successor administrator — I read the homepage and the privacy policy and neither addresses it. The privacy policy's retention statement concerns personal information, not the community's archive, so the statutory exit question cannot be assessed. 1 2
The Accountant
The privacy policy states an internal retention policy covering personal information, kept only as long as needed, and the product is offered without long-term contracts; those are the only items I can tie to retention or exit. I found no public information on document storage per property, search, version history, or a handover export a successor administrator could actually load. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on document archiving, version history, retention periods for community records or a structured handover export a successor administrator could load. The captured pages position the product as a rental payments platform for letting agents, so a statutory handover is outside what is documented. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy states an internal retention policy under which personal information is kept only as long as needed, and an API is advertised, but we found no public information on document storage per property, version history, retention periods executed for community records, or a handover export a successor could load. For records that belong to the community, nothing captured shows how a statutory handover would be performed. 2 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on document storage, search, version history, retention periods or a handover package for a community's records; the captured pages describe payment automation, client accounts and integrations. On this evidence the archive and the statutory handover that ends an administrator's appointment are outside what the pages describe. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the community's financial and personal records live, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it. Dimensions the sources do not establish are unknown, not non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU: a non-EU vendor and contracting entity with hosting stated outside the EU.
3 — One European element proven — an EU contracting entity or EU hosting stated — with the rest of the chain undocumented.
5 — An EU contracting entity and EU hosting both stated, and a data processing agreement offered.
8 — German or EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, a subprocessor list published with locations, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and an export that keeps the community compliant for the full retention period after the appointment ends.
The WEG Administrator
The contracting entities are proven UK companies — PayProp Ltd and Reapit Ltd, both registered in England and Wales — and the privacy policy names international transfers to group companies in the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand among others. Hosting location, any data processing agreement, and a subprocessor list with locations are not established in the captures, so no EU element is proven anywhere in the chain. For a German community's financial and personal records I would not sign that chain. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The contracting entity is registered in England and Wales, and the privacy policy names group transfers of personal information to the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. We found no public information on hosting location, subprocessor locations or a data processing agreement, so a German community's records would rest with a non-EU entity and documented non-EU flows, with only standard contractual safeguards named. 1 2
The Accountant
The contracting entity is PayProp Ltd, registered in England and Wales, with the UK Information Commissioner's Office named as supervisory authority, and the policy states transfers to group companies in the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand under contractual clauses. No EU hosting or EU entity is stated on the captured pages, and I found no public information on hosting location or on named subprocessors with their locations. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
The contracting entities are companies registered in England and Wales, and the privacy policy documents transfers to group companies in the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand among others. We found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list with locations — no EU element in the chain is proven, which for the records I hold in trust is close to disqualifying. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entities are proven to be PayProp Ltd and Reapit Ltd, private companies registered in England and Wales, with the UK Information Commissioner's Office named as supervisory authority — outside the EU. The same policy documents transfers of personal information to the United States, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand under UK transfer agreements, while hosting location, a data processing agreement and subprocessor locations are not established: subprocessors are named only by category such as hosting and analytics providers. 2
The Skeptic
The privacy policy names PayProp Ltd and Reapit Ltd, both registered in England and Wales, under the Information Commissioner's Office, and discloses international transfers to group companies in the United States, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand among others. I found no public information on where data is hosted, a data processing agreement for a community's records, or the locations of the CRM, hosting, analytics and marketing suppliers it names — so the captured pages prove a non-EU contracting chain and nothing European beyond geography. 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an administrator can compute the real annual cost for the units under management — including modules, per-community fees and setup — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price or a single tier with a per-unit or per-community figure.
5 — Per-unit, per-community or per-tier prices public with the billing period stated and the main inclusions listed.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-unit maths, minimum term, setup and migration costs and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of units and communities including every module, with no per-seat surprises and any exit or export fee stated outright.
The WEG Administrator
The captured pricing facts amount to 'No long-term contracts' and a Pricing item in the site navigation; no figures, tiers, per-unit maths, billing period or VAT treatment appear. An administrator cannot compute an annual cost for the units under management from these pages. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages state 'No long-term contracts' and show a pricing section in the navigation, but we found no price figures — no per-unit or per-community amounts, billing period or setup costs. I cannot compute the annual cost for a portfolio from these pages alone. 1
The Accountant
The captured pages state "No long-term contracts" and give a sales e-mail address; I found no price figures, billing periods, or inclusions on the captured pages. An administrator therefore cannot compute an annual cost for a given book of units or communities from the public material captured. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The captured pages state "No long-term contracts" and the site navigation shows a pricing link, but no figure was captured — we found no public information on per-unit or per-community prices, billing period, setup costs or VAT treatment, so a real annual cost for the units under management cannot be computed from what was captured. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages state "No long-term contracts" and show a pricing page in the site navigation, but no per-unit, per-community or tier figures appear in the captured material. An administrator cannot compute a real annual cost for the units under management from what was captured. 1
The Skeptic
The captured homepage shows a pricing link and the statement "No long-term contracts", but no per-unit, per-community or tier figure appears on any page I was shown. An administrator cannot compute the annual cost for the units under management from this evidence; I found no public information on setup, migration or any per-unit minimum. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about PayProp
Is PayProp European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where PayProp is based.
Where does PayProp store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does PayProp have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to PayProp?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Condomana (3.5/5), etg24 (2.5/5) and facilioo (2/5) highest among the other 21 Property & WEG Management products evaluated. The highest-rated European alternative is Condomana (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: PayProp alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.payprop.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.payprop.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Owner & tenant self-service — found from sitemap www.payprop.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →