We build Agents. You build the Future.
● B2B offer — Estate agencyThe AI agent for estate agency: qualify prospects, never miss a contact again
In an agency, whoever calls back first wins the instruction or the viewing — but enquiries come in at any hour, by phone, by form and through the portals, while the negotiators are out on viewings or at a signing. Your AI agent qualifies every prospect, schedules the viewings and keeps the CRM up to date, around the clock. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — your clients' contact details and financial data stay under control. The negotiator keeps control.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Estate agency assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A prospect has just filled in the form on the listing for the two-bedroom flat on rue Gambetta, at 9pm. Can you qualify them and set up a viewing?
Contact called back automatically. Mrs Renaud is looking for a main home, budget confirmed up to €285,000, 80% financed through a broker, available to view on Saturday morning.
The property is a match (price €269,000, service charges and energy rating given). Slot proposed for Saturday at 10am — subject to your approval.
⛓ Sourced · your sales software + the instruction file
The property is a match (price €269,000, service charges and energy rating given). Slot proposed for Saturday at 10am — subject to your approval.
⛓ Sourced · your sales software + the instruction file
Perfect. Did she ask about the surveys?
Yes: she asked for the energy performance certificate (band D) and the schedule of service charges — both answered from the instruction file. Point to check: the asbestos survey is not yet on file.
I have held the slot, sent the confirmation and prepared a viewing sheet for the negotiator, to read over.
✎ Action · appointment set and sheet ready — the negotiator approves
I have held the slot, sent the confirmation and prepared a viewing sheet for the negotiator, to read over.
✎ Action · appointment set and sheet ready — the negotiator approves
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Data hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
Client data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The negotiator decidesThe agent assists, it never closes on its own
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
✦ In brief
In an estate agency, a Blue Lemon Agent agent handles incoming enquiries around the clock — qualifying buyers and tenants, booking viewing appointments, CRM follow-up — and chases prospects who have not replied. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, contact details, budgets and financial data are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The negotiators' time is redirected to viewings, negotiation and signings. Live within a few weeks.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
3
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Pricing
Three options, one agent
A qualification and appointment-booking agent, installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
2,945 € excl. VAT setup
then 292 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
457 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
4,825 € excl. VAT setup
then 396 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Included in the package: hosting and AI consumption up to the volume of your capacity tier, in documents, exchanges, tokens and storage; beyond that, re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, tracked in your client area as usage statements are issued. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting for the package chosen, in France by default, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Use cases
The uses of AI in an estate agency
Here are the capabilities included in the agent, then the neighbouring agents that can be added to it. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 292 € excl. VAT / month
Qualification & booking viewings
Immediate call-back to prospects, qualification (budget, financing, plans) and automatic scheduling of viewings.
Buyer & tenant enquiries
Answer the recurring questions: price, service charges, energy rating, availability, documents needed for a tenancy application.
Instructions, surveys & listings
Find information in the instructions, the surveys and the files instantly — and help write the listings.
Controls and safeguards
These 2 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human oversight, costs, quality, incidents and safe stop
Data protection, rights and human oversight
What the agent must be connected to
These 2 connections are required for the agent to work. They concern your information system and are scoped during the audit.
Handoff contracts, least-privilege permissions and shared context
Integration with existing tools without double entry
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Phone reception
A voice switchboard that answers, directs and qualifies calls even when the negotiators are out on viewings.
Voice agent (AI switchboard) from 456 € excl. VAT / month Voice switchboard →Prospecting for sellers
Identify and contact owners likely to sell, in multi-channel sequences, to build the portfolio of instructions.
Outbound prospecting agent (automated email, assisted LinkedIn) from 332 € excl. VAT / month Sales prospecting →Sales email qualification agent
Sorting, prioritisation.
Sales email qualification agent from 259 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Tenant relations agent (property)
Requests, call-outs.
Tenant relations agent (property) from 291 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →CRM agent (lead enrichment & scoring)
Data, scoring.
CRM agent (lead enrichment & scoring) from 282 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Qualification + scoring + multichannel follow-up agent
Scoring, email/SMS, CRM.
Qualification + scoring + multichannel follow-up agent from 312 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Autonomous sales agent (prospecting → closing)
Multichannel, CRM, scoring.
Autonomous sales agent (prospecting → closing) from 317 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Scheduling assistant
Setting up a recurring appointment rarely takes one exchange: availability to cross-check, travel constraints, periods to avoid.
Recurring appointment scheduling assistant from 244 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →AI sales & CRM agent
Every salesperson knows it: the CRM is never really up to date.
Sales agent (meeting notes, follow-ups, CRM) from 307 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →AI agent for debt collection
Late payments weigh directly on cash flow, and chasing is a task nobody enjoys — so it often gets put off, forgotten, or done clumsily.
Debt collection agent (multichannel sequences) from 307 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Build your agent
In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Estate agency assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· The listing for the four-room flat on rue Chappe shows 78 m²; the survey filed with the instruction gives 73.4. A 5.9% shortfall, and the preliminary contract is signed.
· A sole agency instruction expires in 11 days — no viewings, no contact with the seller for six weeks.
· The energy certificate for the rue Gambetta studio expires on 04/09. Two viewings are booked after that date.
· Three tenant files are incomplete although the leases are signed: all three are missing a home insurance certificate. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · property and deadline
⛓ Source · listings, instructions, surveys, certificates, letting files
· The listing for the four-room flat on rue Chappe shows 78 m²; the survey filed with the instruction gives 73.4. A 5.9% shortfall, and the preliminary contract is signed.
· A sole agency instruction expires in 11 days — no viewings, no contact with the seller for six weeks.
· The energy certificate for the rue Gambetta studio expires on 04/09. Two viewings are booked after that date.
· Three tenant files are incomplete although the leases are signed: all three are missing a home insurance certificate. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · property and deadline
⛓ Source · listings, instructions, surveys, certificates, letting files
The floor-area shortfall — is that a problem?
Yes, and it is the only one of the four whose clock no longer depends on you.
What is established: the listing and the preliminary contract state 78 m²; the survey attached to the instruction states 73.4 m². The shortfall is 5.9%.
What the text says — article 46 of the French law of 10 July 1965, which I cite because it is short and checkable: where the actual floor area is more than 5% below the area stated in the deed, the buyer may claim a price reduction in proportion to the shortfall. The claim is time-barred one year after the notarised deed.
What I have computed so the discussion starts from a figure: applied to the contract price — €249,000 — the reduction in proportion to the shortfall comes to €14,684, rounded down. The workings are set out line by line, with both areas and their source.
The basis itself is settled by the notary, and it is the notary who will fix it. My figure does not replace that: it exists so that nobody discovers the order of magnitude on the day of the deed. As for whether the buyer will bring the claim, nobody knows — but they have a year, and the clock starts at the notarised deed.
What I have prepared: the three documents side by side — survey, listing and the relevant page of the contract. The question arises before the deed, not after. area-shortfall_rue-Chappe.pdf78 m² stated / 73.4 surveyed · 3 documents
⛓ Source · survey, listing, preliminary contract · art. 46 of the French law of 10 July 1965
What is established: the listing and the preliminary contract state 78 m²; the survey attached to the instruction states 73.4 m². The shortfall is 5.9%.
What the text says — article 46 of the French law of 10 July 1965, which I cite because it is short and checkable: where the actual floor area is more than 5% below the area stated in the deed, the buyer may claim a price reduction in proportion to the shortfall. The claim is time-barred one year after the notarised deed.
What I have computed so the discussion starts from a figure: applied to the contract price — €249,000 — the reduction in proportion to the shortfall comes to €14,684, rounded down. The workings are set out line by line, with both areas and their source.
The basis itself is settled by the notary, and it is the notary who will fix it. My figure does not replace that: it exists so that nobody discovers the order of magnitude on the day of the deed. As for whether the buyer will bring the claim, nobody knows — but they have a year, and the clock starts at the notarised deed.
What I have prepared: the three documents side by side — survey, listing and the relevant page of the contract. The question arises before the deed, not after. area-shortfall_rue-Chappe.pdf78 m² stated / 73.4 surveyed · 3 documents
⛓ Source · survey, listing, preliminary contract · art. 46 of the French law of 10 July 1965
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: your listings against what the instruction documents say, the expiry of your instructions, the validity of your certificates against the viewings calendar, and the completeness of letting files. A figure diverging between two documents, an instruction going quiet, a certificate expiring before a viewing, a document missing after signature — I say so, I do not wait to be asked.
Routing follows your organisation: the area shortfall to the branch manager and to the negotiator holding the instruction, because it binds the agency and not only the file; the dormant instruction to the negotiator; the certificate to the office manager, who books the assessor; the incomplete files to the lettings manager.
With a chase: 24 h on the area shortfall, because the contract is signed and the clock is running; 72 h on the rest. Then a weekly summary to the manager: by property, never by negotiator.
And I do not stop at the flag: whatever could be prepared is. The area shortfall is costed and matched across the three documents; the assessment orders are drafted, ready to place; the incomplete letting files come back with the missing document named and the message to the applicant already written; and the dormant instructions come out sorted by date, with the last contact and what it said. Across your 34 properties, that is half a day of desk work handed back to the branch every week.
What is left to you comes down to three gestures, and they carry your name: amending a listing, writing to a seller or a buyer, rejecting an application. All three bind the agency towards a third party — that is what makes them enforceable, and why a person signs them. You approve, they go within the minute.
And I read what you have opened to me, file by file, every access logged and withdrawable on a word.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Routing follows your organisation: the area shortfall to the branch manager and to the negotiator holding the instruction, because it binds the agency and not only the file; the dormant instruction to the negotiator; the certificate to the office manager, who books the assessor; the incomplete files to the lettings manager.
With a chase: 24 h on the area shortfall, because the contract is signed and the clock is running; 72 h on the rest. Then a weekly summary to the manager: by property, never by negotiator.
And I do not stop at the flag: whatever could be prepared is. The area shortfall is costed and matched across the three documents; the assessment orders are drafted, ready to place; the incomplete letting files come back with the missing document named and the message to the applicant already written; and the dormant instructions come out sorted by date, with the last contact and what it said. Across your 34 properties, that is half a day of desk work handed back to the branch every week.
What is left to you comes down to three gestures, and they carry your name: amending a listing, writing to a seller or a buyer, rejecting an application. All three bind the agency towards a third party — that is what makes them enforceable, and why a person signs them. You approve, they go within the minute.
And I read what you have opened to me, file by file, every access logged and withdrawable on a word.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Fictional simulation — not a client result
For the three-room flat on rue Gambetta, the landlord does not want files with a guarantor outside the mainland, or families with young children. Screen the 22 applications.
I do not screen on those two criteria, and I will give you the most useful reason: it is not only prohibited, it is traceable.
Family situation and a guarantor's place of residence are not solvency criteria. Rejecting a file on that basis exposes the agency — and an instruction carried out leaves a trace in your system, which you will no longer control the day it is produced.
What I do, and it meets the landlord's real need: the 22 files ranked on what is checkable and lawful — income against rent, employment stability, completeness of documents, and the guarantor's strength judged on their income rather than their address.
The ranking gives 9 solvent files by your own agency criteria, three of them with a guarantor outside the mainland. Those three are in the list, at their rank.
And one thing I flag without commenting: two of the 22 files contain documents that the regulated list does not provide for. They were asked for. applications_22-ranked.pdf22 files · ranking criteria stated
⛓ Source · 22 applications, the agency's solvency criteria
Family situation and a guarantor's place of residence are not solvency criteria. Rejecting a file on that basis exposes the agency — and an instruction carried out leaves a trace in your system, which you will no longer control the day it is produced.
What I do, and it meets the landlord's real need: the 22 files ranked on what is checkable and lawful — income against rent, employment stability, completeness of documents, and the guarantor's strength judged on their income rather than their address.
The ranking gives 9 solvent files by your own agency criteria, three of them with a guarantor outside the mainland. Those three are in the list, at their rank.
And one thing I flag without commenting: two of the 22 files contain documents that the regulated list does not provide for. They were asked for. applications_22-ranked.pdf22 files · ranking criteria stated
⛓ Source · 22 applications, the agency's solvency criteria
It is the landlord who decides, isn't it? It is his property.
He chooses his tenant. He does not choose the criteria on which the agency rejects the others. That distinction is the agency's whole protection, and it fits in one sentence: you present the files, so you answer for the screening.
What I suggest instead, and it works: present the nine ranked files, each with its income-to-rent ratio and the guarantor's strength. The landlord chooses from that list. If he passes over somebody, that is his choice and he need not justify it — but he will have done so from a list you can stand behind.
I have drafted the letter to the landlord, explaining in five lines why the list is built that way. It does not say no: it says how.
And an observation beyond this property: across your last six lettings, the rejection reasons recorded in your system are blank in four cases. A blank reason protects nobody — not the applicant, not the agency. I can make the field required when a file is closed, with a list of lawful reasons, and a free-text field that stays free. The aim is not to constrain the negotiator: it is that something written survives two years later. landlord-letter_criteria.pdf5 lines · list of the 9 files
✎ Action · 9 presentable files · letter to the landlord ready
What I suggest instead, and it works: present the nine ranked files, each with its income-to-rent ratio and the guarantor's strength. The landlord chooses from that list. If he passes over somebody, that is his choice and he need not justify it — but he will have done so from a list you can stand behind.
I have drafted the letter to the landlord, explaining in five lines why the list is built that way. It does not say no: it says how.
And an observation beyond this property: across your last six lettings, the rejection reasons recorded in your system are blank in four cases. A blank reason protects nobody — not the applicant, not the agency. I can make the field required when a file is closed, with a list of lawful reasons, and a free-text field that stays free. The aim is not to constrain the negotiator: it is that something written survives two years later. landlord-letter_criteria.pdf5 lines · list of the 9 files
✎ Action · 9 presentable files · letter to the landlord ready
And all the questions that land on the listings — price, service charges, energy rating, availability? Our agents spend their evenings on them.
Buyer and tenant enquiries are answered at source: 1,118 over the quarter, 934 answered without an agent.
What comes back, and where the answer comes from:
· 312 on the price and what it includes — advertised price, who pays the fees, fittings included where relevant. The agency agreement governs, and the answer quotes it;
· 241 on service charges — the annual amount from the last notice, what it covers, and the works fund where one has been voted;
· 187 on the energy performance certificate — band, date, validity, the annual cost estimate exactly as the report states it. I give the document, I do not interpret it;
· 194 on availability — still on the market or under offer, date of vacant possession, viewing slots open;
· 184 on the documents needed for a tenancy application, listed from the statutory list and from what the applicant has already sent in.
On that last point the wording matters as much as the list: the answer states what is asked of everyone, never what is asked of this applicant — a document requested from one and not the others is precisely the record we were discussing.
184 enquiries went up to an agent: price negotiation, a question about a visible defect, a viewing outside the published slots, anything that commits the agency.
The figure that decides, and it is not flattering to begin with: your average first-response time on portal enquiries was 7 hours 40, and 26% came in after 19:00. It is now 3 minutes. Over the quarter, 61 enquiries turned into viewings that would not have happened — measured on out-of-hours contacts alone.
⛓ Sourced · agency agreements, floor area surveys, surveys, service charge notices, viewing diary
What comes back, and where the answer comes from:
· 312 on the price and what it includes — advertised price, who pays the fees, fittings included where relevant. The agency agreement governs, and the answer quotes it;
· 241 on service charges — the annual amount from the last notice, what it covers, and the works fund where one has been voted;
· 187 on the energy performance certificate — band, date, validity, the annual cost estimate exactly as the report states it. I give the document, I do not interpret it;
· 194 on availability — still on the market or under offer, date of vacant possession, viewing slots open;
· 184 on the documents needed for a tenancy application, listed from the statutory list and from what the applicant has already sent in.
On that last point the wording matters as much as the list: the answer states what is asked of everyone, never what is asked of this applicant — a document requested from one and not the others is precisely the record we were discussing.
184 enquiries went up to an agent: price negotiation, a question about a visible defect, a viewing outside the published slots, anything that commits the agency.
The figure that decides, and it is not flattering to begin with: your average first-response time on portal enquiries was 7 hours 40, and 26% came in after 19:00. It is now 3 minutes. Over the quarter, 61 enquiries turned into viewings that would not have happened — measured on out-of-hours contacts alone.
⛓ Sourced · agency agreements, floor area surveys, surveys, service charge notices, viewing diary
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Check the 34 live listings before Monday's meeting.
34 listings matched against instructions, surveys and certificates. 27 are consistent.
Seven are not, in three kinds:
· 2 listings show a floor area different from the survey. One by 5.9% — the rue Chappe flat, already flagged; the other by 1.2%, below the threshold, but still an inaccuracy.
· 3 listings show an energy certificate that has expired or expires during the marketing period.
· 2 listings do not state the fees, although the instructions put them on the buyer.
What I have not done: correct the listings. A listing corrected in silence is a listing nobody can say what it said the day before — and the day before is what counts if an applicant relies on it.
All seven corrections are prepared, each with a dated screenshot of the current listing. listing-check_7-gaps.pdf34 listings · 3 kinds of gap
⛓ Source · 34 listings, instructions, surveys, certificates
Seven are not, in three kinds:
· 2 listings show a floor area different from the survey. One by 5.9% — the rue Chappe flat, already flagged; the other by 1.2%, below the threshold, but still an inaccuracy.
· 3 listings show an energy certificate that has expired or expires during the marketing period.
· 2 listings do not state the fees, although the instructions put them on the buyer.
What I have not done: correct the listings. A listing corrected in silence is a listing nobody can say what it said the day before — and the day before is what counts if an applicant relies on it.
All seven corrections are prepared, each with a dated screenshot of the current listing. listing-check_7-gaps.pdf34 listings · 3 kinds of gap
⛓ Source · 34 listings, instructions, surveys, certificates
The certificates — when do we redo them?
Two need redoing, one does not — and that one is the most urgent.
· Two certificates have expired: the property cannot stay online with them. The orders are prepared.
· The third is valid and expires on 04/09. It does not need redoing to be online today. But two viewings are booked for 09 and 12/09, and an applicant asking for the certificate that day will leave with an expired document.
So what governs the calendar is not the expiry date: it is the first viewing that follows it. The assessor needs eight to ten days; ordering on the 4th would already be late.
What I have prepared: all three orders, each attached to its instruction, with the assessor's quotation — €1,140 for the three — and a slot held on 05/09, which leaves four days' margin before the viewing on the 9th.
What is left to the agency: placing the order. It commits spending and attaches to an instruction — it is a signature, not a data entry, and it goes out within the minute of your agreement.
A proposal, if you approve it: every certificate is matched against that property's viewings calendar and flagged fifteen days before the first viewing that would fall after its validity — not fifteen days before it expires. Across your 34 properties, that setting would have flagged five certificates instead of two. certificates_3-orders-prepared.pdf3 properties · viewings calendar
✎ Support · 3 orders prepared — the trigger is the viewing, not the date
· Two certificates have expired: the property cannot stay online with them. The orders are prepared.
· The third is valid and expires on 04/09. It does not need redoing to be online today. But two viewings are booked for 09 and 12/09, and an applicant asking for the certificate that day will leave with an expired document.
So what governs the calendar is not the expiry date: it is the first viewing that follows it. The assessor needs eight to ten days; ordering on the 4th would already be late.
What I have prepared: all three orders, each attached to its instruction, with the assessor's quotation — €1,140 for the three — and a slot held on 05/09, which leaves four days' margin before the viewing on the 9th.
What is left to the agency: placing the order. It commits spending and attaches to an instruction — it is a signature, not a data entry, and it goes out within the minute of your agreement.
A proposal, if you approve it: every certificate is matched against that property's viewings calendar and flagged fifteen days before the first viewing that would fall after its validity — not fifteen days before it expires. Across your 34 properties, that setting would have flagged five certificates instead of two. certificates_3-orders-prepared.pdf3 properties · viewings calendar
✎ Support · 3 orders prepared — the trigger is the viewing, not the date
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Pull the rent arrears and start proceedings.
14 units in arrears, €23,400. I have prepared chasers on 11. No proceedings.
The three set aside, and why:
· One tenant paid an instalment on 29/07 and wrote that he is clearing it in three payments. The writing is on file; chasing him like the others would ignore an arrangement the agency has never repudiated.
· One file has a housing-benefit claim under assessment, reported by the tenant on 12/07. Any payment, if it comes, will be backdated.
· One unit is occupied by a tenant who died on 04/07. The chaser would go out to a name, and arrive at a family.
On proceedings: a formal notice, a payment order, a court summons are not degrees of the same chaser. They are acts, with time limits and consequences, and they are not triggered from a console. rent-arrears_14-units.pdf€23,400 · 3 units set aside, reason given
⛓ Source · rent ledger, tenants' written statements, file records
The three set aside, and why:
· One tenant paid an instalment on 29/07 and wrote that he is clearing it in three payments. The writing is on file; chasing him like the others would ignore an arrangement the agency has never repudiated.
· One file has a housing-benefit claim under assessment, reported by the tenant on 12/07. Any payment, if it comes, will be backdated.
· One unit is occupied by a tenant who died on 04/07. The chaser would go out to a name, and arrive at a family.
On proceedings: a formal notice, a payment order, a court summons are not degrees of the same chaser. They are acts, with time limits and consequences, and they are not triggered from a console. rent-arrears_14-units.pdf€23,400 · 3 units set aside, reason given
⛓ Source · rent ledger, tenants' written statements, file records
The one paying in three instalments is already two months behind.
That is true, and it does not change what I do — but it changes what I show you.
What I reconstructed: his arrangement of 29/07 set three payments, on 29/07, 29/08 and 29/09. The first was made, to the euro and on the day. No instalment under that arrangement has yet been missed.
What is true, on the other hand: his earlier arrears cover two months, and the arrangement covers only half of them. The gap between what he promised and what he owes is €890, and nobody has told him.
The letter is ready: it records the first payment, states the uncovered balance, and offers to fold it into the plan. That is not a chaser, it is a clarification — and it is worth more, because a plan half kept ends badly for everyone.
A proposal for what follows: any written payment arrangement can be tracked instalment by instalment — expected, received, gap. The tenant leaves the chasing sequence while the arrangement holds, and returns to it automatically at the first missed instalment, with a message that mentions the arrangement instead of ignoring it. No proceedings are ever triggered by this tracking. payment-arrangement-tracking.pdf3 instalments · €890 uncovered
✎ Action · clarification letter ready — no proceedings commenced
What I reconstructed: his arrangement of 29/07 set three payments, on 29/07, 29/08 and 29/09. The first was made, to the euro and on the day. No instalment under that arrangement has yet been missed.
What is true, on the other hand: his earlier arrears cover two months, and the arrangement covers only half of them. The gap between what he promised and what he owes is €890, and nobody has told him.
The letter is ready: it records the first payment, states the uncovered balance, and offers to fold it into the plan. That is not a chaser, it is a clarification — and it is worth more, because a plan half kept ends badly for everyone.
A proposal for what follows: any written payment arrangement can be tracked instalment by instalment — expected, received, gap. The tenant leaves the chasing sequence while the arrangement holds, and returns to it automatically at the first missed instalment, with a message that mentions the arrangement instead of ignoring it. No proceedings are ever triggered by this tracking. payment-arrangement-tracking.pdf3 instalments · €890 uncovered
✎ Action · clarification letter ready — no proceedings commenced
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A mandate signed yesterday carries a floor area no one has measured, and your listing procedure only provided for the measured case.
What I have in front of me: an open mandate on a three-room flat on rue de la Fonderie. Area stated in the mandate: 64 sq m, declared by the seller from their 2011 purchase deed. No measurement in the file, and the property is not in a co-ownership — so you are not required to produce one in order to publish.
The point that had not yet been configured: your listing procedure compares the advertised area with the measurement. Nothing in it says what gets published when there is no measurement at all. I did not settle it on my own — and the property is not waiting: the photos are sorted, the listing text is written, the three valid surveys are attached.
Three ways of doing it. Publish 64 sq m as it stands: the listing goes out today, but a buyer who measures after the viewing will discover the gap in front of you. Publish with no area until the measurement: no inaccuracy possible, at the price of a listing the portals' area filters will never surface. Publish 64 sq m naming the source in the listing — « area declared by the seller, measurement at the agency's expense before any offer »: the listing surfaces in searches, and the buyer knows what they are relying on.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that keeps the property visible without suggesting a checked figure, and your listings already carry a line of disclosures: the source goes in it without changing the template.
You can also give me another one — for instance: publish the declared area and order the measurement at the first viewing request rather than before the offer.
Shall I remember it for the next mandates? 7 of your 34 current mandates carry an area declared by the seller, 3 of them signed this quarter. If you approve the rule, I will write the next listings this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the count every month. declared-area-without-measurement_three-ways.pdf1 mandate · 3 ways of doing it · 7 comparable mandates
⛓ Sourced · mandate of 26/09, the agency's listing procedure, 34 current mandates of which 7 without measurement
What I have in front of me: an open mandate on a three-room flat on rue de la Fonderie. Area stated in the mandate: 64 sq m, declared by the seller from their 2011 purchase deed. No measurement in the file, and the property is not in a co-ownership — so you are not required to produce one in order to publish.
The point that had not yet been configured: your listing procedure compares the advertised area with the measurement. Nothing in it says what gets published when there is no measurement at all. I did not settle it on my own — and the property is not waiting: the photos are sorted, the listing text is written, the three valid surveys are attached.
Three ways of doing it. Publish 64 sq m as it stands: the listing goes out today, but a buyer who measures after the viewing will discover the gap in front of you. Publish with no area until the measurement: no inaccuracy possible, at the price of a listing the portals' area filters will never surface. Publish 64 sq m naming the source in the listing — « area declared by the seller, measurement at the agency's expense before any offer »: the listing surfaces in searches, and the buyer knows what they are relying on.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that keeps the property visible without suggesting a checked figure, and your listings already carry a line of disclosures: the source goes in it without changing the template.
You can also give me another one — for instance: publish the declared area and order the measurement at the first viewing request rather than before the offer.
Shall I remember it for the next mandates? 7 of your 34 current mandates carry an area declared by the seller, 3 of them signed this quarter. If you approve the rule, I will write the next listings this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the count every month. declared-area-without-measurement_three-ways.pdf1 mandate · 3 ways of doing it · 7 comparable mandates
⛓ Sourced · mandate of 26/09, the agency's listing procedure, 34 current mandates of which 7 without measurement
The third one. But the measurement is ordered from the second viewing, not before the offer: an offer that lands on a Friday evening will not wait for a surveyor. And yes, keep it.
Written as you have just said it, and it carries your correction. And re-reading the 34 mandates, there is more to hold on to than a listing disclosure.
The rule, in one sentence: an area without a measurement is published naming its source in the listing; the measurement is ordered from the second viewing, at the agency's expense; no offer is passed to the seller without the measurement in the file.
What I saw re-reading your mandates, and it is worth more than today's case: 4 of your 12 exclusive mandates fall due in less than 45 days, and none has had seller contact for more than 30 days.
What it cost last year, and the figure is in your own register: 5 exclusive mandates fell due without being renewed, and in all 5 cases the last exchange with the seller was more than a month old. At €8,400 average fees on your sales for the year, that is €42,000 of mandate gone elsewhere.
What I propose, and it is one line to change at your end: a written seller update 45 days before each exclusive mandate falls due — the viewings the property has had, what the visitors said, and what you propose next. I write it, with the property's figures; the negotiator is the one who sends it and calls, because it is the relationship that renews a mandate, not an email.
What lets you go back on today's rule: it is entered in your listing procedure under its name, with its date, the negotiator who approved it and the mandate that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line.
✎ Rule approved and proposal · listing procedure, mandate register, 5 exclusive mandates not renewed over twelve months — the call to the seller stays with the negotiator
The rule, in one sentence: an area without a measurement is published naming its source in the listing; the measurement is ordered from the second viewing, at the agency's expense; no offer is passed to the seller without the measurement in the file.
What I saw re-reading your mandates, and it is worth more than today's case: 4 of your 12 exclusive mandates fall due in less than 45 days, and none has had seller contact for more than 30 days.
What it cost last year, and the figure is in your own register: 5 exclusive mandates fell due without being renewed, and in all 5 cases the last exchange with the seller was more than a month old. At €8,400 average fees on your sales for the year, that is €42,000 of mandate gone elsewhere.
What I propose, and it is one line to change at your end: a written seller update 45 days before each exclusive mandate falls due — the viewings the property has had, what the visitors said, and what you propose next. I write it, with the property's figures; the negotiator is the one who sends it and calls, because it is the relationship that renews a mandate, not an email.
What lets you go back on today's rule: it is entered in your listing procedure under its name, with its date, the negotiator who approved it and the mandate that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line.
✎ Rule approved and proposal · listing procedure, mandate register, 5 exclusive mandates not renewed over twelve months — the call to the seller stays with the negotiator
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
The context
Why AI matters to practices — and why they hesitate
The market has tightened: fewer transactions, more competition for every instruction, more demanding buyers. Yet an agency's value is often decided in the first few minutes after a contact — a response time that the daily workload makes hard to keep to.
! The issue
The agency is caught between enquiries that arrive continuously, at any hour and through every channel, and negotiators taken up by viewings, valuations and signings. Yet most consumer AI tools amount to entrusting the client database, budgets, contact details and property history to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest to an agency if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, the decision reserved for the negotiator: time gained on qualification and follow-up is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to replace the estate agent, but to give them back time for the field and the relationship.
The decisive point
The client database and the instructions: sovereignty & compliance
An agency holds sensitive personal and financial data — contact details, budgets, borrowing capacity, life circumstances. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, contact by contact.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine at the agency: no client record leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
The client database: architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
A resource isolated per agency
No pooling of the client database: an environment strictly dedicated to your agency.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no commitment or instruction is concluded automatically; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For the most sensitive data, SecNumCloud and HDS options are available depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
The gain
How much time can an agency recover?
By automating the call-back, the qualification and the booking of appointments, an agency can aim for a reduction by half in administrative time on incoming contacts — and above all, never leave a single lead unanswered.
Calling back and qualifying a new lead
Booking a viewing appointment
Answering a recurring question (charges, energy rating)
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to an agency
With 100% Sovereign, the client database never leaves the agencyData hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, no contact details entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawExposure of the client database to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design, that data being located and minimised in France; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
The negotiator keeps the decisionThe agent qualifies, schedules and chases; no commitment or instruction is concluded automatically.
Human oversight & traceabilityMonitoring, updates and logging frame qualification & booking viewings, in line with the AI Act.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Can AI really qualify my prospects?
Yes. An AI agent calls every new contact back immediately, asks the right questions (plans, budget, financing, timing), checks the match with your properties and proposes a viewing slot. The negotiator picks up a lead that is already qualified and steps in only where value is created: the viewing and the negotiation.
Is my customers' data protected?
Yes. Your clients' contact details, budgets and financial data are sensitive: our agents run locally at the agency or are hosted in France, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Does the agent work outside opening hours?
Yes. A large share of enquiries arrives in the evening and at weekends, when buyers are browsing listings. The agent answers and qualifies around the clock, then passes the negotiator contacts ready to be called back — you no longer lose leads for want of a quick reply.
Which tools can our customers use to talk to the agent?
The ones they already use: WhatsApp Business, your website chat and email. Your customers have no account to create and no app to install. Your own teams reach the same agent from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email. These connections rest on open standards, including the MCP protocol, and are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote; the catalogue grows without a surcharge. Only the fees charged by third-party platforms — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on to you at cost, without margin, outside the subscription. You keep oversight from a web dashboard.
Do we have to change our sales software or CRM?
No. The agent connects to your existing tools (sales software, CRM, listing portals, calendar) and complements them, without forcing a migration. We adapt the integration to your environment.
Can the agent also serve lettings management?
Yes. Beyond sales, it handles tenants' requests, prepares the files and chases rent arrears in escalating sequences. Every chase and every letter stays subject to a manager's approval.
Do you have to be a large network to equip yourself?
No. The offer suits an independent agency just as well as an agency with several negotiators; a network with several branches calls for an agent sized for several calendars and several business systems.
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a 30-minute meeting with our sales team that identifies the use case with the best return, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live and training your teams.
Related industries
Other professions in client relations and advice
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential at your agency
30 minutes to identify the use case with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.