ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
% With at least 1 scam indicator% with at least 2 scam indicators% That flag with image search% With a new profile% With false profile pictures% With erroneous pricing *
2
London94% (47)64% (32)62% (31)24% (12)24% (12)86% (43)
3
Birmingham84% (42)38% (19)66% (33)28% (14)8% (4)40% (20)
4
Belfast68% (34)46% (23)58% (29)52% (26)16% (8)2% (1)
5
Manchester60% (30)30% (15)48% (24)36% (18)4% (2)12% (6)
6
Cardiff66% (33)34% (17)60% (30)36% (18)10% (5)4% (2)
7
Edinburgh70% (35)50% (25)44% (22)42% (21)12% (6)54% (27)
8
Overall Mean74%44%56%36%12%33%
9
10
11
12
Notes
13
Four criteria were used to determine the legitimacy of the adverts.
14
1) Whether the property could be found elsewhere using a Google image search.
15
2) Whether the profile was new (less than a year old)
16
3) Whether the profile picture of the advertiser could be found elsewhere using a Google image search and
17
4) Whether the price of the property advertised was significantly lower than average prices locally
18
*Calculated using figures from the ONS. Rents are deemed as erroneous when they are less than two thirds of the price of an average property in the area
19
Sellers were sent messages asking to view the property. The text of the messages were as follows: "[Need to check with Navleen]
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100