01
A Zero Balance System
LettsPay is designed not to build a standing, multi-agency pool of client money requiring continuous reconciliation. The operating focus is the transaction: what is due, what has arrived and what has been paid onward.
The LettsPay Branded Truth
Client money without the pooled balance.
LettsPay describes itself as a rent-collection and disbursement system designed around a Zero Balance System: money is intended to be managed according to what is due and what has been paid, without creating the multi-agency pooled balance found in an OSCA-P model.
Clear movement. Clear attribution. Exceptions made visible.
The intended movement of money
Tenant pays
→
Payment observed
Due identified
→
Paid onward
No pooled balanceto accumulate across agencies
The Branded Truth
How LettsPay describes its architecture
The proposition is not simply conventional client-account bookkeeping moved onto somebody else’s software. The claimed difference is architectural and remains subject to the evidence controls set out on this site.
02
Stated independence from the property CRM
According to LettsPay, the CRM supplies what should be due while LettsPay separately observes what has been received and controls the instructed apportionment. The intended control is that one system does not simply mark the other system’s homework.
03
Stated payment infrastructure
LettsPay identifies Modulr as providing payment infrastructure and Griffin as providing banking services. Its model is intended to keep landlord funds attributable without sweeping multiple agencies’ money into one platform-owned pooled balance. The exact legal account structure remains subject to confirmation.
04
Reported exception-led operation
LettsPay reports that routine transactions complete automatically and that late, short or incomplete payments become exceptions for active handling rather than disappearing inside a growing reconciliation problem.
Architectural principle
£0
No multi-agency pooled balance
“Zero balance” is not a ledger being made to look tidy while pooled cash rests elsewhere. It describes a system designed not to create that pooled balance in the first place.
Why the distinction matters
Due and paid—not a balance waiting to be explained.
A ledger or wallet can represent who money belongs to. That is not the same as the underlying cash being legally and operationally segregated. LettsPay states that its design starts with the movement and attribution of each transaction.
- Rent due is identified from the agency’s records.
- Money received is intended to be observed separately.
- Instructed payments are intended to be apportioned to the relevant parties.
- LettsPay reports uncompleted items as visible exceptions.
The client-money taxonomy
Three models. One crucial difference.
“Outsourced” does not describe a single architecture. Where the balance sits, whose name it is held in and whether agencies are pooled together all matter.
| Model | Where the balance sits | What is pooled | Operational character |
|---|---|---|---|
| DECCA | An agency’s own client account | Multiple landlords within that agency | Established double-entry client cash accounting with a balance to reconcile. |
| OSCA-I | A third-party platform, separately for each agency | No commingling between agencies | Client cash accounting is outsourced but each agency remains structurally separate. |
| OSCA-P | A platform-owned pooled account | Multiple agencies, each representing multiple landlords | A second layer of pooling; attribution depends on sub-ledgers and reconciliation. |
| ZBS / LettsPay | No accumulating multi-agency pooled balance | The architecture is designed not to create the pool | Transaction-led: due, received, apportioned and paid, with exceptions surfaced. |
Operational picture
Automation where it should be. Attention where it matters.
The reported operating data describes a system in which the overwhelming majority of transactions complete routinely, leaving the team to work on genuine exceptions.
96.25%of transactions reported as completing automatically
3.75%reported as exceptions requiring active arrears handling
100kapproximately monthly transactions reported at the time of compilation
Evidence and restraint
What is established—and what still needs confirming.
A Branded Truth should make uncertainty visible. It should never turn an intended architecture into a regulatory endorsement that has not been given.
The intended system design
LettsPay describes its model as a Zero Balance System, identifies Modulr as payment infrastructure and Griffin as banking infrastructure, and says the architecture avoids a multi-agency pooled balance.
ZBS is not OSCA-P
OSCA-P is defined here as a platform-level account pooling money attributable to multiple agencies. LettsPay’s defining architectural claim is that this pool is not created.
Precise legal account structure
The exact legal account-holder and beneficial-ownership structure at Griffin should be confirmed in definitive provider documentation before stronger legal claims are made.
Regulatory interpretation
No statement here claims that MHCLG, RICS, Propertymark or a CMP scheme has formally endorsed LettsPay’s particular structure. Open regulatory questions remain open.
Important: This page explains the available evidence and LettsPay’s stated architecture. It is not legal advice and does not replace formal confirmation from the relevant banking, legal or regulatory parties. All comparisons are governed by the Comparative Governance Guidelines.