What we have learnt from Mystery Shopping 110+ PBSA Schemes
By Esme Webb, Director of hereSAY and Research
Over the past year, we as hereSAY, have mystery shopped more than 110 PBSA schemes across the UK, with each scheme visited multiple times and at different points in the leasing cycle. In total, that amounts to more than 500 individual mystery shops and counting, all carried out by genuine students carrying out viewings as real prospective residents.
Our focus was specifically on the viewing and leasing experience, from how schemes handle an enquiry, to how they convert that into a viewing, deliver the tour itself, and follow up afterwards. That gave us a much broader evidence base than a single visit or one-off audit, allowing us to assess how consistently schemes perform across the prospect journey.
Each shop was assessed through a structured framework covering the key stages of the leasing journey. Because the same criteria were applied across every visit, the data provides a comparable picture of performance across schemes, locations and operators, not just in terms of whether a team delivered a good tour, but how effectively and consistently they managed the journey from enquiry through to decision.
At a high level, the sector continues to perform well. Investment remains strong, demand is resilient, and occupancy across many markets is still high. Product standards have improved significantly, leasing processes are more structured, and front-of-house teams are generally confident and capable. Our data shows that enquiries are typically handled quickly, with nearly 70% responded to immediately, and viewings usually offered within a day. When a prospect arrives on site, the experience is professional and well delivered, with staff friendliness and product knowledge consistently scoring above 90%.
But once you look beyond the surface, a more interesting picture emerges.
Across the schemes we visited, overall performance scores ranged from over 90% at the top end to just over 40% at the bottom. That is a significant spread, particularly in a market that feels increasingly standardised and fundamentally strong.
This reflects a wider shift across the sector. While demand remains robust, performance is becoming less consistent. Variation between cities, assets and operators is more pronounced, with some schemes continuing to perform strongly while others are seeing softer leasing patterns or requiring greater intervention.
What becomes clear quite quickly is that most operators are doing the right things. The issue is that they are often doing them in the same way.
Viewings tend to follow a familiar structure. The same features are highlighted, the same amenities are prioritised, and the same messages are communicated. None of this is wrong. It reflects a sector that has matured and aligned around best practice. But from a student’s perspective, particularly one viewing multiple schemes in a short period of time, the experiences can begin to blur together.
This is where the difference between good and effective starts to matter.
The highest-performing schemes don’t necessarily have better buildings or more extensive amenity offers. What they do differently is more subtle. The viewing feels more considered, more connected and more relevant to the individual. Conversations go beyond the standard tour narrative, and there is a clearer sense that the interaction is moving towards a leasing decision rather than simply completing a process.
This distinction is becoming more important as the market evolves. Historically, performance was largely driven by supply, location and having a solid product. Now, with greater competition in core cities and more choice available to students, those fundamentals are expected rather than differentiating.
By contrast, lower-performing schemes rarely fail outright. The viewing is usually delivered competently, the team is friendly, and the product is sound. But the leasing experience often lacks depth. Only around 58% of the viewings we carried out were personalised, and fewer than half of prospects were addressed by name. Key information, the kind that actually informs leasing decisions, is also inconsistently delivered. For example, details around internet speeds were only clearly explained in 1 in 5 viewings, despite being a consistent priority for students.
One of the clearest indicators of the performance gap sits after the viewing itself. Despite strong delivery during the tour, fewer than half of prospects receive any follow-up after their viewing. Given that decisions are often made after the viewing, once options have been compared and discussed, this represents a missed opportunity to reinforce what was, in many cases, a positive initial experience.
Taken together, these are not major operational failures. They are small inconsistencies that accumulate across the journey. But when you compare a scheme operating at over 90% with one closer to 40%, those small differences start to have a material impact on leasing performance.
What this reflects is a broader shift in the PBSA market. The fundamentals are strong, but they are no longer enough on their own. Good buildings, well-run tours and responsive teams are now the baseline. The point of differentiation is moving beyond the product itself and into how that product is experienced, and how consistently that experience is delivered throughout the leasing journey.
For operators and investors, this raises a more nuanced question. If most schemes are delivering a solid viewing experience, but outcomes still vary this widely, then performance is no longer being driven by what is offered, but by how effectively it is delivered.
The sector is not underperforming, but it is not yet maximising its potential either. With an overall benchmark average of 68%, the gap between current delivery and optimal performance is relatively narrow, but commercially significant.
Ultimately, the difference between the highest and lowest performing schemes is not defined by a single factor. It is the result of multiple small moments handled with greater intent, clarity and consistency.
And given the range of customer experience delivery we have seen, the question this leaves is a simple one: