A founder-led service for getting open repairs under control.
I’m Abdi Yusuf. I created Property Follow-Up to help independent lettings teams turn an unclear repair process into a working system where every open job has an owner, status, next action, chase date and update status.
Important work can be recorded and still not be under control.
My background combines extensive experience in administration, workflow coordination, record keeping, systems and process improvement. That experience has involved managing multiple stakeholders, time-sensitive actions, changing information, supporting evidence and work that must remain clear when responsibility changes hands.
The recurring failure point is rarely that nobody recorded the work. It is that the current owner, decision or next action becomes unclear after the first step. That is exactly how an open repair can sit between a tenant report, landlord approval, contractor response and staff handover until somebody chases.
Property Follow-Up was created to solve that narrow problem properly: define the repair route, implement it inside a suitable existing tool and leave the team with something usable, not merely a list of recommendations.
The relevant experience is in controlling work across people, records and deadlines.
My role is deliberately focused: understand how operational work breaks down when ownership, records or deadlines become unclear, then turn the agency’s own knowledge and responsibilities into a clear process people can actually follow.
Complex administration
Extensive experience managing work where dates, correspondence, decisions, records and supporting evidence all need to remain accurate and easy to trace.
Multi-party coordination
Experience keeping work moving when different people own different actions and progress depends on clear requests, follow-ups and escalation points.
Systems and handovers
Experience turning an unwritten process into visible stages, ownership rules, prompts and guidance that another person can understand and use.
Your team supplies the agency knowledge. I turn it into a controlled workflow.
I do not arrive pretending to know the agency’s contractors, approval limits or internal responsibilities better than the people doing the work. Discovery captures that knowledge from the team and from real repair examples.
My responsibility is to translate it into a system that clearly shows what stage each repair is at, who owns the current action, what happens next, when it should be chased and whether the relevant update has been sent.
Listen before designing
The workflow starts with the team’s actual repair route and constraints, not a generic template imposed from outside.
Build before advising
The paid outcome is a configured working setup, not a report telling the agency to fix it themselves.
Test before handover
Sample repairs are moved through the agreed stages before the workflow is demonstrated and handed over.
The same founder remains responsible through all five stages.
There is no handoff from a salesperson to an unknown implementer. I remain the named contact and person responsible for completing the agreed setup.
Discovery
I speak with the relevant team members, review the current tools and examine a small number of anonymised or client-approved open repairs to locate the real bottlenecks.
Design
I produce a Setup Plan defining the stages, fields, owners, chase rules, update points and acceptance criteria. The client approves it before implementation begins.
Implementation
I configure the agreed workflow inside a suitable existing system or approved lightweight tracker, staying within the documented scope.
Testing
I run sample repairs through the workflow end to end and check that ownership, actions, chase dates, updates and completion are visible as agreed.
Handover
I demonstrate the final setup, train the team, provide a short operating guide and include 14 days for minor in-scope adjustments.
Trust should come from what is agreed, built and demonstrated.
You do not have to rely on a vague promise. The design, scope and definition of “finished” are agreed before the main build, then tested against a real workflow.
Approve the plan first.
The Setup Plan shows exactly what will be configured before implementation begins.
Test the agreed result.
The workflow must process a sample repair against the approved acceptance criteria.
Receive a usable handover.
The team receives training, a short guide and an adjustment period. It is not an unexplained system left behind.
A narrow service is easier to deliver properly.
The standard offer is intentionally limited to one repair workflow. Anything outside that boundary is identified before work begins rather than quietly added to the project.
Not a software replacement
The service does not rebuild the agency’s full CRM or property-management platform. Existing tools are used where they can support the approved workflow.
Not an official software partnership
Property Follow-Up does not claim to be an authorised Fixflo, Reapit, Arthur or other platform partner. Tool feasibility is checked before it is promised.
Not legal or compliance advice
The service does not interpret tenancy law, assess whether a condition is legally hazardous or certify regulatory compliance.
Not an outsourced repairs desk
I implement and hand over the workflow. I do not take over tenant calls, contractor chasing or day-to-day repair management indefinitely.
Judge the service by what it is designed to produce.
The example page shows the control board, workflow and supporting materials in practical terms. If the outcome looks relevant, request a Repair Workflow Review to explore how it could fit your team.
Illustrative examples are labelled clearly until real client case studies are available.