Crowd With Us

Product focus: investments in UK property development through mezzanine-style arrangements and equity-like structures. The platform has been described in marketing copy as offering "low-risk" property deals; that characterisation is unverified and should be treated cautiously because secured mezzanine positions can still expose investors to capital loss if projects fail.

Fees and minimums: investor-facing fees are reported as 0% platform fee and a 45p withdrawal fee; developers pay a success fee on completed raises. The commonly quoted minimum investment is £1, which increases accessibility but does not mitigate credit, market or liquidity risks.

Missing/uncertain items: there is no consistent, verifiable public record of historical returns, aggregate funds lent, default rates, or a published track record that would allow independent performance assessment. Some sources report different loan/repayment totals. There is no evidence of an IFISA wrapper, SIPP eligibility, or a secondary market for early exits.

The platform appears intended for experienced investors who accept higher risk and illiquidity. Sources indicate that the platform requires investors to be adults and to self-certify as appropriate for the opportunities on offer; some projects may be aimed at investors who meet "sophisticated" or "high net worth" definitions, though specific eligibility rules should be verified directly with the firm.

Why this matters: without FCA authorisation or FSCS/Ombudsman protections, investor diligence is the primary line of defence. Mezzanine and development finance exposures can result in total capital loss; therefore, only a small portion of a diversified portfolio should be allocated if an investor chooses to participate.

Potential strengths (as reported)

• Low stated minimum investment (reported £1) and low investor fees (0% platform fee; 45p withdrawal fee) may lower the monetary barrier to participation.

Principal risks and limitations

• Regulatory: no evidence of FCA authorisation was located; this removes FSCS and Financial Ombudsman recourse and significantly increases counterparty and conduct risk.
• Transparency: conflicting figures for total lending and repayments and a lack of independently verifiable historical performance or default-rate disclosures limit investors' ability to assess track record.
• Liquidity: no evidence of a secondary market or routine early-exit mechanism; capital may be locked until project completion.
• Operational/customer feedback: third-party review pages and forum mentions are sparse and mixed; some aggregator/review entries report complaints or operational issues.

These risks materially affect the likelihood of capital preservation and investor recourse; investors should prioritise up-to-date regulatory checks and request documentary evidence of project security and historic performance from the platform.

1. No FCA authorisation found: this is the principal red flag. Unless Crowd With Us appears on the FCA Financial Services Register or can demonstrate operation under an authorised principal, investors lack statutory protections (FSCS and Financial Ombudsman).
2. Conflicting performance/volume figures: sources show contradictory numbers for funds lent and repaid — one states over £17m lent and £5.1m repaid, while another states nearly £3m lent and £8.4m repaid. This contradiction is unresolved and requires clarification from primary company disclosures or audited records.
3. Limited independent reviews: there is a near-absence of consistent, extensive third-party reviews on mainstream platforms; where reviews exist they are limited or mixed, reducing external verification of operational quality.

Unlock full platform information

• How does it work?
• What do they offer?
• Who is it for?
• Strengths & Risks
• Red Flags & Watch Points

Create Free Account

Already a member? Sign in

Free forever · No spam · Takes 10 seconds