Sentiment around the number and relevance of pre-contract enquiries remains low amongst conveyancers with over half saying the situation is worse than 12 months ago in the latest sentiment survey undertaken by Today’s Conveyancer
The survey, which has run annually for the last four years and this year received over 100 responses, again demonstrates pre-contract enquiries remain a bone of contention with many conveyancers, not only from the point of view of the number of enquiries, but also the continued decline in the relevance of enquiries. 12 months ago 70% of respondents said the situation was worse than the previous 12 months. In the 2025 survey 55% of respondents said the situation was worse than 12 months ago , with 38% suggesting the situation was unchanged. Just 7% suggested the situation has improved over the last year.
The number of pre-contract enquiries
While sentiment around the number of enquiries increasing remains high with over two thirds of respondents saying the number of enquiries they were receiving had increased in the last 12 months, there appears to be a fall in the number of conveyancers who report increasing enquiry numbers. When the survey was first run in 2022, 76% of respondents said they were seeing increasing numbers of enquiries, peaking in 2023 at 83%. In the two years since that number has steadily fallen, with 66% of conveyancers saying they had seen increase. 38% said this year was unchanged.
The number of enquiries received over the last 12 months on average per matter has increased
- 2022: 76%
- 2023: 83%
- 2024: 70%
- 2025: 66%
Interestingly, the sentiment doesn’t quite chime with the reality says Peter Ambrose, CEO of Legalito. The enquiry management software has been tracking the volume of enquiries per matter over time and have found a relatively steady number of enquiries have been raised over the past three years.
“In the last twelve months, analysing 3250 leasehold and freehold purchases, the number of enquiries has not materially changed. We are seeing the number of enquiries for freehold transactions staying steady at around 16 per case and on leasehold transactions at 21 per case. In 2023 these were 17 for freehold and 22 for leasehold, and in 2024 it was 16 for freehold and 20 for leasehold, it’s safe to say that there has been no real change in the actual numbers.”
With some level of clarity over the future of the TA6 now confirmed by the Law Society and the introduction of a secondary as-yet-unseen material information form there are concerns the number of pre-contract enquiries could increase again. Asked if respondents thought the dual approach to TA6 with the separate material information form will increase, decrease or maintain the current volume of enquiries, over half (55%) said they thought it would increase the number. One third said they thought it would maintain the current number.
“I see the new TA6 proposal as a disaster for enquiries and transaction times. TA6’s are already completed badly by people who often don’t understand the questions. More of this will simply lead to more clarification queries. Material information largely has nothing to do with the conveyancing process so why impose it on conveyancers. This should be imposed at marketing stage on property listings so that offers are made based on the information (but of course then it would have to be insurance backed and accurate which is why people give it to the conveyancers so we can verify it – hence the extra enquiries needed)”
said one respondent, another one adding the new version was ‘over the top’ and a ‘nightmare’ for clients and firms to deal with.
The relevance of pre-contract enquiries
Certainly relevance, whether as a result of material information or otherwise, remains a huge issue with comments on the survey highlighting the use of ‘standard enquiries’, some of which has little or no relevance to the matter.
“Conveyancers don’t read the CQS Protocol nor the Standard. Conditions of Sale leading to a vacuum which they attempt to fill with senseless Enquiries. Too many firms insist on using a standard set without allowing conveyancers to apply their mind.”
said one respondent.
“I receive far too many unnecessary enquiries, mainly from fee earners that seem relatively new to conveyancing however certain firms have standard enquiries that they send on every transaction. I had two sets of enquiries yesterday both asking if there had been a breach of covenant – but no covenants on the title – the buyer’s conveyancer clearly hadn’t checked this.”
added another. Again, as with the number of enquiries, the number of conveyancers suggesting the relevance of enquiries has fallen since the survey was first run.
The relevance of enquiries received over the last 12 months per file has decreased
- 2022: 75%
- 2023: Question not asked
- 2024: 54%
- 2025: 57%
What are the contributing factors to pre-contract enquiries
Unchanged is the view a perceived lack of expertise and training is the main culprit for the issues around pre-contract enquiries. In 2023 86% of respondents said a lack of training and experience was a contributing factor to increases in the volume of enquiries. In 2024 82% said it was either an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ factor. In 2025 it was 85%… a consistent view over a sustained period of time this is an area firms need to invest time and effort into.
A near exact result on the lack of enforcement action by the Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS), The Law Society or the Council for Licensed Conveyancers when comparing 2024 and 2025 echoes the 2022 and 2023 results in which they were all criticised for their lack of action. Two thirds (65%) of respondents said they felt the lack of enforcement action was either ‘important’ or ‘very important’ in the context of the current issues, especially where enquires fall outside of the CQS and the protocol:
“As well as the enquiries being outside of CQS lots of law firms won’t accept reasonable replies and push until they get either indemnity (usually unnecessary) or an answer that CQS says we don’t have to give. Decent law firms are having to weigh up the balance of wasting time going back and forth (holding firm that we wont answer non CQS enquiries) or just giving the answer to save time/energy. It is delaying the process and frustrating lawyers and clients just to tick a box for firms who generally employ non qualified staff and then at the last minute refer the file to a qualified lawyer who then raises last minute issues re KYC or things that could have been raised at the outset.”
wrote one frustrated conveyancer.
“Enforcement by CQS and CLC to ensure that members don’t raise idiotic, standard enquiries that can be answered by looking at the PIF, supporting contract papers, inspection, survey and an application of common sense. Ensure that all CQS and CLC regulated bodies correctly train their staff.”
added another.
Evidence of a softening of sentiment around the furore caused by the Building Safety Act is evident in response to a question about the impact of regulation on enquiries where in 2024 four in five respondents said it was an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ factor; and in 2025 that falls 10 percentage points to 70%. There was a slight increase in the number of respondents who cited a fear of negligence claims up from 71% in 2024 to 75% in 2025.
Given the development of technology solutions in this area sentiment around the impact of process automation is markedly different in 2025 compared with 2024. In 2024 one in five respondents considered process automation as ‘very unimportant’, scoring it 1 out of 5 on the scoring scale. 56% scored its impact between 1 and 3 – ‘very unimportant’ to neither important nor unimportant’. And 25% said it was a ‘very important’ factor in the current debate.
In 2025 that has shifted significantly with 33% of respondents ranking its impact as ‘very important’ (5). Just 14% considered it ‘very unimportant’ and 41% scored its impact between 1 and 3 – ‘very unimportant’ to neither important nor unimportant’. Comments around the relevance of enquiry management technology was mixed. There was an acknowledgment that while there are tendencies for it to produce ‘a lot of unnecessary queries’ it is likely to improve over time. And from technology providers there is a warning firms must take a long hard look at their processes or risk falling foul of their professional indemnity insurers says Peter Ambrose of Legalito
“Those lawyers who continue to deny that the current haphazard approach to the management of pre-contract enquiries is acceptable, need to review their processes and claims history. It will be found wanting.”
Gemma Fulbrook-Felstead, Operations Director at Collaborative Conveyancing, whose own Enquiry Manager product launched last year added
“The results again speak for themselves. As we move into another busy summer, it’s clear that conveyancers continue to face significant pressures. For yet another year, this survey confirms what many already experience daily: enquiry volumes remain a source of great frustration, and concerns around their relevance persist. However, this also presents an opportunity. With the government now publicly committing to digitising the home buying and selling process, the direction of travel is both clear and encouraging.”
“Let’s work together as property professionals on both sides to reverse this trend to ensure next year’s survey shows improvements. We encourage law firms to explore how technology can support their teams in reducing the administrative burden and freeing up valuable time so that conveyancers are able to do what they do best, delivering excellent service to their clients.”
Much ado about nothing?
Regardless of where you stand on the debate, pre-contract enquiries are an important part of conveyancing and are, said one respondent, a key part of acting for clients.
“Enquiries are a red herring. Good solicitors simply get on and deal with replies without posting all over social media. The job is about acting for clients. If they request that we ask questions we do so… end of. Too much point scoring in conveyancing, too many toxic social media trolls, just do the job.”
And, as another said, ‘we do have to remember we are being paid to do a job which may require enquiries to be raised.’ finishing with a plea and reminder
“Conveyancing is not just a process. The enquiries need to be relevant. I don’t have an issue with a standard worded enquiry as it may be that it covers all the pertinent point but I don’t like enquiries which do not apply e.g. asking about covenants when there are none or enquiries that serve no purpose e.g. please confirm if the blue edging on the plan is the blue edging referred to in the transfer.”
3 responses
One fact often overlooked is that those who say Enquiries must be raised because the client asks for that Enquiry to be raised need to consider the difference between something the client may wish to know and something the client must establish before proceeding as it effects Title. Apart from that if the firm is signed up to CQS just doing what the client wants is not a good excuse. Point scoring could also be described as “sticking the Protocol” otherwise, what’s the point.
The “we must do what clients ask us to do” is lazy and unprofessional.
Enquiries don’t have to be responded to. That’s something else the Standard Listers don’t seem to get either. So insisting they are is bizarre. Ask once then move on.
And as for technology making it easier it’s easy to actually read the documentation that have been provided and then ask questions which relate to Title and suggest to the client that if they wish to know if there’s ever been a burglary or a murder or to confirm the boundary then the estate agent can act as a go between and instructing a surveyor is a better option. But this requires training and, in my view, a qualification and Standard Listers aren’t really interested in that and are probably tech over-reliant already.
Despair. What on earth does “sentiment…remains low…” mean? It is meaingless rubbish! Have lawyers evolved to have fewer nerve endings or something? And what is this meant to mean: “While sentiment around the number of enquiries increasing remains high with over two thirds of respondents saying the number of enquiries they were receiving had increased in the last 12 months, there appears to be a fall in the number of conveyancers who report increasing enquiry numbers.” Complete gobbledygook. What hy is there this repeated inappropriate reference to sentiment throughout this article? You do not mean sentiment! Do please find the right words – lawyers are supposed to have something of a handle on the English language – or at least they used to.
Sad to say, but by far and aware the worst offenders for this are the CLC regulated mass-conveyancers who employ unqualified people to process transactions.
And that is all they are doing – processing. There is no understand of issues, risk or relevance to so many of the questions they raise.