A task force of conveyancers has assembled to address what its members say are fatal flaws in the government’s proposals for home buying reform. Urgent conversations have been taking place amongst the group since Sunday, a spokesperson said, with the aim of analysing the consultation documents ‘for the good of the profession’.
The group – which currently stands at eight solicitors representing several firms, with more expected to join in the coming days – has shared a summary of the contentious issues that have been identified in the proposals, which solicitor Stephen Larcombe says ‘are very apparent to busy property law practitioners’.
He added:
“We will be adopting a collaborative approach to dissect the two government’s consultation documents for the good of the profession, and which are, from my perspective, deeply flawed, and in some respects, display muddled thinking.”
The task force has identified an initial list of eight areas, which it says it will be expanded over the coming weeks.
Increased upfront costs for sellers
“Requiring sellers to commission and pay for detailed assessments and surveys before listing shifts significant cost onto them. This could deter individuals – especially those on tight budgets or with lower-value properties – from placing their homes on the market, squeezing supply, and potentially driving up prices.”
Risk of liability from incomplete or inaccurate information
“Mandating earlier binding contracts alongside comprehensive disclosure heightens the risk that sellers and their agents face misrepresentation, or non-disclosure claims if any detail were incorrect or missing. This mirrors concerns from the Home Information Packs era, where over-disclosure led to disputes and discouraged listings.”
Potential deterrent effect on sellers and impact on supply
“By eroding the principle of ‘caveat emptor’ and amplifying seller responsibility, the reforms may unintentionally make homeowners hesitant to list. A drop in homes for sale could slow market turnover, worsen affordability issues, and undermine the very goal of boosting supply.”
Complexity and resource burden of digitisation
“Building a fully digital property ‘ecosystem’ – complete with digital identity verification, standardised data formats, property logbooks and real-time integration between agents, conveyancers, lenders, and local authorities – demands significant investment in IT infrastructure and training. Smaller firms and under-resourced councils may struggle to keep pace, leading to patchy adoption and potential data-security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, there is a worldwide cyber-crime pandemic, and most property lawyers challenge the idea of building ‘cyber-crime highways’ that would undermine the UK’s huge property market.”
Risk of replicating past failures
The reforms’ emphasis on ‘upfront information’ closely resembles the old home information packs (HIPs) regime scrapped by the government in 2010 after adding cost and complexity without clear benefit. If not tightly scoped and efficiently delivered, the new packs could duplicate work, extend listing delays, and reintroduce barriers to sale.
Variable quality of upfront information and professional standards
“Although the government proposes mandatory qualifications and a code of practice for estate agents and conveyancers, oversight will be critical. Without robust enforcement and consistent auditing, the quality and completeness of required disclosures could vary widely by region and firm, perpetuating uncertainty rather than resolving it. Furthermore, why do highly trained lawyers, already among the most regulated in the world, need more auditing. This idea not only displays muddled thinking but is offensive to the legal profession.”
‘I envisage that our responses to the consultations will be grounded in jurisprudence and the public interest’, Larcombe added. ‘The task force will also want to ensure that any responses are based on evidence and sound principles’.
11 responses
‘I remember when it were all fields round here ‘
Hahahaha
The first 3 appear to be the same issue: reform in how properties are presented and who pays for the information to be available at listing may/could/might effect supply?
Cyber/data security is a real issue. I’m now starting to see claims management companies touting for claims by people effected by the Legal Aid Agency data breach.
Arguably the lack of proper legislation and a failure in leadership caused HIPs to fail.
That doesn’t mean the thinking behind the concept of more information presented to buyers at listing is wrong. To me it makes perfect sense.
Regulation of estate agents is essential because otherwise none of the Government reforms will be implemented. The property ombudsman has reported on complaints about estate agents failing to provide material information. As more buyers understand what they should expect from property agents and more sellers realise that the failure to advise them properly about material information has cost them a sale self regulation for fear of having to pay compensation mate cause a change in culture however a statutory requirement to provide material information would potentially change the culture more rapidly and embed good practice.
Where the consultation is light is on proper research based assessments of why the property buying timeframes have extended so that the real issues can be addressed. It’s highly possible that shareable secure data or material information or the regulation of estate agents will make no difference at all to time frames unless chains and the financing of a purchase are also addressed and unless AML require placed on Solicitors are passed back to UK Finance.
Maybe the best reform could come from a proper understanding of the extended timeframes given many firms can deal with transactions a lot quicker than those businesses which are technology dependent, qualified personnel light and reliant on being force fed transactions for a fee.
This has been done over the past few years from lender to agents, to conveyancers, surveyors, search companies agents etc. And its lots of reasons, which is why one change to HB&S wont help – we need to start with consumer education and make changes through to moving day. It requires changes by government, home moving services and buyers and sellers. But things have moved on and some agents are now working with conveyancers, providing upfront information and reservation agreements and their stats show the time it takes to sell and the reduction in fall throughs. Worth checking out the case studies in the consultation.
Without wishing to step on the toes of the PLA, the Bold Legal Group is also in the process of setting up an advisory working group in order to discuss the pros and cons of the two recently launched Government consultations.
A new free private and secure online forum has been set up ready to welcome participants that will initially be open to all conveyancers and, possibly at a later date (if agreed by the group), other front-line workers, including agents, brokers, removers, and possibly representatives from lenders and other organisations. As the saying goes “it takes a village to raise a child”.
The purpose of the group will be to consider carefully the objectives outlined in the consultations and to provide constructive feedback in due course, with a view to making sure that these latest proposals to improve the home buying and selling process (if they come to fruition) ultimately make a positive difference for all involved.
The group will also be discussing the effectiveness of the new version of the latest version of the TA6, which is expected to be revealed very shortly.
You do not need to be a current BLG member in order to take part. If you aren’t a member but are interested in joining this new advisory working group, please email me: rh@boldgroup.co.uk.
Too many cooks. And we all know what their conclusion will be. Stop conveyancing being done by unqualified conveyancers. All dressed up in very flowery prose to show everyone how oh so clever they are.
Delays are predominantly caused by those in the profession being stretched way too thin. We need to encourage recruitment and then properly train those people. Management companies are also a big cause of delays – more regulation in that sector would benefit everyone.
So who are these people and on what basis have they been selected as a “task force” to represent conveyancers? Which of course they do not.
How much experience do they have? Do they come from all types of firm within the conveyancing profession? Are they all Solicitors or do they cover the whole spectrum of conveyancing and include Licenced Conveyancers. Legal Executives and unqualified conveyancers?
Just a few questions which require answering before the bull in the china shop is let loose?
Sellers are happy to pay if they know their sale is more likely to result in a more certain buyer. Speed is still important but secondary IMO. Forcing sellers to pay for a pack upfront will remove some of those speculating from the market, but that may encourage agents to try to source off-market properties, using property data to identify suitable properties for their buyers.
I’m not sure ‘caveat emptor’ still has a place in the home buying/selling process. Once all the available information has been presented upfront, there isn’t much more one can do.
Having property information as data, will drive many more services/solutions to the market and drive more automation of mundane tasks. In turn, human error will be removed to better service the consumer.
HIPs was a good idea, poorly implemented. Taking out the survey killed it before it even got off the ground. But we also need to realise that we are in a totally different place, from a technical POV, than back in 2010. All the solutions are already here, but we need to tie them all together.
I do agree that agents should be regulated to uphold the correct standards required.
With regard to the changes being consulted on, everyone will have opinions on what will and won’t and indeed what else should be being done to change buying and selling, which is great, that’s the point of the consultation. However, I totally agree that it’s important to note that it’s buyers and sellers that are finding the process hardest and costly both financially and personally. Some of the things generated from the consultation that are already helping to show their frustrations are: BBC R4 You and Yours programme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002kf8r and also reading the 700+ comments on the BBC write up of the changes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0v7zwp0dlo, both show what consumers think is required.
Finally, a lot of things proposed are already available and being used, so there is evidence that shows providing upfront information, especially where agents and conveyancing lawyers work together to deliver the information, can reduce the time it takes to move home. It also overcomes worries about information not being accurate if the conveyancing lawyer is involved from the start. I have instructed legals prior to selling for quite a few properties both professionally and personally and find it makes an enormous difference, both in the time it takes to sell and stress levels! Although some fear it may deter some from selling, this doesn’t mean it will reduce transactions. It’s estimated that agents sell around 50% of their listings and that 25% + transactions fall through currently, so even if less people put properties on the market because they aren’t willing to invest some money upfront it may be that even more more sales go through and do so more smoothly.
We have now heard a “formidable task force” has been assembled. Why do the PLA insist on such offensive, inflammatory language all the time, it does them no credit. You are NOT going to war, this is a consultation for goodness sake.
What we do not know is who are these formidable people claiming to look after the interests of all conveyancers, in secret? Impossible to trust people who live in the shadows, insult people in the profession on an almost daily basis, and play by their own rules.
If the conveyancers are so good, let us all be told who they are otherwise we cannot judge? Oh yes, but doing that might actually reveal some of your members identities.