In her regular monthly column, the Conveyancing Association’s director of delivery Beth Rudolf looks behind the headline statistics from the Legal Ombudsman’s complaints data, and finds a reassuring theme.
Apparently, 87% of clients are happy with their conveyancer and it is easy for us to do even better. Yet, recent headlines on the Legal Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on residential conveyancing have focused on, what is seemingly, a sharp rise in complaints, pointing to a 30% increase across all sectors.
However, a closer look at the data shows a more measured picture when it comes to conveyancing specifically.
Attention to detail
While any increase in complaints should be taken seriously, the detail matters. Within conveyancing the rise is far more modest, with complaints increasing by around 6% rather than tracking the broader trend seen elsewhere. When placed against overall transaction volumes, the numbers also begin to look very different.
Across four quarters, from Q4 2024/25 through to Q3 2025/26, there were 2,399 complaints made to the Legal Ombudsman about conveyancing, set against more than one million transactions. Even if we account for both buyers and sellers within those transactions, this equates to around 0.11% of parties raising a complaint, which is a proportion that challenges the more dramatic narrative some are presenting.
This is not to dismiss the importance of complaints, as each one represents a client experience that did not meet expectations, but it does underline that the vast majority of transactions are being handled without escalation to the Ombudsman, and that more than 80% of clients still report a positive service despite the pressures in the system.
Understanding where the issues arise
The report identifies three main areas where complaints tend to occur, namely communication, unclear or unrealistic expectations, and delays that are either not justified or not explained in a way clients can easily understand.
None of these themes will come as a surprise to those working in the sector, and in many respects they reflect long-standing challenges rather than new or emerging problems. Communication has always been a pressure point, particularly in a system where multiple parties are involved and where updates are often dependent on information from third parties.
The Legal Ombudsman itself acknowledges communication complaints can stem from the high-pressure environment in which conveyancers operate, with heavy caseloads and competing demands making it harder to provide frequent updates. Similarly, delays are not always within the control of the conveyancer, as they can arise from issues with searches, mortgage processing, or slow responses from other parties in the chain.
What this highlights is that many complaints are not necessarily about poor technical work or errors in legal process, but about how the process is experienced by the client, and how well that experience is managed from start to finish.
Expectation gaps remain a key problem
A consistent theme running through the report is the gap between what clients expect and what actually happens during a transaction, and this is often where dissatisfaction begins.
Many clients still believe a property transaction should take around eight weeks, yet in reality the average timeline is closer to 17 to 20 weeks, particularly where upfront information has not been gathered early in the process. When that gap is not clearly explained at the outset, frustration can build quickly, especially during periods where there is little visible progress.
There are also key stages where communication becomes even more important, including the initial instruction, the periods where there is little apparent movement, and the final stages around completion and registration. Without clear updates during these points, clients can feel nothing is happening, even when significant work is being carried out behind the scenes. I wonder if complaints about post-completion come about due to delays in registration impacting later sales and refinancing.
This creates a perception issue, where the effort and complexity involved in conveyancing is not always visible to the client, leading to a sense that delays or inactivity are the fault of the conveyancer.
The case for better communication and resourcing
If the core issues are largely about communication and expectations, then the response needs to focus on how these are managed in practice, rather than assuming there is a widespread problem with the quality of conveyancing work itself.
There is a strong case for greater emphasis on upfront information gathering, particularly at the point a property is listed, including title documents, searches, and seller information forms. Where this is done well, CA firms are already reporting much shorter times to exchange, in some cases as little as five to seven weeks, which demonstrates what can be achieved when the process is set up properly from the start.
At the same time, there needs to be a realistic conversation about fees and capacity, as delivering consistent, proactive communication takes time, and time requires proper resourcing. If conveyancers are expected to manage high volumes of cases while also providing regular, meaningful updates, then pricing structures need to reflect that expectation.
A balanced view of performance
The Legal Ombudsman’s report provides useful insight into where improvements can be made, but it also offers reassurance the system is working well for the majority of clients.
Rather than focusing solely on the rise in complaints, it is worth recognising the scale of transactions being handled and the relatively small proportion that result in formal escalation. Conveyancers are operating in a complex, often strained system, yet they continue to deliver successful outcomes in the vast majority of cases.
About the author
Beth Rudolf is director of delivery at The Conveyancing Association. After starting working life as an estate agent, she became a licensed conveyancer and now works with the Conveyancing Association to improve the home-moving process for the consumer.
