The Conveyancing Association (CA) says it has “made clear its support” for home buying and selling reform in its responses to the government’s consultations, but warns key safeguards are essential to protect consumers and ensure conveyancing firms can operate sustainably.
Safeguards include the need for clearer and earlier provision of property information, but with firm limits on scope and liability for conveyancers, and clear recognition upfront information creates additional legal work that must be properly priced and resourced.
The CA has also stressed the importance of sellers instructing conveyancers at the very start of the process, before a property is marketed, to identify legal issues early and reduce the risk of delay or failure later in the transaction.
Standardised, trusted property data, shared through digital systems and property logbooks, to reduce duplication and improve confidence in the information relied upon by all parties are central to its responses, the CA said. The systems must be interoperable, portable and supported by clear rules on data use and responsibility, it added.
The CA has further highlighted the need for mandatory qualifications and effective regulation of estate agents, alongside meaningful enforcement, to ensure consistent compliance and a level playing field across the sector.
The responses also underline the importance of a phased and realistic implementation period, with early engagement from professional indemnity insurers, to avoid unmanaged risk and unintended consequences for conveyancing firms.
“Both these government consultations go to the heart of how homes are bought and sold, and conveyancers have a critical role in making any reform work in practice,” Nicky Heathcote, the CA’s non-executive chair said.
“Our responses support greater transparency and earlier information, but they also make clear reform must be fair, enforceable and grounded in how transactions actually operate. If these changes are implemented properly, they can reduce stress for consumers and create a more stable and sustainable environment for conveyancing firms.”
Director of delivery Beth Rudolf added:
“Our responses focus on the practical delivery of reform. Upfront information and material information has created a massive improvement where member firms have adopted them – reducing transactions times to seven weeks and fall throughs by 60%. But the industry will need complete clarity on scope, liability and data reliability, and if conveyancers are involved at the right point in the process.
“This is not simply a case of moving work earlier; it creates additional legal work that must be recognised, costed and supported by standardised data and digital systems. Without clear enforcement, shared standards and early instruction of conveyancers, the benefits these consultations seek will not be fully realised.”
The full responses are available at www.conveyancingassociation.org.uk.
4 responses
I agree with the Conveyancing Association on one issue – enforceability.
There is mention in the article of ‘standardised trusted data’. If this idea is to be at all credible, then it must be predicated on a new statutory warranty by all law tech data suppliers to the effect, that the data they supply to lawyers is accurate and/or has not been corrupted. If property lawyers are being asked to accept such data as part of ‘reforms’ this must not by terms of business widely employed in the law tech sector disclaiming responsibility for the veracity of data produced.
The CA’s reported representations display an overconfident oversimplification of the practical realities and inherent risks of these proposals. The assumptions underpinning the reforms are flawed and, unless they command the genuine support of coal-face conveyancers rather than individuals removed from frontline practice, they risk causing real harm to buyers, sellers and conveyancing firms alike.
Main Points:
1. No Evidence that Upfront Information Reduces Fall-Throughs
• The government cites a survey claiming reduced transaction failures, but no data is provided on sample size, firms involved, or methodology.
• Without transparent, replicable evidence, any claim that upfront information reduces fall-throughs is highly questionable.
2. Delays Are Likely, Not Avoided
• Requiring sellers to prepare extensive upfront information will delay the marketing of properties.
• Buyers will experience fewer listings and slower transactions until information packs are prepared.
• Early information does not automatically translate to faster sales. On the contrary, where a property proves difficult to sell, upfront information will quickly become out of date, creating additional work, cost and risk as documents need to be refreshed or corrected over time.
3. Practicality and Responsibility Issues
• Preparing upfront information does indeed require significant legal work. Pricing and resourcing this work is a conveyancer responsibility, not the government’s.
* The notion that sellers should instruct conveyancers at the start of the process cannot be mandated. Many sellers will not engage legal services until marketing is imminent.
4. Risk of Empowering Unqualified Estate Agents
• The proposals hand estate agents powers to manage complex legal information for which they are neither trained nor qualified. At the same time, responsibility is stripped away from conveyancers and transferred to estate agents, materially increasing the risk of error, dispute and legal liability across the transaction.
• This creates a risk of errors, disputes, and liability exposure.
5. Data Reliability Concerns
• Property logbooks and digital systems may compound existing errors in title and local land charges data, as highlighted by IPSA.
• Scaling these errors could create significant legal and operational problems for the industry.
6. Material Information Rules Are Misapplied
• While material information rules may help with physical property details, they are unsuited for legal titles, and their proposed application is naive and ill-informed.
7. Frontline Experience Matters
• Early engagement with insurers is noted, but input from conveyancers actively handling transactions is far more critical.
• Policies designed without this perspective risk unintended consequences that could undermine the very objectives of reform.
Conclusion:
The drive for greater transparency and earlier information must be tempered by realism, enforceability, and clear recognition of costs, responsibilities, and legal risk. Without this, reforms risk creating more problems than they solve, and claims about reduced fall-throughs and faster transactions should be treated with caution.
Got me nodding like Churchill the dog with all your points – eloquently put!
Ban all referral fees to start. Referral fees take away from law firms being able to invest in staff in systems and in ways to make matters move forward quickly. The amount of referral fees paid across a year by all firms will be absolutely astronomical and would make the public shudder with fear that is what their money is being spent on. The regulatory bodies must then force firms to invest with the money save on referral fees.
Make sure clients are not allowed to put forward any kind of offer without a Conveyancer being fully onboarded and all ID and AML checks done.
Make estate agents provide a full and complete chain check with the sales memorandum. The amount of complaints I am getting from clients about not being told the full story about chains is unreal at the moment. Agents are putting through sale’s and purchaser’s without doing a proper chain check. BASICS!
Stop any marketing of any Probate property without Probate being granted.
If anyone is caught conditional selling actually do something about it. Agent’s must be regulated and their must be a robust redress scheme.