Residential property transactions still run on fragmented documents, duplicated updates and too many competing versions of the truth. The next step forward is not just better workflow, but a trusted shared data foundation that can support clearer collaboration, better judgement and more useful AI.
Conveyancing has a truth problem. Not because people are careless or because conveyancers are failing to do the work. But because too many people in a transaction are working from slightly different versions of the same reality.
The buyer’s conveyancer has one view. The seller’s conveyancer has another. The agent has a partial picture. The broker has their own updates. The client is trying to piece things together from emails, PDFs and portal notifications. Everyone is trying to move the same matter forward, but they are not always singing from the same trusted hymn sheet.
That is not a people problem, it’s a system design problem.
We built document systems, not data systems
Most legal technology in conveyancing is still built around documents.
Case management systems are generally good at storing files, tracking tasks and managing workflow. They are much less good at handling the transaction itself as a living body of trusted, structured data.
That distinction matters.
A document can contain an answer. But unless that answer is captured in a structured, attributable way, it usually has to be rediscovered, restated or rekeyed by the next person in the chain. That is one reason so much friction persists. The same point gets raised again. The same update gets repeated in a different format. The same evidence gets reviewed several times because there is no shared memory of what it means.
We should be honest about this: most conveyancers do not have tools designed to work with transaction data. They have tools designed to work with transaction paperwork.
That is why the idea of a shared system of record can still sound theoretical. The industry has not really been equipped to imagine it properly.
The transaction needs a shared memory
A modern property transaction should not depend on each participant maintaining their own local version of the truth.
It should have a trusted shared system of record underneath it. Not a free-for-all, and not something that replaces professional judgement, but a common data foundation with clear provenance, clear meaning and clear rules about who can provide, update and rely on what.
Frameworks like the Property Data Trust Framework (PDTF) begin to make that possible.
This is not about standardisation for its own sake. It is about making transaction information reusable. If data is captured once in a common structure, with provenance attached, it can move between participants without losing its meaning. It can support collaboration instead of generating more duplication.
That is a much better basis for progress than endless document tennis.
Trusted data needs an intelligence layer
Trusted data is essential, but by itself it is not enough.
Fee earners do not need raw data for the sake of it. They need to know what matters, what is missing, what has changed, what looks risky and what needs to happen next.
That is where intelligence layers matter.
The real opportunity is to turn data into information, information into insight and insight into action. Good technology should help professionals understand the transaction, not simply store artefacts about it.
This also matters when people discuss AI – too often the conversation frames the future as a choice between traditional applications and LLMs. In reality, both depend on the same foundation: trusted inputs. Rules engines are only as good as the data they evaluate. LLMs are only as good as the context they are grounded in. If the transaction record is fragmented, ambiguous or unprovenanced, neither will perform as it should.
If the data foundation is strong, both become more useful, more explainable and easier to trust.
Less noise, more shared understanding
The sector does not need more noise around the transaction.
It needs fewer contradictory updates. Fewer repeated enquiries. Less time lost hunting for answers buried in attachments. Less defensive rechecking caused by uncertainty about whether the last answer is still the current one.
A shared system of record will not remove judgement from conveyancing, nor should it. But it would give that judgement a much better foundation.
That is the real opportunity.
The future of conveyancing is not smarter documents, it is a better shared understanding of the transaction itself.
About the author
Ed Molyneux is co-founder and CTO of Moverly, the property intelligence platform working with LMS and Connells Group to bring structured, verified data to property transactions. He is the architect of the Property Data Trust Framework (PDTF), the open standard for machine-readable property data now being adopted across the industry. Ed writes about AI, property data infrastructure, and the future of conveyancing.
11 responses
If only they would listen Ed.
Accurate information in real time, it would provide a true insight into the work completed and work left to do. Exactly what the consumer needs.
Both Andrew and Ed are tech guys and not conveyancers. Beware of the slant – they don’t want what’s best for the client, they want what’s best for their pockets. This should come with a big warning label on the tin. “Working with CONNELLS” should be the biggest red flag of all – the company that doesn’t get prosecuted for continuously breaching trading standards regulations. 🤔
So are you against ‘real time updates’ for consumers?
How can it be “real time” when every one else in the system is a sloth? We have no control over third parties such as management companies, housing associations, and local authorities. I don’t think you seem to realise the amount of lies we are being told. Your “data” cannot be trusted as it is only valid for a short time.
It cannot always be someone else’s fault, it’s time to grab the bull by the horns and make a real difference for the consumers (and at the same time do yourselves a favour I would imagine!)
Anonymous Cat is correct. Garbage in, garbage out was what we were taught at the advent of the computer age some 40 years ago. Your data is your truth and my data is my truth. Solicitors and other qualified legal professionals are trained to sift the information and ensure that their client can make an informed choice. If you remove this vital check and balance we may as well insure the whole process, pass titles around like confetti and move the process to an even slower forum; the civil courts after the event for litigation of the mistakes which will follow in much greater numbers. Use data and computers to help speed up the process by wall means, but no to subjugate the rights of, and protections for clients. These are key principles we as Solicitors should stand for.
I hear what you are saying completely and no-one is looking to undermine or threaten the valuable and critical role the Conveyancer plays in the house buying process. No-one is looking to subjugate any party to the process, but every year, survey after survey is completed and the feedback is the same, every time…..The process is complicated, finding an accurate and up to date view on how the chain is progressing is practically impossible and this causes pain and frustration for the consumer. In fact Conveyancer feedback is almost identical each year (and has been in the 36 years I have worked in this industry) which is that if only people would stop chasing them for updates then they would be able to get more conveyancing done.
Yet there is an industry out there focused on solving this problem for law firms, lawyers and consumers alike and the harder this industry works the harder the conveyancing industry digs in their heals to resist the very change that would make everyone’s lives so much easier.
I will retire from the property industry in a few years, probably having spent 40 years in it by that time and the ONLY thing that will have changed for the good is that lawyers will have stopped posting contracts and letters, in favour of emailing them. It’ll be such a massive shame, given the time, money and effort invested, not to mention the innovation that will have gone to waste.
Isn’t this an estate agent issue? I very rarely get a chain information sheet and we all know that sometimes people lie – they say they will break the chain and then half way through the process because they’ve found a property to buy they would rather tie the two together to save money? You’re not going to get rid of the “people” issues and no amount of technology is going to make up for people changing their minds half way through the process as to how they will fund the transaction. Let’s face it, a lot of agents don’t do their Source of Funds, etc. at the outset. Even if people do produce the “goods” or go through a technology platform showing this is what their intention is, there is nothing to stop them from changing their minds.
The better solution would be for the FCA to do the AML/Source of Funds check, provide the conveyancer with the ‘go ahead’ and we can then do the legal part. Government should be putting their money towards this rather than funding tech platforms.
I think it’s an industry issue, but I do appreciate that’s just my opinion.
Although many would hope the regulator would do the AML/Source of funds check. This is not the regulators role however I do take the broader point that other parties to a property transactions place too much reliance on the conveyancer and this burden should be more equally shared across the parties. I get that the conveyancer may need to be the last line of defence but not the only line of defence. I hope with the FCA taking over AML supervision across at the professional services sector, they will encourage more equal sharing of this burden. If nothing else this should reduce last minute falls through and ultimately allow issues to be spotted much earlier in a transaction.