The government has unveiled proposals for ‘the biggest shake-up to the home buying system in this country’s history’, calling the current process ‘chaotic’ and ‘a barrier to home ownership’.
In a statement released on Sunday, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said the proposals will ‘speed up the sluggish housing market’ with a series of sweeping changes, including detailed material upfront information packs, a focus on digital tools including property logbooks and ID verification, mandatory qualifications and a code of practice for estate agents, legally binding contracts to prevent either side pulling out of agreements, and a public register to inform the public about the services of conveyancers and estate agents.
The changes will halve the number of failed sales which come at a cost to the economy of £1.5 billion a year, MHCLG said, and could accelerate transaction times by around four weeks.
Announcing the proposals, housing secretary Steve Reed said:
“Buying a home should be a dream, not a nightmare.Our reforms will fix the broken system so hardworking people can focus on the next chapter of their lives.”
A statement from MHCLG added:
“Together, the proposals could create a system that is more streamlined, less stressful, and fit for the future.These reforms would support the wider government agenda to unlock housing supply, improve affordability, and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes over the next parliament. A modernised home buying and selling system is essential to achieving this ambition.”
A consultation has been launched to gather opinions on the proposals, along with a second consultation inviting views on material information and what should be included in the packs.
Under the proposals, a detailed list of mandatory upfront information will be produced, ranging from title information and leasehold costs to property condition and chain status. Information from searches and surveys will be published before a property listing is shared, so buyers can see the physical condition, characteristics and flood risk of the property online.
‘This will help end nasty surprises which result in last-minute collapses and give greater confidence to first-time buyers making one of life’s most important decisions’, the MHCLG statement said.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) welcomed the proposal to establish consistent and comprehensive upfront information for buyers, which it said would ensure clarity at the beginning of the process and reduce the risk of failed transactions.
RICS CEO Justin Young commented:
“RICS has long supported reform of the home buying and selling process, which is too often stressful, costly, and brings uncertainty to buyers and sellers. The government’s commitment to an industry consultation is a vital step forward, and RICS will brings its expertise to the table. By embedding transparency, professionalism, and innovation into the buying and selling process, we can help build a housing market that works better for everyone.”
Rightmove also said it looked forward to a consultation which could help to solve ‘an elongated legal process’ in which buyers and sellers can be let down when new and critical information comes to light.
‘We worked for the past few years to help agents implement material info guidance, and scrapping the guidance hasn’t been helpful for them’, said director of agency partnerships Christian Balshen.
“We’ve been working with government to share the experiences of both agents and home-movers on what information might be helpful, and importantly how agents can collect the data in a consistent way or where there are challenges. We’ll continue to talk to agents and share their collective views with government.”
The proposed changes will be underpinned by a strong focus on technology, including ‘consistent, trusted data and digital tools’ that will allow consumers to complete tasks and track progress in real time.
‘At a time when technology has changed many processes in our lives, it is incredible that the process of buying a home – an activity that is a cornerstone of our economy – remains much the same for today’s buyers as it did for their grandparents’, said David Morris, head of homes at Santander.
“Our recent report, Fixing the Broken Chain, highlighted how our antiquated system is holding back economic and individual growth, causing property transactions to collapse, and deterring buyers and sellers from entering the market at all.
“This consultation reinforces our view that, as an industry, we have the opportunity to fix the system and now is the time to seize it. We’re ready to work together with government and all those involved in the homebuying process to move this discussion into action and create a system fit for today’s buyers and sellers.”
As part of the technology push, the ‘widespread use’ of digital property logbooks would standardise upfront property information and reduce the need for conveyancers to assemble the information from scratch each time a property is marketed.
Nigel Walley is the chair of the Residential Logbook Association (RLBA). He said he looks forward to working with MHCLG to make the proposals a reality, adding:
“In a world of open and interoperable data, logbooks will deliver clarity and security to homebuyers and support government proposals.”
The consultation on introducing a mandatory qualification for estate agents has also been welcomed by the property industry. ‘The debate around mandatory qualifications for agents has been going for some time, and we support the move to consult on what could be put in place to help agents and home-movers’, Rightmove’s head of events and education Jason Charles said.
“Back in 2022, we launched an official estate and letting agent qualification for agents on Rightmove to study towards at no extra cost to their Rightmove membership. This was in response to agents asking us to facilitate something that helps them get ahead of any mandatory legislation, and many agents have chosen to put their teams through it as a point of difference when attracting sellers and landlords.”
RICS also supported the proposed qualification and accompanying code of practice, which it said should lead to enhanced standards and create better experiences and outcomes for consumers. ‘RICS has already developed such a code with the Property Ombudsman and would be pleased to work with the government to incorporate it into future plans’, the organisation said.
Increasing consumer education and transparency form a key part of the proposals, with measures including creating a register of conveyancers and estate agents and their professional specialisms and performance benchmarks. Processes supported by the provider – such as the provision of digital property packs or logbooks – would also be included in the public register.
‘Not only would this support consumers to choose the appropriate services, it would also provide the opportunity to compare services through a trusted source and ensure consumers are paying a fair price’, the consultation document notes.
Acknowledging the length and complexity of the current transaction process and the changing role of conveyancers, the document continues:
“The role of conveyancers has expanded significantly in recent years and as a result, this part of the home moving process is taking far longer than it once did, taking an average of 60% longer in 2025 than it did in 2007.
“This is partly a result of newer regulations such as those that set the legal framework for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) which means consumers face duplicative checks from conveyancers, lenders, estate agents and other property professionals during a single transaction.
“Property titles have also become increasingly complex, with issues such as managed freehold properties and estate rent charges becoming more common. This directly adds to the workload of conveyancers but also means lenders have additional requirements for conveyancers to manage their risk in lending against properties with these terms. We propose streamlining and simplifying conveyancing to ensure that consumers and professionals do not face unnecessary delays and duplication.
“We suggest beginning this process by streamlining AML checks so that consumers do not face repeated checks during a single transaction. We could also explore opportunities to support AI conveyancing technology to save conveyancers time.”
‘Buying and selling property has long been viewed by many consumers as complex, stressful, and overly complicated’, Propertymark CEO Nathan Emerson commented.
“It is therefore encouraging to see a renewed commitment from the UK government to review the entire process, with the aim of streamlining and improving both its clarity and efficiency.
“At present, the property transaction process still relies heavily on outdated communication methods between key parties such as buyers, sellers, conveyancers, mortgage providers, and estate agents. Any efforts to create a more collaborative and connected ecosystem will ultimately help raise standards, boost productivity, and deliver a more consistent and higher-quality service. This, in turn, could reduce the number of costly and time-consuming fall throughs.”
However, he warned that to be effective, any reforms should be a result of a full understanding of the existing challenges from the perspective of all parties:
“There is significant potential to further digitise the process and modernise how information is shared, ensuring that critical details are delivered at the right moments to support better decision-making. Additionally, incorporating regular review and insight into the process would help assess its effectiveness and make future improvements more straightforward to implement.”
According to Rightmove data, people spend around seven ‘long and painful’ months moving home. With current technology and collaboration, transformation is possible, CEO Johan Svanstrom believes. He commented:
“The home-moving process involves many fragmented parts, and there’s simply too much uncertainty and costs along the way. Speed, connected data and stakeholder simplicity should be key goals. We believe it’s important to listen to agents as the experts for what practical changes will be most effective, and we look forward to working with the government on this effort to improve the buying and selling process.”
Lenders also welcomed the proposals, calling for collaboration between government and industry to drive the changes. Henry Jordan, Nationwide’s group director of mortgages, said:
“Buying a home is often complex and stressful, which is why the home buying process needs to be simplified and streamlined for the benefit of consumers, brokers and lenders. But to tackle this issue effectively, we must collaborate. That is why we look forward to working closely with government and the wider industry to modernise the homebuying process, so that buyers are given certainty earlier and to help reduce any unnecessary costs. The measures being consulted on, along with digitalisation and technology, are a major part of how we will get there.”
The home buying and selling reform consultation is open now and will close on 21 December. The consultation on material information in property listings opens at 9am on 6 October.
13 responses
Whilst any digital improvements to the process is welcomed, this seems no different to several other “fundamental reviews” of the last 20 years.. As ever let’s hope this time progress is achieved.
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” ― Leo Tolstoy
There is much to think about regarding these supposed ‘reforms’.
Property lawyers across the spectrum will now be considering their response. Their actions will be dictated by professionalism and the need to protect the public interest.
Haven’t we heard all of this before? Aren’t there more pressing issues like speeding up the completion of Land Registry applications?
Really? this obsession about speeding up the process is misfounded. Sometimes it’s the chain itself where everybody has to agree a date, and this is what a large part of the time causes delay. But at least it’s encouraging the fact that they accept the delays inherent in the system as a result of checking and doing due diligence on source of funds from a conveyancing point of view, and then the increasing responsibilities and risks being placed by mortgage lenders on the conveyancers regarding the title. How will that be overcome?
Now let’s see: “logbooks will deliver clarity and security to homebuyers and support government proposals” – really? What about the seller’s mate Dave who installed his boiler but conveniently ‘forgot’ to register it with Gas Safe because actually he’s not a gas safe registered engineer? What about the seller who thought they didn’t need building regs for a garage conversion? What about conveyancers who can’t spot a complex legal structure and advise their client on it? (Oh wait, ‘it’s outside of the scope of the retainer’ – why would not advise clients of anything that will have an impact on them?) God help them with leasehold and shared ownership where daily incompetence or down right ‘hiding the true information’ is the aim of the game.
More propaganda from a desperate government trying to appease the developer lobby which has far too much power in this country (we all know it’s the civil servants running the country, not the government). Anyone in power questioned why it is “build baby build” but yet are happy to continue to allow the developers to privatise vast estates that are actually causing home owners and home buyers almost as much in conveyancing fees to transfer their properties (for not a lot of work I might add!)
How about justice for those people who have been sold homes by these developers that put their lives in danger? Remediation progress is slow on flats, but we won’t know what they’ve skimped on with houses until the buildings burn down. Not enough people to service the construction (and yes previous governments sent workforces and supplies back to where they came from under the false premise that Brexit would work for this country).
Time for the real conveyancers to take a stand. Question everything and don’t be bullied by the pressure of “fast fast and fast”. There’s a reason things take time – you wouldn’t exactly enter into a marriage (unless you were in Vegas) without doing your research and getting the right advice. Same with property – no refunds and yes, it is pretty expensive “to get out”.
So, we have the worst Government ever proposing to change the way the homebuying process is carried out. Now how do we expect that to end?
So much wrong with these suggestions, have they even consulted anyone with an iota of conveyancing experience?
Hopefully all goes by the wayside when they actually start a consultation and realise just how difficult the changes they have written on the back of the cigarette packet are going to be to implement. Or they could just look back through recent history to one of the Labour Party’s other ill thought out schemes to assist buyers, called HIPS. We are always told by the technophiles trying to change conveyancing who will no doubt put in their two pence worth of suggestions here, not to look back. Yet here we are doing that.
You could not make it up.
Here are a few reasons for issues with conveyancing. Deal with some of these and there will be improvements,
Too many bad conveyancers
Lack of experience and professionalism in the profession. With these first two there probably needs to be a maximum number of unqualified staff who can be supervised by a Solicitor. Five seems like a sensible number. Reduces the influence of bad conveyancing factories hopefully.
Bad or no regulation from the SRA and CLC
No leadership in the profession
Referral fees and panel managers. Ban these and hopefully that will reduce the number of conveyancing factories.
Outsourcing. Cheats clients and reduces standards needs to be looked at, certainly huge question marks over supervision in the wake of Mazur
Working from home/consultancy/Four day weeks. Again in the wake of Mazur huge question marks over supervision let alone quality
Land Registry delays
Mortgage delays and in particular the use of portals to interact with Lenders
Vested interests from outside the profession trying to tell conveyancers how to do their jobs.
No scrutiny from outside – too many so-called journalists covering conveyancing have close ties to the wrong people and never dig any deeper than they consider healthy.
Too many non-conveyancers seeping into the profession and running law firms
To name but a few. Conveyancing is a profession with a tiny minority of professionals remaining. It’s only going to get worse, actual conveyancers need to somehow take back the profession it’s the only chance the current system has left.
I’ve been in conveyancing for over 20 years. On average we have about 10% of abortive matters. About 0.5% of those abortive matters are down to info supplied later on rather than at the start. This ‘new scheme’ will definitely not half the abortive matters in the country. Whilst there are inexperienced people carrying out conveyancing/clients that change their mind/long chains, abortives will continue.
How is this going to help chains such as the one I have at the moment? We’re ready on the sale and purchase (within the average time scale so around 8-10 weeks). Bottom of the chain is a property around 4 years old, a coach house, two hopeless factory conveyancing firms trying to deal with it. We are now nearly 4 months in with no sign of any dates and 9 out of 30 enquiries still remaining. Searches take 24 hours in our area. It’s 4 years old so won’t need a survey.
I would do a few things first:
– No offer is allowed until a full onboarding with a firm of conveyancers/solicitor is complete with ID and AML proved.
– A full chain check is provided and proved upon offer agreed and the chain must be complete.
– A full source of funds/wealth check provided and agreement in principle provided upon offer acceptance.
– Survey must be ordered within 2 weeks of offer acceptance.
– £500 reservation fee paid on offer acceptance.
– Local authorities are getting better with searches but some are still 6-10 weeks. Force local authorities to supply them within a maximum timeframe of 3 weeks. Make them valid for 12 months.
– Regulate Management Companies. Set a set figure for a freehold management pack and leasehold management pack. Get the clients to pay themselves. 10 working days maximum turnaround time. Make them valid for 12 months and ensure that if a transaction fails or takes longer than anticipated, the Management Companies have to, for free, confirm the information has not changed or supply updated documents for free.
– Scrap the ridiculous 10 years planning condition rule. Make it law stating that developers are fully liable for their own planning conditions and obligations.
– Have two lender handbooks (1 CML 1 BSA) and 1 part 2 for all lenders. All lenders must subscribe to the same part 2’s.
– Encourage docusign on all matters
– Bring in immediate legislation to resolve ground rent issues on leasehold properties and rent charges on freehold properties.
– I’m not convinced by material information. I am certainly not convinced as to the accuracy of the answers given by sellers.
– The Law Society/CLC/CQS/Lexcel must enforce enquiries (the bad ones) and if this means treating us like children so be it. I’ve had one recently, as the property has not had an electrical test carried out in the last 10 years, please supply an electrical test certificate. I have pointed out that the property was erected only 4 years ago. Seriously people?
They do that and they easily save 2-4 weeks per matter.
This won’t be a popular comment but consultants for me are a big issue. They are a law unto themselves. Sure there are no doubt some very good and very talented ones out there but there are also a lot of very rubbish ones. It is clear to see that the more the consultants do and the longer they spend as consultants more down hill the service goes.
Those employed are accountable and are scrutinised by Management but the same can clearly not be said of consultants.
Sadly I have dealt with many consultants over the last year or so who clearly do what they want when they want without accountability and any thought for chains. They don’t correspond they don’t update. I’ve even had some who don’t following through with undertakings and the post completion work is dreadful.
It is clear to me that the SRA/Law Society has turned a blind eye to consultants who need more scrutiny than less. As for those consultancy firms employing none qualified consultants, that must be put to an immediate stop.
Agreed it is the elephant in the room nobody is prepared to discuss. You can probably count the good ones on the fingers of one hand. More scrutiny needs to be made of supervision (or the lack of), training and working hours. Great for them they can work in the evenings but try getting hold of one during normal working hours? Get one in the chain you are probably going to have some sort of issue, in their own way they are as difficult as factories to deal with.
If I were an insurance company I would refuse to insure unqualified fee earners as consultants. Some consultants do not follow the basic protocol or professional standards. Do we get an introductory letter? No. Do we get return of phone calls? No. Do we get return of emails? No. Do we get TR1’s etc. in good time following completion? No. Do we get following through for undertakings (i.e. I’ve had several issues with LL Restriction certificates)? No.
Has the regulatory body thought of the following scenario? A consultant short on billing for the month required to pay mortgages etc. needs to make a 50:50 call on an enquiry or title issue. Are they going to be swayed by their personal circumstances as they are personally going to benefit if they put that 50:50 call through? What happens to a clients bill? As a consultant will personally benefit from the billing, are fees going up because of the consultancy nature? What is being done to ensure that clients are treated fairly. I see nothing from any regulatory body to account for this. Do unqualified consultants understand the core of what we are here for? To protect the client first and foremost?
Cosmetic and superficial -and above all failing to learn from the past. The public may desire the outcome but where is the route map. The consultation contains few hard facts but no shortage of aspiration
AML is an unnecessary burden and slows down conveyancing. Its not needed for the vast majority of buyers and sellers in the UK. it should be targeted on overseas buyers, offshore investment trusts and high net worth transactions. How is it that a minister from a foreign government is able to buy hundreds of properties in the UK from illegally acquired wealth, such bribes from government contracts and still pass AML on every single transaction.