A government-backed cross-sector coalition to coordinate initiatives that enable digitalisation in the property market has been launched by the Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology (CFIT).
The Open Property Coalition will build on existing research, industry pilots and stakeholder initiatives to explore how emerging technologies can ‘re-imagine’ the home buying process. Organisations backing the coalition include the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), HM Land Registry, the Smart Data team at the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Open Property Data Association (OPDA), real estate companies, financial institutions, regulators, conveyancers and proptechs.
CFIT is a private sector-led body, formed as a key recommendation of the 2021 Kalifa Review of UK fintech. Launched in 2022 with a £5 million fund from HM Treasury, it was established to bring together experts from the finance and technology sectors to identify and address opportunities and barriers to growth for UK fintech. CFIT coalitions operate on a time-limited basis with the aim of exploring and addressing key issues in the wider financial services industry.
‘This is CFIT’s first cross-sector coalition, spanning financial services and property – but it’s also the exact kind of thorny, inter-dependent problem that we exist to solve’, said Leon Ifayeme, director of coalitions and research.
“Many of us have personally experienced how buying a home in England or Wales can be slow, opaque, costly and aggravating. Work is already underway from DBT, MHCLG, HM Land Registry and the OPDA to digitise elements of the process.
“But if we are going to successfully use technology to solve these pain points, we need policymakers, regulators and industry all to be pulling in the exact same direction. Tackling open property also means we can draw on our accumulated experience in areas like open finance and digital ID.”
Terry Robertson is deputy director of strategy at HM Land Registry. He explained why HMLR is backing the coalition:
“Digitising the home buying and selling process will bring huge benefits to everyone involved in the property sector. This transformation depends on collaboration. This is why HM Land Registry supports the CFIT-led Open Property Coalition, as well as other initiatives like the Digital Property Market Steering Group. Both are prime examples of bringing stakeholders together to address shared challenges across the transaction journey.”
The coalition will explore the potential features and impacts of a new Open Property tech solution to illustrate how secure data-sharing could work across the property sector.
Items on the agenda include a reliable estimated completion timeline for buyers and sellers, with real-time progress updates; an end to gazumping and gazundering through a quicker, fairer and more transparent process; lower legal fees, thanks to a more competitive, efficient conveyancing market; a unique digital identifier of every property and an up-to-date record of its attributes; improved mortgage underwriting, informed by the risk profile of the property as well as the buyer; faster proof of source of funds and an end to the ‘mortgage in principle’; faster and more secure disbursement of funds.
‘Better use of smart data is integral to our future prosperity to help grow the economy’, said Liz Lloyd, digital economy minister.
“Buying a home can be time-consuming, lengthy and stressful. Using smart data has the potential to make this quicker, more secure and more transparent for consumers when they are making the biggest, most important purchases of their lives.”
9 responses
Enthusiasm for “re-imagining” conveyancing through digitalisation must be tempered by sober reflection on the risks.
We live in an era defined by a cyber-crime pandemic, where the integrity of digital systems is under daily assault. The Horizon scandal stands as a stark reminder of what happens when technology is used without adequate safeguards, independent oversight, or respect for professional judgment. The Ayinde decision similarly illustrates the dangers of procedural shortcuts and misplaced reliance on systems that fail to deliver justice. Against this backdrop, the promise of “open property data” cannot be divorced from the hard lessons of recent history.
Nor can we ignore the emerging threat of quantum computing, which will render many current encryption standards obsolete. The House of Lords has already voiced concerns about the uncritical adoption of AI in sensitive domains.
It is striking, too, how unexceptional and almost indifferent the Law Society’s actions have been to date. While government-backed coalitions and industry pilots proliferate, the profession’s representative body has offered little by way of principled defence of conveyancers’ role, or meaningful scrutiny of the risks. Once again, property lawyers appear to be left to fight their own battles, relying on local law societies and grassroots initiatives to protect both practitioners and the public. That is why support for the Conveyancing Task Force is essential. It represents a rare example of practitioners taking the initiative to ensure that reform is evidence-based, ethically grounded, and workable. If digitisation is to succeed, it must be shaped primarily by lawyers who daily navigate the complexities of property law, and who understand the human consequences when systems fail.
The Open Property Coalition may yet deliver benefits. But unless it confronts the realities of cyber-crime, technological fragility, and the need for independent professional oversight, it risks becoming another well-intentioned experiment that leaves consumers and practitioners exposed.
There is one major side effect to the development and use of AI and technology that is rarely discussed and that is the environmental effect through CO2, use of water and use of energy.
If a Solicitor’s role does include advice on Climate Change risks then I advise that all those advocating the greater use of AI and technology undertake an environmental risks audit.
Your children will thank you.
If this is a ‘Steering Group’ for Digital Property Market projects, then what is the role of the Digital Property Market Steering Group (DPMSG), let alone the HBSC(G)? Do we need a steering group to co-ordinate between all the different digital property market steering groups?
Agree with Mr Robinson – ironic that the government want to go “digital” when this increases carbon emissions – and what happens is someone pulls the plug for the day? Or sends a bug through that wipes out evidence of people’s ownership? We have to plan for the worst and all these groups are doing is pedalling a lot of ‘hot air’ which is going to leave a bad smell when it goes wrong.
Delays in conveyancing are not caused by lack of ‘digitisation’ and also how dare they try to lower legal fees? They are low enough as they are. How are they expecting people to get decent advice without being duped? Buying a home is not a factory process, it should be tailored to the individual and their needs.
Not to mention none of these groups are addressing the issues of fraud and liability and conveyancers PII should not be the ones picking up the tab.
Stakeholders need to mind their own business. If they choose to charge more than conveyancers, then they need to wait for the payment/transaction to go through. Otherwise consider a different business model where they get paid earlier and/or regardless of whether the transaction goes through.
Valid point, maybe the Belgians have the right solution?
Until now, Belgians could only access government sites using Itsme or an ID card reader. Itsme, developed by Belgian Mobile ID, a consortium of major banks and telecom operators, has become an everyday tool for millions.
Its success, however, also made the government dependent on a private platform. Concerned about potential foreign takeovers and the absence of a fallback plan, the federal administration decided three years ago to develop a state-controlled alternative.
http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/1825509/belgium-quietly-launches-mygov-be-a-state-run-alternative-to-itsme
Some superficially exciting digital ideas, but they barely address the practical risks — cybersecurity, fraud, system failures, and lack of professional oversight — that are fundamental to whether digitalisation succeeds or fails.
Some superficially exciting digital ideas, but they barely address the practical risks — cybersecurity, fraud, system failures, and lack of professional oversight — that are fundamental to whether digitalisation succeeds or fails.
Apologies, my name is Stephen Desmond — typo in my earlier comment.
A couple of asides:
1) Will AI be suitably programmed to recognise and support vulnerable people- the elderly, the mentally weak and those who need to be saved from themselves? I assume that oversight will still have to be function of real people;
2) AI is expected to reduce the need for real people in many walks of life. What will become of those people whose jobs have been taken by AI? Remember the old adage- “The Devil makes work for idle hands”.