Proptech firms and software developers have participated in a series of hackathons to test how property data can be shared during the home-moving process.
The hackathons, hosted by The Open Property Data Association (OPDA) and the Digital Property Market Steering Group (DPMSG), saw firms collaborating in real-time within the Smart Property Data Trust Framework sandbox.
The Smart Property Data Trust Framework sandbox is a government-backed initiative designed to create a safe, controlled environment where organisations can securely share property data.
Each of the hackathons looked at different stages of the home-moving journey, including property packs, ID verification, AML and fraud, as well as the completion stage.
Those taking part included Smoove (part of PEXA UK), PropXchain, ViewMyChain, Sprift and Property Deals Insight.
Participants successfully connected to the sandbox and demonstrated how trusted property data can be accessed and used across platforms.
Smoove and PropXchain retrieved material information and property pack data, with Smoove integrating it directly into its DigitalMove platform.
“This is a critical step forward for the industry,” said Maria Harris, chair of OPDA. “For too long, property transactions have been held back by fragmented data and manual processes. What we’re seeing through these hackathons is the industry coming together to test practical solutions that can make home moving faster, more transparent and less stressful for consumers.
“The ambition is simple: capture property data once, trust it, and reuse it. That has the potential to transform the entire transaction.”
Christian Woodhouse, head of partnerships at Sprift, said: “The hackathon proved something we’ve long believed: the data exists, the technology exists, and with the right framework, things move fast.
“What struck us most was how quickly participants could demonstrate real, end-to-end data flows. Not in theory, but in a live environment. The Trust Framework gives the industry the infrastructure to stop treating property data as a series of isolated requests and start treating it as a shared, trusted resource. That shift is what will finally make transactions faster and less painful for everyone involved.”
Nitin Aggarwal, CEO and founder of Property Deals Insight, said: “The UK property market does not lack data; the problem is that critical information is fragmented, duplicated and often discovered too late. The value of the OPDA sandbox is that it brings the industry together to test how trusted property data can actually be used in real workflows.”
Funded by a £742,700 award from the Government’s Regulators’ Pioneer Fund, the 12-month project is being delivered by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) in partnership with the Open Property Data Association (OPDA), with support from Raidiam, data from HM Land Registry and oversight from the Digital Property Market Steering Group (DPMSG).
Findings from the project will be shared openly to help the industry understand what works, what doesn’t, and what needs to change.
4 responses
Hackathon. Law tech’s shorthand for speed and disruption is now being hyped as credible evidence that conveyancing can be “fixed”. The term itself highlights the chasm between a greedy law tech sector and the legal profession, which is ultimately responsible when things go wrong. This is not the language of a safety‑critical sector; it is the language of an industry trying to recast structural problems as technical ones. It’s like medical equipment and pharmaceutical suppliers gathering in a conference to decide how surgeons should practise medicine. No one would accept that in healthcare. Yet in conveyancing, this dynamic is being seriously suggested by an unholy alliance of the technically illiterate.
Ironically, the same suppliers telling practitioners how to “modernise” conveyancing are the ones guiding conveyancers through automated reporting tools, while at the same time disclaiming liability for the accuracy or reliability of the data they provide, and for the third‑party data they resell. The workflow looks comforting. However, at each stage, the legal responsibility is quietly shifted back onto the legal practitioner and ultimately the consumer.
A hackathon cannot fix local authority backlogs, AML red tape, lender prevarication or the complexity of English property law. But it can distract policymakers from the truth, that the real bottlenecks are institutional and statutory, not digital. More portals and more software do not solve structural delays; they simply move legal risks away from unregulated platforms to hard-working, over-regulated professionals.
Property lawyers resist the idea that speed is the only metric. What is needed instead is honesty about where delays arise, who carries the risk, and who benefits from pretending otherwise.
Integrity cannot be automated, and an independent legal profession will not be told either by the legal tech sector or by government how to practise law.
The hackathon is proving many things but importantly it is highlighting where data doesn’t exist and the impact that has, not only in the current process today but in a world where data flows seamlessly between stakeholders within the transaction. So, one of the many outcomes is likely to recommend the digitisation of leasehold management packs and the regulation of those that provide them. This, as you well know Stephen, causes significant delay and pack costs vary massively.
This is encouraging news if it demonstrates that information can be shared securely, accurately and in real time. Anything that reduces unnecessary duplication and improves the flow of information deserves consideration.
However, I hope that alongside the technical success of the hackathon, equal attention is being given to understanding the underlying causes of delay, complaints and consumer detriment within the conveyancing process.
The legal landscape is not what it once was. The conveyancing sector is no longer homogeneous and now encompasses a broad spectrum of business models, from traditional advice-led firms through to highly process-driven volume operations. If complaints, claims or delays are disproportionately concentrated in particular parts of that spectrum, that is important information when assessing potential reforms.
If the findings of this work are being presented to government as the primary solution, I want to know what research has been undertaken and what evidence is being relied upon. What do the Legal Ombudsman data, professional indemnity claims data, transaction data, fall-through data and consumer outcome data tell us? Do they point to delay as the primary issue, or to something else?
Better information sharing will be beneficial. However, no matter how secure or comprehensive the information becomes, it is only as valuable as the person interpreting it. The information being obtained and shared will often contain complex legal, financial and practical considerations. Technology and AI can assist with analysis and interpretation, but they are not infallible and cannot replace professional judgement.
Ultimately, therefore, the quality of the outcome depends on the quality of the judgement applied to that information. Better information is undoubtedly valuable, but it does not remove the need for skilled interpretation, advice and risk assessment. This is why I referred to the conveyancing spectrum. Different business models, levels of experience, supervision structures and approaches to risk can all influence how information is interpreted and acted upon. If complaints, claims or delays are concentrated in particular parts of that spectrum, understanding why will be just as important as improving the flow of information itself.
Another point, many practitioners have broader concerns about the direction of travel and the increasing influence of commercial technology providers within the home buying and selling process. Those concerns deserve consideration, particularly if proposed solutions are being presented to government before there is a clear evidence base demonstrating the nature and source of the underlying problems.
I want to know: what exactly are we trying to reform?
The wet patches on a ceiling indicate there is a problem, but they do not necessarily identify the source of the leak. Unless we properly understand the root causes, there is a risk that we focus on treating symptoms rather than addressing the underlying issues. If we had access to the relevant data, there may well be some surprising findings. The evidence may confirm current assumptions, or it may point us in a very different direction. Either way, understanding the source of the problem should come before deciding on the solution.
UK residential sales is one of the most digitised industries in the country. And every year there are on average 1.2 million residential property transactions.
But in 2024, 29.8% of agreed sales, nearly one in three, fell through before completion. Why?
→ 27.3% killed by the survey.
→ 23.6% killed by the buyer changing their mind.
→ 22% killed by the mortgage not clearing.
This is the paradox at the heart of UK residential sales in 2026.
The industry has never had more data, and never been worse at predicting the one thing that actually matters, whether the sale will complete.
Great write up by Diana Simpson-Hernandez