In a detailed response to the government’s consultation on the reform of the home buying and selling process, David Pett, solicitor and director at MJP Conveyancing, draws on extensive operational experience in residential property law to argue that effective reform must confront the true structural causes of delay and uncertainty.
The legal framework of conveyancing is not fundamentally flawed. Instead, the difficulties arise from inconsistent competency across the sector, fragmented systems, unreliable data sources and an uneven approach to digital innovation.
We are a specialist residential conveyancing practice employing 30 staff and completing between 1,500 and 2,000 transactions each year across England and Wales. We focus entirely on residential conveyancing, enabling us to refine our methods continually and to develop a clear understanding of the pressures that slow or destabilise transactions.
Our work spans freehold and leasehold properties, registered and unregistered titles, and both new-build and existing homes. This day-to-day activity gives us a practical insight into why transactions stall or collapse, and it is this insight that informs our response to the consultation.
We agree with the government’s ambition to improve speed, transparency and reliability across the home moving system. However, we strongly challenge the suggestion that the legal foundations of conveyancing are the cause of the problems.
The home buying and selling process includes a series of structural weaknesses that are unrelated to the law itself: wide variations in the competency of conveyancers, surveyors, estate agents and firms on lender panels; repeated and unnecessary identity and anti-money-laundering checks by several parties; limited information sharing by lenders; and outdated systems that force the same information to be typed into separate programmes multiple times.
Unless these deeper issues are addressed, further reforms may simply add administrative layers without bringing about any meaningful improvements.
A central theme of our consultation response is the need for an explicit reform objective that supports the safe and responsible adoption of artificial intelligence and digital tools in the conveyancing process.
AI already plays an important role in the work of our firm. It assists with the review of lengthy documents, the identification of areas of risk, the preparation of standardised forms, the checking of data for inconsistencies and the generation of tailored enquiries.
These tools help reduce human error and streamline processes. However, the current consultation offers little recognition of the transformative potential of AI. We urge the Government to establish clear standards for its safe use, to promote digital systems that can communicate with each other and to ensure that smaller practices are not excluded by the cost of technological change.
Without this support, the sector risks dividing into technologically advanced firms and those that cannot afford to keep pace.
Our response also raises significant concerns regarding the government’s proposals for mandatory upfront information. We support the principle of providing prospective buyers with useful information earlier, but the value of such information depends entirely on the competence and regulation of those who prepare it.
At present there is no consistent standard governing the accuracy or format of upfront information, and quality varies enormously. Poorly prepared information risks embedding errors earlier in the transaction, creating additional work for conveyancers who must correct it.
There is also a lack of any binding standard that defines what upfront information must include, how it should be evidenced or how it should be presented. Without uniform requirements, providers will continue to produce inconsistent information that cannot be reliably integrated into the conveyancing process.
If existing checks, searches and regulatory obligations remain unchanged, mandatory upfront information may only duplicate the tasks that conveyancers already perform. Many underlying data sources, such as local authority records and landlord disclosures, remain incomplete or outdated, which means that early information cannot replace the need for thorough legal investigation.
Cost is another major concern. Producing and maintaining high quality upfront information and digital packs requires modern software, data integration, staff training and compliance oversight. While large firms may be able to absorb these costs, many smaller firms may not. Without financial support for smaller practices, the reforms could unintentionally create an unequal market.
We strongly support the professionalisation of property agents – an essential foundation for successful reform. Poor quality agency practice remains a persistent source of delay and frustration for clients. Incomplete or inaccurate property details, unrealistic expectations and weak communication are common issues. Minimum qualifications, a mandatory code of practice and proper training in legal and digital skills are essential if agents are to support a modernised home moving process.
We support the government’s ambition to introduce standardised digital logbooks, but their success depends on reliable data, regular updating, clear responsibility for maintenance and genuine technological compatibility across the industry. Without these safeguards, digital logbooks could introduce further confusion rather than clarity.
The conveyancing system is not inherently defective. The core legal structure works. The real problems arise from fragmented processes, weak data quality, inconsistent standards and slow technological progress.
Reform must focus on competence, data reliability, digital integration and the responsible use of AI.
Mandatory upfront information may bring benefits, but only if supported by strong standards and regulatory clarity. AI offers the most significant opportunity to improve the home buying and selling experience for consumers, provided it is deployed safely and fairly across the sector.
MJP Conveyancing will continue to contribute to policy development, pilot programmes and working groups to ensure that reform is practical, evidence based and genuinely effective.
