Beth Rudolf, director of delivery at The Conveyancing Association, sets out the lessons that can be learned from the release of HMLR’s avoidable requisition data, and why it matters for conveyancers.
HM Land Registry’s (HMLR) new set of avoidable requisition data, released earlier this month, has drawn wide interest across the sector.
It gives us all a clearer view of where firms are improving, where standards vary, and where the load still sits for those handling high volumes of requisitions. For CA member firms the figures are a timely reminder that better applications save time, cut stress for staff, and support a smoother move for clients.
Across April to September 2025, 1.3 million applications to HMLR were submitted. Of these, 4.6% of applications on average, were classed as having fully avoidable requisitions. This is slightly lower than the last period, and HMLR has said the overall trend since May has been positive. Its view is that better access to training, guidance, and data is now pushing standards in the right direction.
It says 29% of professional customers have already cut their avoidable requisition rates. It also notes 57% of firms now sit below 5%. A fifth of firms have rates below 1%, up from 17% last year. 18% have no avoidable requisitions at all. Of the 4,610 firms covered in the data, 3,274 recorded 10 or fewer avoidable requisitions.
These are encouraging signs, and the CA welcomes the growing focus on good practice. But while the headlines paint a positive view, the detail may well prompt fair questions about where improvement is most needed and how this aligns with the wider home buying and selling reform process which is ongoing.
What counts as a fair measure of good quality?
The government’s work on home buying and selling reform includes a strand on ‘consumer education and transparency’. One question now being explored is whether there should be simple indicators to help the public judge the quality of work delivered by regulated professionals.
If requisition data becomes part of that, we must be sure the figures are used with care. A high rate can point to weak processes, but small sample sizes also distort the view. For example, the firm listed with the highest percentage rate at 45%, submitted only 11 applications. No doubt this is not their specialist discipline but then should they be able to do it at all, if they cannot get the basics right?
Yet the overall scale hardly reflects the load on firms working across thousands of cases.
This is why the CA argues that any use of performance data in consumer guidance must be grounded in context. It also needs to focus on information that helps consumers understand the process itself. There is little benefit in showing a client that one firm has a lower requisition rate than another if the client does not know how the system works, what delays look like, or what they can do to help reduce hold-ups.
If the government wants to improve understanding, it should also explain why sharing full and accurate material information helps to speed up transactions. The LMS-Connells pilot, similar to other CA members who collaborate with agents to gather Upfront Information (including searches) and provide material information, proved that properties with clear UI secure offers faster, and reach, exchange sooner.
Clients need to know this. They also need to know sharing this information with their mortgage adviser helps avoid later declined applications or bottlenecks. A focus on numbers alone does not tell this story. Good policy must.
What the figures say about volume work
For firms with more than 1,000 applications in the period, the average avoidable requisition rate was 4.6%. While this is slightly better than the market average, even with a rate just under 5%, a firm submitting 4,000 or 5,000 applications in six months will still face hundreds of avoidable requisitions. Each one drains staff time, strains workflows, and contributes to the estimated £19m of wasted work across the sector.
Firms which have worked hard in this area show what is possible, and have been able to report that a mix of technology, closer control, and centralised post-completion work can cut rates significantly.
Why this matters for CA members
CA members shoulder a large share of the national caseload. They also have the most to gain from fewer errors, stronger guidance, and clearer support from HMLR.
The new dataset confirms that many firms are already improving. It also supports the CA’s long-held view that better communication, better training, and better use of information all reduce waste.
But it also shows the system still relies on every party doing their part. Conveyancers can tighten their processes, but clients must also understand how the task works. Estate agents and mortgage advisers must ask for, and share, the material information from full upfront information. And Government must ensure any new transparency measures help rather than confuse.
Getting this right will support a quicker and steadier home moving process for everyone.
About the author
Beth Rudolf is director of delivery at The Conveyancing Association. After starting working life as an estate agent, she became a licensed conveyancer and now works with the Conveyancing Association to improve the home-moving process for the consumer.
