The Government has this week set out proposals to shake up the conveyancing process, including sellers and estate agents providing vital information about properties upfront and the potential introduction of upfront binding contracts to prevent failed transactions later down the line. Housing Secretary, Steve Reed, stated “buying a home should be a dream, not a nightmare”, praising the reforms for fixing a broken system.
This could mark one of the most significant shifts in conveyancing practice in years, with the idea to make vital information, such as tenure, EPC ratings, council tax bands, lease terms, building safety data and even chain status available from the offset, rather than weeks into the transaction. For buyers, this means greater transparency and hopefully fewer sales falling through and faster completions.
As a property lawyer, I welcome the principle. Too often, deals crumble late in the process due to critical details only coming to light through searches and enquiries – giving buyers a clearer picture from day one is a logical step toward modernising our system.
But there are important caveats –
- Liability risk: Presenting legal and technical information early on increases the potential for misrepresentation claims if this information proves inaccurate. Sellers and agents will need to be meticulous – legal advisers will inevitably play a larger role in verifying disclosures before publication rather than being instructed when an offer is accepted.
- Cost and feasibility: Preparing a complete “property information pack” before listing will add both time and expense, particularly for leaseholds, unregistered property or complex titles. Without funding or phased introduction, the process will burden independent sellers significantly and the risk of misinformation will increase.
- Binding commitments: Preventing late withdrawal from the conveyancing process could allow for unfair outcomes if due diligence uncovers issues after the initial disclosure through surveys and searches, or what if the buyer were to lose their job and be unable to afford the property? Contractual safeguards and exit provisions will need to be carefully considered to account for this – not to mention a full consultation with lenders as to how this would work, given they cannot commit to lend until full due diligence has been undertaken.
- Standardisation: This must be handled carefully. A uniform checklist sounds efficient, but property is rarely uniform. Flexibility and professional discretion will be essential.
In short, the goal – greater transparency and efficiency – is exactly what the conveyancing process needs. However, the system will only succeed if it comes with clear definitions of liability, phased rollout, professional oversight and robust safe harbours for those acting in good faith to avoid a repeat of the failed Home Information Pack system previously proposed.
Handled well, this could be a genuine leap forward. Handled poorly, it risks simply moving the delays – and disputes – to the start of the process.
If you wish to discuss anything mentioned in this article, please contact our Real Estate Social Housing team.