The Property Ombudsman has welcomed the UK government’s new proposals aimed at increasing transparency in the homebuying process. The reforms seek to clarify the information estate agents must disclose during property sales, addressing longstanding issues that have contributed to transaction failures and consumer dissatisfaction.
In 2024, the Property Ombudsman investigated 617 cases where consumers felt that material information—details that could influence their decision to purchase—was not adequately disclosed by estate agents. This underscores the need for clearer guidelines and practices within the industry.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched a consultation this week, inviting feedback on proposed reforms. These include mandating the upfront provision of vital property information, such as condition reports, leasehold fees, and planning data, to reduce the risk of failed transactions and associated costs. Currently, approximately one-third of property transactions fail, resulting in an estimated £400m in wasted costs annually.
The consultation also explores the introduction of binding pre-contract agreements and the possibility of requiring estate agents to disclose their track records and qualifications. These measures aim to enhance consumer confidence and streamline the home-buying process.
The Property Ombudsman continues to advocate for reforms that improve transparency and accountability in the property sector, ensuring that consumers are well-informed and protected throughout their home-buying journey.
Property Ombudsman Lesley Horton said: “We welcome any moves to make such an important and complex transaction clearer for consumers. Speaking to businesses, the industry is also supportive of clear guidance which is explicit about what information agents and sellers must disclose.
“Our casework shows that hundreds of buyers and sellers are falling foul of inconsistent practice every year, resulting in added costs and aborted sales.”
Issues not disclosed during purchases included the condition/dimensions of a building or land, flood risk, restrictive covenants, utilities supply, access rights, service charges and planning permissions. Examples include an investment property misrepresented and a fire damaged property sold without warning. The Government consultation runs until 29 December 2025.
Number of information-related casework breaches of the Code of Practice for Residential Estate Agents in 2024 (Code paragraph reference):
• Material information: Pictorial 31, Verbal 74, Written 242 (paragraph 7i)
• Particulars Agreed with Seller: 180 (paragraph 7j)
• Leasehold: Years Remaining 4, Restrictions or Covenants 23, Tenure 13, Circumstance/Event 3, Event fees 1, ground rent 5, Other Fees/Charges 3, Service charges 17 (paragraph 7k)
• Liability of incorrect information 14 (paragraph 7m)
• Marketing – legal, decent, honest and truthful 7 (paragraph 7n)
Big change for property listings as government extends material information rules
Another political football to be kicked around for a few years maybe to divert from real property problems like:
Landlords face an average cost of between £12,708 and £19,223 to evict a tenant and are waiting between six months and 12 months on average to get their properties back, it has been revealed.
These figures are for the average loss of rent during an eviction and the time taken to evict once a judge has issued a writ giving permission for an eviction to proceed, with the higher figures for London and the lower for the rest of England and Wales.
This data have been released by the High Court Enforcement Officers Association (HCEOA) which says it has written to housing minister Matthew Pennycook and senior civil servants urging them to recognise the scale of the problem and make two urgent changes to help ensure fair and timely access to justice for landlords.
These are to enable county court judges to transfer more evictions to the High Court when landlords face delays of more than three months or a tenant may needs to be physically removed ‘with force’, and make the process of ‘transferring up’ easier.
The HCEOA’s new report also points out that London is the epicentre of high costs and long waits for landlords. Those who evict using County Court bailiffs in the capital must wait in total – from serving a notice to getting permission – 36 weeks, while those using High Court Enforcement officers wait just eight weeks.
The HCEOA also says that, by allowing landlords to be given greater access to the High Court when evicting tenants, they will save £20,000 per eviction on average.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There is still a lot of confusion in the industry about what’s actually meant by Material Information versus Upfront Information.
Material Information, as we all know, must be disclosed at some point in the process, and are details that could influence a buyer (or tenant’s) transactional decision.
The DMCC Act, which came into force in April this year, has updated the definition of what constitutes a ‘transactional decision’, meaning that the decision to contact an agent to book a viewing or enquire about a property are now also included.
This shifts the legal requirement to disclose Material Information to much earlier in the marketing process, and under the DMCC Act, there is a clear directive that all activities classed as ‘invitation to purchase’ must include the relevant Material Information (there is a whole section on ‘Omission of Material Information from an invitation to purchase’ in the CMA207 document, released this April)
In simple terms, this means that under current law, agents must include Material Information upfront in all marketing materials, including listings on their websites, emails, social media posts (if about a specific property) email campaigns and direct marketing campaigns etc. This has been the case since April 6th this year.
The issue is that, as the DMCC Act is live legislation, agents are legally exposed today to potential enforcement action – or consumer complaints to the CMA or Trading Standards or TPO – if they omit or misrepresent Material Information on their marketing materials (see CMA207). I’d suggest that, while the MHCLG consultation and potential reform process takes its course, there needs to be clear, interim guidance in the meantime around what constitutes Material Information that needs to be disclosed upfront, to enable agents to remain compliant to protect themselves, until MHCLG publishes its findings and issues updated guidance.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So which Act trumps which now? Property Misdescription Act? Consumer Protection Act? Estate Agent Act? Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Act? Are these ALL still in force? Who do we ask???
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oh, and let’s not forget the AML regulations and processes, Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) & UK GDPR, Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA) and of course the Property Ombudsman Code of Conduct which has variances from the actual law. It’s no wonder there are over 600 cases as there is no clarity. AML trumps data protection by the way, so don’t dispose of digital information if it’s AML related! Bonkers!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The DMCC Act 2024 supersedes the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) and the Property Misdescriptions Act, as it’s effectively the new Consumer Protection Act. I’d argue that, had it been named Consumer Protection (Updated 2024), everyone would be aware of it.
NTSELAT remains responsible for investigating breaches and can bring about prosecutions and fines (via the courts) under the DMCC Act, as can local Trading Standards. However, the DMCC Act – in its entirety as broad consumer protection law applying to all companies (traders) dealing directly with consumers – ultimately sits under the governance of the CMA.
In practical terms, NTSELAT are still your go-to for advice on what needs to be included in marketing materials, until we receive updated sector-specific guidance from MHCLG on what constitutes Material Information that must be disclosed upfront. That will likely follow consultation, however, as that may take some time, NTSELAT are still the best place to start in the meantime.
Also, in case helpful, before anyone asks (because a lot of people do ask me this) the portals don’t fall within scope of the DMCC Act as they don’t trade directly with the consumer, e.g. the consumer doesn’t pay the portal.
Hope this helps!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It’s hard to understand that anyone involved in property is asking if the Property Misdescription Act is still in force when it was repealled in 2013 – 12 years ago, ffs.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
617 investigations into non-disclosure of material information out of 1,000,000+ transactions doesn’t sound like there’s a huge problem in the industry (I know some will say one is one too many) but the lightning withdrawal of CPRs and the lack of clarity surrounding what, if anything, should be disclosed doesn’t help. And a fire-damaged property sold without warning? Did the agent not use any photographs!? Can a consumer really not think for themselves or am I hoping for too much? Whatever happened to common sense!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Spot on! Only 617 from 1m plus transactions. Representing 0.06% complaint rate on material information should be regarded as a positive for the industry!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register