The government’s proposed overhaul of the homebuying process has been welcomed by parts of the property industry as a long-overdue attempt to tackle delays, fall-throughs and inefficiencies. But one leading industry figure has warned that the reforms could have an unintended consequence: giving estate agents too much influence over key parts of the transaction process.
Rob Houghton, founder and chief executive of home-moving comparison site reallymoving, said the plans risk concentrating control of upfront services such as conveyancing and surveys in the hands of estate agents unless strong safeguards are introduced. While supporting the principle of greater transparency and earlier information sharing, he argues that the reforms could encourage the growth of preferred provider arrangements, inflated pricing and opaque referral fee structures.
Houghton believes the proposed Code of Practice for estate agents must include clear protections to ensure buyers are made fully aware of all available options when choosing a conveyancer or surveyor, warning that without greater transparency the reforms could shift the balance of power within the homebuying process rather than simply making it more efficient.
Houghton said: “Reform of the homebuying and selling process is long overdue and this sounds like a sensible set of changes that will reduce fall throughs and improve transparency for homebuyers. However, there are some key factors that need careful consideration.”
“There’s a real danger that these changes could hand too much power to estate agents, allowing them to dominate distribution of upfront services such as conveyancing and surveys,” he explained. “Without safeguards, this will lead to inflated prices, preferred provider arrangements and opaque referral fees or kickbacks.”
“The proposed Code of Practice for estate agents needs to address this explicitly and ensure there is complete upfront transparency, with homebuyers given information on all the options available to them when it comes to finding and appointing a surveyor or conveyancer,” he added.
Houghton also highlighted the potential impact on the surveying sector, noting that only around 20% of homebuyers currently commission a detailed survey, with many relying solely on their lender’s valuation.
Under the proposed reforms, sellers would be required to provide a survey as part of the sales pack. However, Houghton questioned whether buyers would always be willing to rely on a seller-commissioned report, suggesting many may still choose to instruct their own surveyor or seek a more detailed inspection.
He warned that this could lead to a substantial increase in demand for surveying services, creating capacity challenges for the sector and requiring significant additional resources if the reforms are implemented at scale.
Houghton added: “Only an estimated 20% of homebuyers currently get a detailed survey on the property they are buying, many just relying on a lender valuation. These changes will require all sellers to provide a survey in their sales pack – plus there will be some doubling up, as some homebuyers won’t trust what it says or will require a more detailed survey, so will commission their own on top. That’s a massive increase in surveying capacity which will take vast time and resources for the industry to meet.”
The road to conveyancing hell
Stephen Larcombe, founder of the Property Lawyers Alliance, also voiced strong opposition to the proposed reforms, questioning both their substance and the timing of their announcement.
Larcombe argued that the government’s plans have been presented at a politically convenient moment and suggested they risk diverting attention from wider challenges facing the Labour leadership.
He was equally critical of the consultation process that preceded the reforms, describing it as little more than a “charade”. According to Larcombe, key decisions had effectively already been made, with policymakers placing greater weight on the views of technology providers than those of conveyancing professionals.
He claimed the growing influence of the legal technology sector had overshadowed the concerns of practitioners working on the frontline of property transactions, warning that reforms should be shaped by those responsible for protecting consumers rather than by commercial interests seeking to benefit from changes to the homebuying process.
“But for those of us who have lived through the constitutional vandalism of previous Labour administrations, the pattern is familiar. It was a Labour government that abolished the independence of the Lord Chancellor. It is a Labour government that now seeks to limit the right to jury trial, and today, it is a Labour government that proposes to vandalise conveyancing.
“Having read the detailed “roadmap” proposals overnight, it’s clear that the consultation was a charade. The decisions were made long ago, under pressure from a law tech sector whose lobbying power now dwarfs the voices of the very professionals who safeguard the public interest.
“For small and medium‑sized law firms, the backbone of ethical conveyancing, this roadmap is not reform. It is an existential threat. Conveyancing is to be re‑engineered by the government to serve the commercial ambitions of rapacious law tech businesses.
“This is the road to conveyancing hell, and its genesis reveals just how cynical a government can be when dazzled by technological fanatics and deaf to the profession it claims to support.
“Conveyancers have long been expected to absorb every new burden. We have done so because the public relies on us. However, there comes a point when a profession must say enough is enough.
If these proposals proceed, the future of homebuying will not be shaped by evidence or professional expertise. It will be “shaped by the loudest lobbyists in the room, and the public will ultimately pay the price.
“The fight for our professional independence starts today.”
Could we just copy another countries successful system.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register