Residential Property Surveyors Association (RPSA) Response to “Home Buying and Selling Reform” Consultation December 2025

This is an example of how to answer the full consultation, but we appreciate that individual views may differ. Remember, you don't have to complete the online survey; you can also email your views directly - More details at the bottom of this blog.

Introduction – About you

1. If responding as an individual, what is your name? 

Insert

3. If responding on behalf of an organisation – what is the name of your organisation and what is your role? Organisation name and role: 

N/A

Role:

4. What type of organisation are you responding on behalf of? 

N/A

Objectives for home buying and selling reform

5. Do you agree with the proposed objectives for reforming the home buying and selling system? 

Yes – the objectives are sensible in themselves. However, trying to lift whole systems from other countries with very different legal frameworks and far smaller markets does not give reliable evidence for how to reform England and Wales.

We strongly support improving the process, but the first step should be tackling the obvious “low-hanging fruit”: making what already happens work better, rather than attempting a sweeping redesign of the entire system in one go. The government’s track record on significant structural changes of this sort is mixed, and reforms can destabilise markets during implementation.

6. Are there any objectives you think should be changed, removed, or added? 

We believe an additional objective is needed:

• “Helping buyers obtain better information about the condition of a property before they make an offer.”

The keyword is “helping”. This should not automatically become a mandatory requirement for a specific survey product. The experience of HIPs shows that top-down compulsion can create severe unintended consequences.

We think the government should explicitly avoid presenting a Scottish-style Single Survey as the obvious destination. That model would be neither deliverable nor desirable in our market. It has contributed to a significant reduction in the work of independent surveyors in Scotland and embeds conflicts of interest by including market valuation.

More broadly, we do not yet have enough evidence on how different types of reports influence consumer decisions. For example:

• Why do many Scottish buyers rely on a very basic report for complex, heritage or specialist properties?
• Why do most buyers in England and Wales still believe a mortgage valuation is some sort of structural or condition report?

Research referenced to Council suggests that around seven in ten buyers think a lender’s valuation is a survey, while most valuations are now done on a desktop basis, and only a minority commission a dedicated condition survey. That creates an obvious protection gap.

Without understanding how buyers interpret and use information, any attempt to impose a single solution risks serious consumer detriment and will not protect our members’ ability to provide proper professional advice. The better objective is to encourage a range of upfront condition products, with clear explanations, so that buyers can choose what they need.

Ongoing work – Requiring upfront property information

7. Do you agree that there should be a mandatory requirement for sellers and estate agents to provide comprehensive upfront information? 

We see two very different categories of “upfront information”:

1. Digital/factual information – things that can be derived from records and datasets (title, planning, flood risk, etc.).
2. Physical condition information – what is actually going on with the building itself.

For the first category, yes – it is sensible to make as much factual data as possible available upfront through a mandatory framework.

For physical condition, the picture is more complex. There are several major unknowns:

• We do not know how many residential surveyors are active in the UK, what skills they have, or what extra capacity they could realistically provide.
• Earlier work suggested that around 8,000 surveyors might be needed to cover all marketed properties under a universal condition-report regime. However, we do not know whether that estimate is still valid.
• We do not know how many existing practitioners would retire or leave rather than participate in a new mandatory mechanism.

It is entirely predictable that large corporate providers will advocate a mandatory, basic inspection model that fits their employed staff profile and claim they can meet capacity. That is exactly the scenario that would drive work away from independent surveyors and into the hands of a few large firms.

We support the principle of better upfront condition information, but the level of detail, the exact product design and – crucially – the market’s ability to deliver it at scale are still unknown. These issues must be properly researched before any decision is taken on mandatory condition reporting.

So our position is:

• Yes: mandate comprehensive digital factual material information.
• No / not yet: do not mandate a universal, standardised condition report at this stage.

8. Do you agree that this should include a requirement to order property searches and undertake a property condition report? 

We think it is essential to distinguish between:

• Property searches – factual, standardised products that can be mandated relatively easily.
• Condition reports – nuanced, property-specific professional opinions.

England and Wales have an incredibly diverse housing stock in terms of age, construction and complexity. Surveys must reflect that. In theory, RICS standards already say that surveys should be tailored to property type, yet in Scotland, a generic “one-size-fits-all” survey is applied to every home. That inevitably means that a large proportion of properties do not receive advice at an appropriate level of detail.

Experience also shows that many consumers do not understand the difference between:

• a valuation;
• a basic condition report; and
• a more comprehensive survey.

In Scotland, the Single Survey often fails to give adequate advice for older, heritage, specialist or higher-maintenance properties, which likely account for a large share of the market. In England and Wales, most buyers still incorrectly assume that the lender’s valuation is a proper condition assessment.

By contrast, in Denmark and Norway, sellers typically (and voluntarily) commission thorough surveys which reflect each property’s specific complexity. Norway has moved away from simple, basic reports and now requires significantly more detailed inspections because basic reports were not providing consumers with sufficient information.

A mandatory “simple triaged basic report” might appear to be a neat compromise, but there is a very real risk that buyers treat it as a full review. If serious defects later come to light, the question becomes: who is liable for failing to provide more comprehensive information?

Our position:

• Mandate searches, not a single mandatory condition product.
• Encourage a range of survey options and better consumer understanding.
• Commission serious research into the impact of different report types on behaviour before deciding whether      any form of mandatory condition report is appropriate.

9. What steps should the government take to ensure that conveyancing lawyers, estate agents and surveyors have the capacity and capability to implement this change? 

At present, the best estimates suggest that only around 10–30% of homebuyers in England and Wales commission any kind of condition survey – roughly 200,000–300,000 surveys a year. Moving to a model where every marketed property requires a survey would mean at least a four to six-fold increase in volumes.

But we lack basic information about:

• The actual number of active residential surveyors.
• Their skills and specialisms.
• Their age profile and retirement plans; and
• The time it really takes to carry out inspections and reporting at different levels.

Until those questions are answered, any discussion of “capacity and capability” is largely guesswork. We therefore recommend that the government’s first step should be to commission independent research into:

• Surveyor workforce numbers, skills and regional distribution;
• Current and potential throughput; and
• How would different product types affect the required capacity?

The government should also approach any capacity claims from large corporate providers with real caution. Their commercial interests favour models that centralise work and drive volume, but those same models can easily undermine inspection quality and erode the role of the independent surveyor.

10. What resources and additional training would be needed in order to implement these changes? 

At this stage, we simply cannot answer that question with any confidence. Until we know:

• What the current surveyor community looks like;
• What volume of work does it currently deliver?
• How many practitioners would likely exit under different reform scenarios?
• What sellers and buyers actually need by way of information and advice, and
• what products the government ultimately decides to promote or require, any estimate of resources and training needs would be speculative.

We would add that training and upskilling should be designed after a clear product landscape has been defined and properly tested with consumers and lenders – not before.

Professionalising property agents

11. Do you agree that we should intervene to drive up standards amongst, and improve trust in, property agents? 

Yes. Estate and letting agents should be regulated. We also believe agents should not be permitted to have reward/referral fee relationships with surveyors or conveyancers. Those arrangements distort consumer choice and almost always favour high-volume, low-fee models at the expense of independent professional judgement.

12. Do you agree with our proposal to bring forward a Code of Practice on a non-statutory basis, and to legislate to put this on a statutory footing in future if necessary?

No. In our view, another non-statutory code is not the answer. The government should go straight to statutory regulation with clear, enforceable standards.

13. Do you agree with our proposal to consult on mandatory qualifications for estate and lettings agents?

Yes. Mandatory qualifications are a basic requirement if we expect agents to perform a professional role in such a high-value market.

14. Are there additional interventions you think the government should take to drive up standards amongst property agents? 

Yes. We would highlight in particular:

• a ban on referral fees, or at a minimum
• strong restrictions on reward relationships between agents and both conveyancers and surveyors.

These distort incentives and undermine impartial advice.

15. Are there any other areas across the property agent sector that need to be monitored or regulated in order to improve the customer journey? 

Yes – the growing use of digital property logbooks and packs will need oversight, especially in terms of:

• What information is included?
• How it is presented, and
• How is it kept up to date?

Digital property logbooks and packs

16. Do you agree that the government should aim to support the broader use of digital property logbooks and packs? 

Yes. We support the government in encouraging wider use of digital property logbooks and packs. They offer a natural home for standardised factual information and can support a more efficient process.

17. If yes, what do you think would drive their wider adoption? How could the government support this, and do you think legislation might be needed to bring about this change? 

Wider adoption is likely to come from:

• Clear data standards for what should be in a logbook.
• Interoperability between logbooks, lender systems and conveyancers; and
• Visible support from lenders and major market participants.

Government can help by:

• Setting or sponsoring open data standards.
• Aligning logbooks with existing work on Material Information and digital property packs; and
• Ensuring that providers don’t lock consumers into closed, proprietary ecosystems.

Any legislation should focus on standards and fairness, not on specifying a single commercial model.

18. What risks would need to be considered when creating and storing digital logbooks? 

The main risk we see relates to surveys. If survey reports are stored in logbooks and treated as if they can be reused by future buyers, there is a real danger that those buyers will rely on outdated reports prepared for someone else, on different terms and at a different point in time – without any protection or redress for undiscovered defects.

Any framework must make it crystal clear that:

• Older survey reports provide context only.
• They do not replace a fresh, client-specific instruction; and
• Liability remains tied to the original client and terms of engagement.

Standard data protection, security and access control risks also need careful management.

Binding conditional contracts

19. Do you agree that the government should support mechanisms to make property transactions more binding at an earlier stage? 

Yes, in principle. Earlier contractual certainty should help reduce fall-throughs, wasted costs and stress – provided that parties have access to the key information they need before committing.

20. What do you think is the most effective means of doing this – incentivise estate agents to offer this as a service; raise consumer awareness of binding agreements; legislate to require their use in property transactions etc.? 

We suggest a stepped approach rather than immediate compulsion:

• Develop and promote standard form reservation / conditional contracts, with clear and proportionate terms.
• Encourage their optional use through guidance and awareness campaigns for consumers and professionals.
• Monitor outcomes – including any evidence of unfairness or misuse – before considering mandatory adoption.

The emphasis should be on transparency and fairness, not on adding another layer of complexity that people don’t fully understand.

21. What would be appropriate costs or penalties for failure to comply with binding contracts? 

Penalties should be:

• Proportionate to the loss caused.
• Agreed clearly at the outset; and
• Balanced between buyer and seller.

Flat, high penalties risk deterring people from using binding agreements at all and may be unfair where withdrawal is due to genuinely new, material information.

22. Would there be any listed exceptions, or certain situations, for binding contracts not being applied? 

Yes. There must be reasonable ways out, particularly where:

• New and significant defects or legal problems are discovered that could not reasonably have been known earlier.
• A buyer is unable to obtain mortgage finance on reasonable terms despite acting promptly; or
• A linked transaction in a chain collapses for reasons outside the parties’ control.

Binding mechanisms must not trap consumers into transactions that have become fundamentally different from what they signed up to.

Increasing consumer education and transparency

23. Do you agree that publishing information on the services of property professionals would improve home buying and selling by supporting consumer choice and driving competition? 

No. We do not believe a central, government-run service listing or rating property professionals is a good use of public resources, nor would it significantly help consumers.

It would be far more effective to:

• Ensure that general review sites are as accurate and fair as possible; and
• Make sure that regulatory status, qualifications and routes to redress are clear and easy for consumers to see.

24. What information would you want to see included in a service of this type? 

If such a service is pursued despite our reservations, it should focus on factual information:

• Regulatory status and any professional body memberships.
• Core qualifications.
• The types and levels of service offered (e.g. valuation, Level 2 survey, Level 3 survey, etc.); and
• Which redress / complaints schemes apply?

We would strongly caution against simplistic star ratings or league tables, which can be misleading and open to manipulation.

25. Do you think a charter as set out above would be useful in supporting consumers to identify quality property professional services? 

No. We doubt that a voluntary charter would make a meaningful difference. Robust regulation, clear minimum standards and visible enforcement are likely to do far more to protect consumers than another logo or pledge.

Streamlining transactions

26. Do you agree that AML checks should be streamlined? 

Yes. There is no good reason not to simplify and rationalise AML checks. Making it easier to reuse verified information across the transaction would reduce duplication, cost and delay.

27. How can government most effectively support the application of AI conveyancing technology? The government’s role should be to set the ground rules:

• Clear expectations on safety, accountability, and explainability.
• Data and interoperability standards, so that AI tools can plug into existing systems; and
• Safeguards that ensure AI is used to automate routine tasks, not to replace professional legal judgment.

AI should support conveyancers, not sideline them.

28. What else do you think the government should do to streamline the conveyancing process? 

We would highlight:

• Completing the work on standardised digital material information and ensuring that all key factual data flows efficiently between agents, conveyancers, lenders and surveyors;
• Improving clarity around the different  types of property reports, especially the difference between a mortgage valuation and a condition survey; and
• Resisting the temptation to impose untested, one-size-fits-all survey products, which may create confusion and litigation later.

Next steps for digitalisation

29. Do you agree that this is the correct direction of travel? 

Yes. The overall direction towards digitalisation is the right one. However, physical condition information is not just another data field: it is a professional opinion at a point in time, tied to a specific client and property, and subject to context and judgment. It should not be treated as a simple reusable dataset in the same way as title information or planning history.

30. Is there anything else that the government should be doing to promote digitalisation of the property sector? 

We would encourage the government to:

• Prioritise interoperability so that different digital platforms – including property logbooks, lender systems, conveyancers’ case management systems, and surveyor tools – can talk to each other.
• Make sure that any digital reforms preserve and enhance the role of independent professional advice, rather than unintentionally concentrating power in the hands of a few large corporates; and
• Ensure that digital systems are used to present information in ways that ordinary buyers and sellers can understand, rather than simply adding more documents.

We are strongly in favour of digitalisation that improves clarity and efficiency – but not of approaches that reduce complex, professional judgement (especially about condition) to a tick-box dataset.

The good news is that you do not need to complete every question to have your voice heard.

If nothing else, I would strongly encourage you to submit a short paragraph outlining your views. Even a brief response carries weight. You can do this in one of three ways:

• Respond to the consultation by completing the online survey
Click here for the online consultation.

• Email your views directly to:

homebuyingandselling@communities.gov.uk

• Or submit a written response by post:

Home Buying and Selling Consultation
Attn: Homeownership Division
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
Westminster
London
SW1P 4DF