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
- Are you responding as an individual or organisation?
Organisation
- If responding as an individual – what is your name?
N/A
- If responding on behalf of an organisation, what is the name of your organisation and what is your role? Organisation name:
Institute of Specialist Surveyors and Engineers (ISSE)
Role:
ISSE is a professional institute for specialist surveyors and engineers working across the construction, built and managed environment. We promote high technical standards, competence and ethical practice through education, training and support, including OFQUAL‑aligned, assessment‑based qualifications and ongoing professional development.
The Institute is led by scientifically qualified professionals who do not hold competing commercial interests, which allows us to provide impartial oversight and guidance. Our code of professional conduct and our “Treat Clients Honestly & Fairly” policy mean that, while we exist to support and regulate a community of expert practitioners, we are equally focused on safeguarding consumers, public bodies (including the NHS) and the wider environment by promoting honest, evidence‑based practice.
- What type of organisation are you responding on behalf of?
Professional body / professional institute
Objectives for home buying and selling reform
- 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 transplant whole systems from other countries with very different legal structures and much smaller markets does not give a reliable basis for reshaping the system in England and Wales.
We strongly support efforts to improve the process, but the first step should be dealing with the obvious “low‑hanging fruit”: making the existing process work better, rather than attempting a wholesale redesign in one move. Government’s record on major structural reforms of this kind is mixed, and significant change can destabilise markets while it is being rolled out.
- 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 key word is “helping”. This must not automatically be interpreted as a commitment to mandate a specific survey product. The history of HIPs shows how easily compulsory products imposed from above can generate unintended consequences.
Government should explicitly avoid presenting a Scottish‑style Single Survey, or any similar universal model, as the natural destination. That model is unlikely to be deliverable or desirable in this market. It has contributed to a significant reduction in work for independent surveyors in Scotland and embeds conflicts of interest by tying condition reporting to market valuation.
More broadly, we still lack robust evidence on how different report types shape 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 assume a mortgage valuation is some sort of structural or condition report?
Research cited in the sector suggests that around seven in ten buyers think a lender’s valuation is a survey, while most valuations are now conducted on a desktop basis, and only a minority commission a dedicated condition survey. That creates a clear protection gap.
Without understanding how buyers interpret and use information, any attempt to impose a single solution risks significant consumer detriment and will not protect independent professionals’ ability to provide proper, tailored advice. A better objective is to encourage a range of upfront-condition products, clearly explained, so buyers can choose what they actually need.
Ongoing work – Requiring upfront property information
- 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”:
- Digital/factual information – data that can be derived from records and datasets (title, planning, flood risk, etc.).
- Physical condition information – what is actually happening with the building itself.
For the first category, yes – it is sensible to require as much factual data as possible to be provided upfront under a mandatory framework.
For physical condition, the picture is far more complicated. There are several major unknowns:
- We do not know how many residential surveyors and specialist building professionals are active in England and Wales, what skills they have, or what additional capacity they could realistically deliver.
- Earlier work suggested that around 8,000 surveyors might be needed to cover all marketed properties under a universal condition‑report regime, but we do not know whether that estimate is still relevant.
- We do not know how many existing practitioners would prefer to step away rather than participate in a new mandatory mechanism.
It is entirely predictable that large corporate providers will promote a mandatory, basic inspection model that fits their employed staff profile and assert that they can meet the capacity requirement. That is exactly the scenario that risks shifting work away from independent experts and into the hands of a small number of large firms.
We support the principle of better upfront condition information, but the appropriate level of detail, the right product design and – crucially – the market’s ability to deliver it at scale are still unknown. These questions must be properly researched before any commitment is made to mandate condition reporting.
So our position is:
- Yes: mandate comprehensive digital/factual material information.
- No / not yet: do not mandate a universal, standardised condition report for all properties at this stage.
- 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 extremely varied housing stock in terms of age, construction and complexity. Surveys need to reflect that. Standards already say 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 a significant 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 detailed 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 generally commission thorough surveys voluntarily, and those surveys reflect each property’s specific complexity. Norway has moved away from basic, Scottish‑style reports and now requires significantly more detailed inspections because the simpler approach was not providing sufficient information for consumers.
A mandatory “simple triaged basic report” might appear to be a neat compromise, but there is a serious risk that buyers treat it as a full review. If major defects later come to light, the obvious question is: 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 rigorous research into how different report types influence behaviour before deciding whether any form of mandatory condition report is appropriate.
- What steps should government take to ensure that conveyancing lawyers, estate agents and surveyors have the capacity and capability to implement this change?
Current 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.
However, we lack basic data about:
- the actual number of active residential surveyors and relevant specialists;
- their skills and specialisms.
- their age profile and retirement intentions; and
- the time it really takes to carry out inspections and report writing at different levels.
Until these questions are answered, any discussion of “capacity and capability” is essentially guesswork. We therefore recommend that the government’s first step should be to commission independent research into:
- workforce numbers, skills and regional distribution;
- current and potential throughput; and
- how different product types would affect capacity requirements.
Government should also treat optimistic capacity claims from large corporate providers with caution. Their commercial interests naturally favour models that centralise work and drive high volume, but those same models can undermine inspection quality and marginalise independent expertise.
- What resources and additional training would be needed in order to implement these changes?
At this point, we simply cannot answer that question with any confidence. Until we know:
- what the current surveyor and specialist community looks like;
- what volume and type of work is currently being delivered;
- how many practitioners would likely exit under different reform scenarios;
- what sellers and buyers actually need by way of information and advice; and
- what specific products the government ultimately decides to promote or require,
any estimate of resources and training needs would be speculative. Training and upskilling should be designed after a clear product landscape has been defined and properly tested with consumers, lenders and practitioners – not before.
Professionalising property agents
- 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.
- 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. Government should go straight to statutory regulation with clear, enforceable standards.
- Do you agree with our proposal to consult on mandatory qualifications for estate and lettings agents?
Yes. Mandatory qualifications are a basic expectation if agents are to perform a professional role in such a high‑value, high‑risk market.
- Are there additional interventions you think government should take to drive up standards amongst property agents?
Yes. 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.
- 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 expanding use of digital property logbooks and packs will require oversight, especially in terms of:
- what information is included;
- how it is presented; and
- how it is kept up to date.
Digital property logbooks and packs
- Do you agree that government should aim to support the wider use of digital property logbooks and packs?
Yes. We support government in encouraging wider use of digital property logbooks and packs. They are a logical home for standardised factual information and can help streamline the process.
- If yes, what do you think would drive their wider adoption? How could government support this and do you think legislation might be needed to bring about this change?
Wider adoption is likely to be driven by:
- clear data standards for what a logbook should contain;
- 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 providers do not lock consumers into closed, proprietary ecosystems.
Any legislation should focus on standards and fairness, not on prescribing a single commercial model.
- 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 within 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 time – without any protection for undiscovered defects or access to redress.
Any framework must make it absolutely 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 issues will also need careful management.
Binding conditional contracts
19. Do you agree that 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, 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 any move towards mandatory adoption.
The emphasis should be on transparency and fairness, not on adding a further layer of complexity that parties do not 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, highly punitive charges 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, then the chain collapses for reasons outside the parties’ control.
Binding mechanisms must not trap consumers into transactions that have become fundamentally different from those they initially agreed 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 that a central, government-run service listing or rating property professionals is a good use of public resources, nor that it would deliver meaningful benefits to consumers.
It would be more effective to:
- ensure that general review sites are as accurate and fair as possible; and
- make regulatory status, qualifications and routes to redress clear and easy for consumers to find.
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, specialist reports); and
- applicable redress/complaints schemes.
We would caution strongly against simplistic star ratings or league tables, which can be misleading and are 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 a voluntary charter would make a significant difference. Robust regulation, clear minimum standards and visible enforcement are likely to do far more to protect consumers than another badge 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 judgement.
AI should support conveyancers, not sideline them.
28. What else do you think 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, particularly the difference between a mortgage valuation and a condition survey; and
- resisting the temptation to impose untested, one‑size‑fits‑all survey products that 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 right. 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 dependent on context and judgement. 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 government should be doing to promote digitalisation of the property sector?
We would encourage government to:
- prioritise interoperability, so that different digital platforms – including any property logbooks, lender systems, conveyancers’ case‑management tools and surveyor systems – can communicate effectively;
- ensure 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
- make sure digital systems present information in ways that ordinary buyers and sellers can actually understand, rather than simply generating more documents.
We support digitalisation that improves clarity and efficiency – but not approaches that reduce complex professional judgement, especially around condition, to a simple 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
