Home buying and selling reforms – can the Government really fix a broken system?

Posted on: 4 November, 2025

As the government unveils sweeping reforms to the home buying and selling process, Jordan Turner, Senior Lecturer at the University of the Built Environment, explores whether the proposals will truly fix a broken system – or just create new complications.

Solving one problem while creating more

On 6 October 2025, the UK Government launched a 12-week consultation on home buying and selling reforms. The ambition is bold – to speed up transactions, cut fall-throughs and restore confidence in a process that currently frustrates almost everyone involved.

 Around 1.2 million homes are sold each year in the UK, yet it now takes an average of 120 days to complete a sale after an offer is accepted. This is a 60% increase from 20 years ago. One in three transactions collapses, costing buyers and sellers around £400 million a year in wasted legal, survey, and agency fees.

The Government hopes to tackle this inefficiency. But, as with many reforms, it risks solving one problem while creating several new ones.

Upfront information – a good idea with hidden costs

A central proposal is for upfront information. Sellers would provide key compliance and condition data before a property goes on the market.

A ‘property passport’ or national database has long been discussed – a digital record of certificates, inspection reports and surveys. In principle, it makes sense: buyers would know more before making an offer, reducing nasty surprises later.

But who pays? A gas safety inspection (£60), electrical report (£150), searches (£300) and RICS survey (£500) already total over £1,000. This is before an estate agent is even instructed. If validity periods are introduced, sellers could face repeating these costs every six months if their property doesn’t sell.

While the Government claims this could shave four weeks off conveyancing, it’s unclear whether fees for this service would fall as a result. The reforms may simply front-load extra costs, leaving sellers footing a larger bill just to list their home.

Transparency is vital, but detail matters. Without clear funding or enforcement, the reform could just move costs upstream – and deter people from selling in the first place.

Professionalising estate agents – long overdue, or déjà vu?

Another strand focuses on professionalising estate agency. For years, there have been calls for mandatory qualifications and regulation – yet progress has stalled.

Estate agents handle what is often a person’s biggest financial decision, yet the industry remains lightly regulated. Too many still fall foul of the Estate Agency Act, Misrepresentation Act or consumer protection laws. Some pressure buyers into using in-house mortgage brokers or solicitors without declaring commissions.

The Regulation of Property Agents (RoPA) was proposed back in 2019, promising mandatory training and licensing. Six years on, nothing has materialised. Another consultation – launched in summer 2025 – may finally push this forward, but many in the industry take a “believe it when we see it” stance.

If implemented properly, a qualification framework could restore public trust and raise standards. Yet questions remain: who will run the courses? Must existing agents retrain? And would a licence genuinely improve efficiency, or just add bureaucracy?

Is conveyancing really the culprit?

The conveyancing process often takes the blame for slow transactions. Some argue it’s 20 years behind the times; others say that’s unfair. Either way, completion times are up 60% and frustration is rife.

Conveyancers face heavier workloads, more regulation and greater litigation risk than ever. Communication bottlenecks and risk aversion also play their part. The public often sees solicitors as the problem – yet without understanding the complexity of their role, that criticism can be misplaced.

Most conveyancers work on a flat-fee basis, so there is little incentive for them to ‘drag out’ a transaction – it’s in everyone’s best interests to complete as efficiently as possible. Some, however, draw comparisons with the fixed-fee estate agency model, arguing that when payment is the same regardless of outcome, motivation can vary. There will always be some debate on this point.

More transparency about what conveyancers actually do, and why delays occur, could help rebuild trust. If buyers, sellers and agents understood the process better, some friction might ease naturally.

Familiar promises, familiar questions

Many of these ideas aren’t new. We’ve heard talk of property passports, agent regulation and digital conveyancing reform before – but few initiatives have made it beyond consultation.

The upfront-information proposal could create new barriers as easily as it removes old ones. If sellers must complete an expensive checklist before listing, those needing a quick sale may be excluded altogether.

A centralised database of safety certificates, surveys and compliance reports – similar to checking a car’s MOT and tax status online – would be useful long term. It could also help local authorities track housing safety standards. Yet the question remains: how much information is too much, and will it be seen as efficient or intrusive?

Similarly, regulating estate agents is a sound principle but must be executed carefully. ARLA recognition already exists for letting agents, yet its crossover with residential sales is unclear. Mandating qualifications could divide the industry between seasoned practitioners and newcomers, and the Government must decide whether training is compulsory before starting work or achieved on the job.

Reform in theory vs reform in practice

Most buyers and sellers would welcome anything that cuts transaction times and costs. But the risk is that these reforms shift burdens rather than remove them. Reducing costs for one party should not mean inflating them for another.

Improving trust, transparency and professionalism across the housing market is essential – but real reform demands practical detail, funding clarity and consistent enforcement. Otherwise, we may find ourselves revisiting these same conversations in another five years.

For now, the industry is watching closely – hopeful, but sceptical. After all, in UK housing policy, consultations are plentiful, but genuine change is rare.

Want to be part of the solution? Find out more about our MSc in Real Estate