Remember last year when excitement was growing over the possibility that agents were going to be sent to Belmarsh maximum security prison for not including the EPC rating on their property particulars? The talk was all about how they had to provide “material information” and how this change was going to revolutionise the home buying and selling process.
In an attempt to try and reduce the fear of this imminent mass-imprisonment, supporters were keen to stress that this new concept was not “a silver bullet”. Given the historical origins of this “silver bullet” being the only effective weapon against mythical creatures such as werewolves and vampires, they clearly thought the enforcement agency, the National Trading Standards Estates and Letting Agency Team, possessed such unearthly powers.
But the project came to nothing and despite the protests of those claiming the existing legislation was already in place, agents patiently explained that they needed to talk to the hand, because the news of the withdrawal of the guidance was music to their ears and they wanted to get back to selling unmortgageable houses.
Surely all information is useful?
Which was a bit of a shame, because it would definitely be better to find out sooner rather than later if a buyer would not buy a particular property for some reason or another. That said, if your partner had been aware of your questionable personal hygiene and unacceptable snoring after a few pints of Peroni, it’s unlikely they would have said “Yes!!” when you proposed on the viewing platform of the Eiffel Tower.
Even if we ignore the impact on an agent’s ability to hit target by giving buyers all the excuses they could ever need not to buy a property, there is an issue no-one seems to have taken into account, and that is, what information needs to be collected and what happens to it?
What happens next?
Fans of “A Question of Sport” will remember the round where retired footballers watched a video of a referee blowing his whistle on a rainy Saturday afternoon at Lincoln City, when the picture would freeze and they’d have to say “what happened next”. They’d be unlikely to guess that an Apache helicopter would appear over the west stand from which six special forces soldiers would descend on ropes onto the pitch and abduct the Slovenian goalkeeper who’d overstayed his work visa.
Without the same hilarious consequences (other than for Vlad, obviously) the same applies to the concept of upfront information. Beyond some generally vague comments about “tenure, restrictions and covenants” it’s never been clearly defined what is actually needed, where does it go and who does what with it.
While the concept that sharing is definitely caring when it comes to property information, people seem to have forgotten that the first stage of the process is that a buyer instructs a lawyer to carry out their own due diligence. Lawyers are under pressure to protect their clients, their clients’ lender and indeed, their own business from actions against them by their clients. Lawyers must be able to rely on information if case they need to counter-sue in the event of a problem in the future. This means the source of the information becomes critical, and beyond a few articles talking about data provenance, the concept of a PDF appearing from a random source does not add a lot of value to the process.
Should we not even try then?
Without being deliberately negative, because any progress is good progress, we are sceptical of those demanding change who are not actively involved in the day to day process who insist we are blocking things for the sake of it.
We could start by ensuring that we collect the correct basic data, such as names and addresses, accurately and completely at the start, which would reduce a lot of wasted time and then build from there.
Otherwise, if we continue to keep those who actually need to rely on the information, the buyers’ lawyers, in the dark about what they can expect and what they can do with it, we’re going to need more than a single silver bullet to slay that multi-headed hydra that is the Home Buying and Selling Process 2026.
Peter Ambrose is the owner of The Partnership and Legalito.
There, never was and never will be a silver bullet. It would take a Gatling gun full of them to improve the process to one that is fit for Millennials and Gen Z, and, a willing army to use them.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Lots of people shouting about how this is the Silver Bullet and “sellers need to get their house in order” (i.e. rectify legal defects). These people don’t deal with the pain of dealing with different types of sellers – people who were told when they bought that “everything is ok” but yet whoops there’s a doubling ground rent in a lease, or a viper of an estate management company on site making life difficult, or sellers who refuse to acknowledge there’s a problem that requires proper legal rectification rather than a sticky plaster with an indemnity policy. Just had an estate agent tell a buyer that ground rent is £120 a year and service charge £250 a year when it turns out to be the opposite.
Whilst this all sounds very nice and ‘idealistic’ you are never going to get the source of truth from an estate agent, “data” which the proptech guys are saying is ‘binary’ is actually quite nuanced and requires risk and proper advice tailored to the person buying.
And let’s not forget the biggest government backed scam (where this kind of ‘upfront’ information is likely to take its toll) – shared ownership.
There is a huge failure to see the “bigger picture” in creating the environment required for such ‘packs’ to proceed – it is very much dependant on economic circumstances and very few people are likely to spend money putting their ‘digital’ houses in order without knowing they have a buyer on the horizon.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register