header-logo header-logo

07 January 2026
Issue: 8144 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Conveyancing
printer mail-detail

Cautious support for proposed reforms to homebuying process

CILEX has called for a review of conveyancing fees and stronger regulation of the high-volume residential property sector, in its response to government proposals for homebuying reforms

In particular, it recommended an ‘urgent’ review of referral fees, citing concerns that many estate agents are not being transparent. It supports the proposal for a code of practice for estate agents, mandatory training and certification.

The government’s ‘Home buying and selling reform’ consultation, which closed last month, made a variety of proposals to speed up sales, including binding conditional contracts, tighter controls on agents and an extensive list of information requirements at the marketing stage.

In its response, CILEX highlighted ‘inefficiencies and process bottlenecks’ caused by low-fee business models that place conveyancing lawyers under substantial pressure, facing ‘unprecedented strain, relentless workloads and tight profit margins’. It called for a review of conveyancing fees alongside the reforms to ensure firms do not overcommit to too-high caseloads. Any increase in costs would be outweighed by improvements to client care and efficiency, it said.

CILEX warned of ‘frustration and disjointed communication’ occurring between different representatives when property sales rely on everyone in the chain falling into place. It recommended the Legal Services Board take ‘collaborative regulatory action’ with support from frontline regulators.

CILEX president Sara Fowler said: ‘It is imperative that in pursuit of speedier transactions there is no compromise on quality of service and that consumers get the expert advice they need.

‘The government’s proposals offer much needed change to the sector but if the reforms are to be a long-term success, we need to see strong regulation and education, a review of current fee structures and transparency on referral fees to ensure that consumer protection is at the heart of these reforms.’

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) also backed ministers’ plans to regulate estate agents and to require more material information upfront during the marketing process.

Both CILEX and the CLC gave cautious support for binding conditional contracts. CILEX said more work was needed to establish the practicalities involved, particularly where properties are in a chain. The CLC said allowance must be made for ‘fair withdrawal’.

Issue: 8144 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Conveyancing
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll