Home Information Packs revisited?

(When you fail to learn from past mistakes!)

As a solicitor, in a unique position owning a Solicitor firm and Estate Agents, I see all sides of the conveyancing process. I welcome the Government’s intent to improve the home buying and selling process. However, the proposals outlined in government’s consultation published on 6 October 2025 raise several concerns that echo the shortcomings of previous initiatives—most notably the Home Information Packs (HIPs) introduced in 2007 and subsequently abandoned in 2010 following the property market collapse.

While the consultation aims to reduce transaction failures and improve transparency, the requirement for sellers to provide upfront surveys and searches remains problematic at best. As highlighted in my interview on BBC Wales (6/10/25) in the past, lenders have continued to insist on independent searches and surveys, commissioned by the buyer’s solicitor, to ensure reliability and recourse in the event of defects. This duplication undermines the very efficiencies and cost savings for the buyer that the reforms seek to achieve.

The financial burden on sellers is another critical issue. Many are reluctant to incur upfront costs, just to market their property. Also, if a Leasehold pack is required, these can be priced at over £300, and are time-sensitive and so may need to be repurchased if the transaction is delayed—adding further costs and time delays. However, the proposal to have time limits for management companies/freeholder to provide the requisite information to enable a sale is welcome as this often hampers a transaction and the fees are usually not reflective of the work involved.

There is also a risk of repeating past mistakes where estate agents formed referral arrangements with HIP providers, prioritising commission over quality. Without robust legal oversight, sellers were exposed to risks, due to poorly completed documentation. The current proposals must avoid incentivising similar practices.

The suggestion to leverage real-time data from HM Land Registry is ambitious but currently impractical. Registration delays of over two years are standard, making “real-time” access to ownership or title data unrealistic in the short term.

Standardising the validity period of searches is a welcome clarification, though it is worth noting that such standards already exist in practice.  The proposal to put in place searches prior to receipt of the contract pack is common practice with factory conveyancing, but this comes at a risk because additional enquiries in the local search may be required due to information revealed in the contract pack; this would add considerable costs to the buyer with potential additional searches.

Similarly, the introduction of mandatory professional standards for estate agents is commendable but must also recognise existing qualifications such as Solicitor Estate Agents and RICS to avoid penalising competent professionals.

Digital property logbooks may offer long-term benefits, but questions remain over cost allocation. As most conveyancing documents are already shared digitally with clients, the added value of a logbook must be weighed against its implementation costs. In France they have digital packs/log books for properties but the whole process of transferring properties is controlled by government appointed Notaries to ensure the information is correct and overseen by someone who is qualified. It is also worth noting that in France your legal fees are usually around 20% of the sale price, and we get complaints over fees in the UK!

The emphasis on performance data risks marginalising complex cases. Factory-style conveyancers, driven by volume and metrics, may avoid transactions involving unregistered land, leasehold complications, or probate issues—leaving vulnerable sellers and buyers unable to secure legal services as firms will be data driven rather than customer driven.

The consultation also overlooks the organic nature of property chains, which form only once sales are agreed. It is impossible to confirm a chain until all property sales are agreed, and agents already know if a property being sold is chain free, often the case with probate properties. and advertise this as a selling point.

The proposed reforms seem to have tried to cherry pick some aspects of property transactions of differing jurisdictions, failing to take into account the jurisdictions other processes to enable the particular process to take place. The report focuses on the speed and how information is provided but fails to recognise that these services and the speed come at a cost ranging from 3.6- 6.6% in Norway to 20% in France.

The jurisdictions have more focus on legal advisers being involved, In Scotland you’ll normally be buying and selling your home through a solicitor, not an estate agent. Some properties are sold at a fixed price, but most are sold through a 'blind bidding' system. The seller will ask for offers either over or around a minimum price. Your offer must be sent as a letter from your solicitor, you cannot make an offer without a solicitor. The seller will then consider the offers, and the lucky potential buyer’s solicitor will receive a letter called a 'qualified acceptance' from the seller’s solicitor, meaning they accept the offer depending on certain conditions. The seller's and buyer’s solicitors then send each other letters negotiating these conditions. These letters are called 'missives'. Once the missives are accepted and terms agreed, you have a binding contract. As in England and Wales if you break the contract the defaulting party will be liable for a considerable sum.

It feels as if this is yet another reform created by those with a vested interest to sell their services, resulting in a negative impact on an already fragile housing market.  As a country that has an economy based around property investment the effects could be catastrophic.

Alternatively, the government could listen to those at the coal face, they could scrap referral fees (which have led to poor practices in larger estate agency chains where the customer is not put first). Estate agents should be charging to market a property, whether it sells or not, this would cover the overheads without having to rely on a success fee, which would be provided in the case of a sale. This model would ensure that Estate agents become self-reliant, have cash flow, and an incentive to sell. It would also mean the legal sector could invest the monies currently paid to agents as referral fees from the legal fees into more staff and technology to speed up the transactions.

In summary, while the consultation is an opportunity for those in the industry to offer a better framework. The success of any reform to speed up transaction times will depend not just on reform of those in the market, but also of the government agencies involved in registration, and on human nature, as often the delays are due to parties not being ‘at one’ with timescales, and not wishing to be flexible, with each believing their need is greater than others.

Buying a property is one of the most expensive things a person will ever buy, it will never be as quick as a weekly food shop, and the returns policy is non-existent, so for the sake of time it is better to take the time to get it right, rather than getting done quickly, and regretting at leisure.