Copy article

Homebuying shake-up announced by the government, thoughts?

ended 19. June 2026

Major reforms for buying and selling homes has been unveiled today (Friday 19 June) to cut delays, reduce and digitalise paperwork, and stop sales collapsing.   

New changes will cut homebuying times by around four weeks, save first-time buyers an average of £650, and stop the nasty surprises that cost time, money, and heartbreak. This will ensure the chance to own a home isn’t determined by who can afford to take the biggest risk. 

Sellers and estate agents will have to provide key information upfront in ‘sales packs’ at the point of listing. This will set out a home’s condition, leasehold costs, and chain status so buyers can make informed decisions, and property professionals can get to work sooner – while creating a fairer, more transparent process for everyone involved. 

Changes will also see new earlier binding agreements to stop parties walking away months into negotiations without a legitimate reason. This will help to give young people confidence in the system and better plan for their next steps, not put them on hold. 

In addition, a new Code of Practice will raise standards for estate agents, alongside proposals for mandatory qualifications for the sector which could ensure agents are properly equipped to support efficient transactions and rebuild trust in the sector.   

With the average home purchase taking around 120 days, one in three sales falling through costing sellers around £400 million per year, and failed transactions costing the economy up to £1.5 billion every year.

  • What do you think about the reforms? What are the pros and cons?
  • Are they welcome? Or is it more red tape?
  • What are the consequences of the reforms? Will it help or hinder the housing market?

Responses asap. I am writing early.

8 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Stephen Perkins
Managing Director at Yellow Brick Mortgages
Home information packs were tried before and abandoned as they created delay and extra cost to people looking to list their homes on the market and didn’t have the desired effect of reducing transaction times. Unless chain free sale, the chain details won’t likely be available as sellers won’t be offering on properties until they have received an offer on theirs. Qualifications for agents in principle adds more professionalism to the role of selling someones largest asset, but adds more costs for agents working on ever smaller margins to adapt to this, and as qualified role, staff will demand higher salaries. The question is will home sellers be prepared to pay higher agents fees to cover the difference, or will the list it yourself online and sole trader agents options become more popular at cost of larger more established estate agents. Likewise earlier tie-in sounds good for sellers, but buyers may delay buying decisions to avoid potential losses and liabilities.
Copy

Editor
Riz Malik
Independent Financial Adviser at R3 Wealth
A Code of Practice is not going to get Britain moving. Stamp duty reform will and it’s the only thing that can be quickly implemented and have an immediate impact. The government needs to stop wasting time with this foolishness and take action today.
Copy

Editor
Richard Davidson
Mortgage Advisor at onlinemortgageadvisor.co.uk
Anything that stops one in three sales falling through is welcome, because I see what that costs people every single week. A buyer loses their survey fee, their legal costs and often the home they had set their heart on, so upfront sales packs and earlier binding agreements should take a lot of that heartbreak out of the system.

My one note of caution is timing on those binding agreements, because as a broker my worry is buyers being tied in before their mortgage offer is actually issued, when a valuation down or a lender decision can still change everything. Get that sequencing right and this is a real step forward rather than more red tape, with first-time buyers saving around £650 and a month of waiting.
Copy

Editor
Craig Fish
Director at Lodestone Mortgages
These reforms are long overdue, and credit where it's due, the things brokers have been saying for years are finally getting talked about in Westminster. Sales packs upfront and earlier binding agreements should cut the number of deals that collapse months in, which is good news for anyone who's lost a survey fee on a sale that went nowhere.But as with most things government promises, the proof will be in the pudding if this actually happens. The real test is the small print nobody's written yet. Penalties for pulling out sound great until you're the buyer who finds a structural problem at survey stage. Get the exception clauses wrong and you'll bind people into bad decisions rather than good ones.
And let's be clear, this isn't happening this year. Full legislation isn't due until the end of this Parliament. Welcome direction, but talk is cheap until it's delivered
Copy

Editor
Jamie Elvin
Director at Strive Mortgages
One in three property transactions falling through shows the current system is no longer fit for purpose. Buyers and sellers can spend months progressing a purchase, only to lose money because key information emerges too late. Greater transparency upfront and stronger commitment from both parties should help reduce delays and improve confidence in the market. The direction of travel is certainly positive. The real test, however, will be implementation. If these reforms provide genuine certainty, they could be one of the most significant improvements to the homebuying process in years. If they simply add cost and administration, they risk becoming another layer of red tape.
Copy

Editor
Manooch Suree
Director at Zinga Financial Services
The current homebuying process is slow, uncertain and expensive when deals collapse. Greater transparency upfront and stronger commitment from both sides should speed up the process and reduce fall throughs later down the line. The risk is that extra compliance creates more cost and complexity, but if the reforms are proportionate, they could be one of the most significant improvements to the buying and selling process in years. However, the real game-changer would be combining these measures with meaningful stamp duty reform. Faster transactions are welcome, but reducing the tax burden and friction of moving home would do more to improve affordability, increase mobility and unlock activity across the housing market
Copy

Premium
Gaurav Shukla
CEO at Home Me Mortgages
The UK homebuying process has needed reform for years, so the direction of travel feels positive.

Anything that reduces fall-throughs, speeds up transactions and gives buyers greater transparency upfront is welcome. Too many purchases collapse because important information only comes to light weeks or months into the process, costing everyone time, money and frustration.

The biggest benefits could be greater certainty and fewer failed transactions. However, success will depend on implementation. If sales packs are simple, standardised and genuinely useful, they could help modernise the market. If they become another layer of administration and cost for sellers, there is a risk they are viewed as additional red tape.

Overall, a faster, more transparent and more digital process should be good for buyers, sellers and the wider housing market, provided the reforms focus on efficiency rather than bureaucracy.
Copy

Premium
Steven Mather
Lawyer & Director at Steven Mather Solicitor
Information packs seemed like a good idea in the early 2007 but they were withdrawn in 2010. They were abolished by the coalition government as they increased upfront costs for sellers and did not speed up the process.

However that’s only part of what’s being announced here. It’s what isn’t being announced that may actually change things. Many conveyancers dislike the idea of legal tech and digitisation, because it simplifies a complex legal transaction that requires legal judgment, skill and experience. If the government can truly be innovative and speed up the process, it will obviously be great news. But the likelihood of government actually achieving that aim is, in my mind, low.