Majority of agents back Trading Standards’ up-front info push

Since June 2022 Part A of Trading Standards reform has stated that estate agents must provide material information for their property listings.

Eight out of 10 of UK estate agents believe that the provision of up-front information at the start of the homebuying process will improve the buying and selling experience but just three in 10 have made efforts to do so on the homes that they list.

Since June 2022, Part A of Trading Standards reform has stated that estate agents must provide material information such as price, leasehold terms and council tax information for their property listings.


And since November last year agents should also include in their marketing materials insights such as the building materials used, information about utilities and parking and any details around issues such as flood risk or restrictive covenants.

But research from Home Sale Pack reveals that just seven out of 10 (73%) agents think the new Trading Standards guidance (B and C) is a good idea although eight out of 10 (83%) do believe that supplying up-front information will improve the buying and selling process.

When asked what parts of the buying-selling process are worst impacted by the current lack of up-front information, half of agents (48%) said the conveyancing stage and a quarter (23%) believed it was the negotiation and offer stage.

A third (33%) reckoned the biggest barrier is how time consuming it currently is to gather all of the necessary information while just over a quarter (27%) say the fact that up-front information is not a legal requirement is hampering universal adoption.


And when asked if they or their business has already made operational changes in line with the new Trading Standards guidance in order to better obtain and provide upfront information for the homes they list, just 32% said ‘yes’, while 68% said ‘no’.

Ruth Beeton (main picture), Co-Founder of Home Sale Pack, says: “Up-front information packs help buyers, sellers, agents and conveyancers in one fell swoop.

“Despite the lack of meaningful industry backlash against either the recent evolution of Trading Standards guidance or the broader subject of improved and more timely information provision, we’re yet to see sufficient uptake to allow for meaningful change.”

She adds: “While some form of legislation might indeed strongarm agents into adopting the practice, we don’t believe the industry has time to wait for the sluggish government machine to catch up.”

One Comment

  1. As buying agents, we should welcome anything that improves the buyer’s experience. However, we are concerned at the time delay implied by complying meaningfully to Part C:
    – Part C requires disclosure of Title issues such as restrictive covenants, rights, easements, etc. which, in all probability, will require the opinion of the vendors’ conveyancer. As welcome as it is to involve the lawyer early, the time it will take for them to confirm their clients’ instructions, satisfy AML, etc., obtain a copy of the Title and then report back implies an inevitable delay in commencing marketing.
    – An even greater delay is implied by Section 4 of Part C – which requires disclosure of ‘nearby planning permissions or proposals for development that might be material to the consumer’s transactional decision’…… To satisfy this, an agent almost certainly needs to undertake Local Authority Searches – which might be forecast to take up to four months!! Alarmist? – don’t think so:
    o Currently local searches take, say, two weeks
    o They are normally only requested once a sale has been agreed.
    o Say one in every four instructions converts to a sale
    o From marketing to agreement often exceeds three months – conveyancers tend to regard local searches as being out of date in three months.
    o So, if searches for every house are required pre-marketing, this predicts an increase in search requests by ca. 8 times – which potentially implies a delay of 16 weeks from instruction to marketing!

    ….and why is the address of the property not regarded as material information…?!

What's your opinion?

Back to top button