The government’s twin consultations on home buying and selling and material information have stirred thoughtful debate across the property profession. While their stated aim is to shave a month off the average transaction timeline, some, with good reason, are asking if the proposals risk adding rather than removing friction to the process.

And while much of the public narrative has framed the consultations as principally the business of estate-agents, many within the surveying community would argue that the real issue is the inherent lack of consistent standards across the transaction chain.

Can we learn from previous mistakes? As reported on the BBC recently, the Government hasn’t applied consistent standards in areas such as wall insulation and we’re now dealing with the consequences. The same principle applies here. Before we can make the process faster, we need to make it reliable.

For RICS members and property professionals alike, this moment represents a chance to influence how quality and accountability are embedded in the process. This is not just about how quickly we can complete deals.

Both consultations share a core assumption: that providing more information upfront will automatically make transactions faster and more transparent. Yet many practitioners question that logic. Front-loading information could discourage casual or speculative listings, effectively shrinking the supply of homes for sale. That might improve data quality but do little to raise transaction volumes.

The government wants more transactions, but by placing extra burdens on sellers, we may actually narrow the pool because, if only the most committed sellers list their properties, that will likely work against the very goal of market fluidity. The danger is that proposed reforms intended to reduce friction may instead increase complexity — particularly if consumers and agents must interpret unfamiliar technical disclosures.

There is also a practical question of how useful additional data really is to buyers. In a market defined by scarcity, choice is limited by supply, not by information. If you’re desperate to buy, you don’t have 10 options — you’ve got one or maybe two. Extra information isn’t going to change that or the subsequent decision process.

The consultations’ emphasis on transparency is laudable, but if the new requirements overwhelm consumers with detail, they risk slowing decisions rather than accelerating them. More data can raise more questions, prolonging the very process the reforms are designed to streamline. Equally, when does the information have to be refreshed? There is a possibility that even with information upfront, buyers will still delay further as they choose to get the information verified.

Another structural issue remains unaddressed – estate agents are still not formally regulated, despite being the constant link between sellers, buyers, and the professional ecosystem of surveyors and conveyancers. While surveyors are bound by professional codes and disciplinary procedures, estate agents are not. Without regulatory parity, the sector remains unevenly incentivised which undermines trust across the transaction chain and the information provided by various parties.

Even with greater disclosure, the doctrine of ‘buyer beware’ continues to apply. Consumers may be more aware, but not necessarily more protected. Over-disclosure can seed doubt rather than confidence, making buyers more risk-averse and reducing completions.

The priority should not be simply speed but quality, accountability, and standardisation. Clear standards, accessible reporting formats, and consistent definitions of “material information” would all help ensure that reforms strengthen consumer confidence.

The ambition to modernise the home-buying process is welcome. But efficiency alone is not the benchmark of success. True progress will come when the market operates on clarity, competence, and consistency, where consumers, professionals, and policymakers share a common understanding of what “good” looks like.

James Ginley, Technical Surveying Director at e.surv Chartered Surveyors