Last month, Florence Eshalomi MP, Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG), wrote to the Housing Minister, setting out what many in the industry already know: the home buying and selling process in England and Wales is not just slow, but structurally fragile. Around one in three transactions fail, costing an estimated £1.5 billion a year across the economy, with buyers often footing the bill.

It’s not just financial; nearly a quarter of buyers have considered giving up altogether because of the complexity. Against that backdrop, the Committee’s recommendations feel less like reform and more like open-heart surgery.

One of the headline proposals is to front-load information (surveys, legal details, risks) so buyers can make decisions earlier. It’s a compelling idea. After all, delays and late-stage surprises account for a significant share of fall-throughs.

But in practice, this is where things become knotty. Agents are already legally required to pass on what they know; the issue is that critical information often surfaces too late. For this to work, everything has to move symbiotically — better information, yes, but also better training, clearer responsibility and proper enforcement.

We already encourage sellers to commission surveys early. It’s not cheap, but it tends to pay for itself in smoother transactions. That said, making owners fully liable hasn’t landed before, and for good reason. The condition of a property is subjective; so is the cost of putting it right.

Where the Committee is on firmer ground is in making deals more binding earlier. At present, a sale can unravel at almost any point, with little to no consequence. Gazumping alone accounts for over a quarter of failed transactions.

Introducing conditional contracts, with financial commitment on both sides, would change behaviour quickly. It would mean fewer speculative offers, fewer broken chains and a process that feels like it has some weight to it.

There’s also a push to streamline the mechanics: fewer duplicate checks, greater standardisation, and better use of digital systems. Considering that buyers can be asked to verify their identity multiple times in a single transaction, the inefficiency is hard to ignore.

But again, the challenge is coordination. With so many private players involved, the challenge is less technological than cultural — agents and conveyancers willing to work differently.

Finally, regulation. Trust in estate agents sits at just 37%, and the core legislation — the Estate Agents Act 1979 — hasn’t meaningfully evolved in over four decades.

A stronger Code of Practice, backed by a regulator with real teeth, would be a welcome shift. But qualifications alone aren’t a silver bullet. Estate agency has long been an industry that offers opportunity without academic barriers, and that accessibility matters. A clear rulebook and someone to enforce it may prove more effective than another certificate on the wall.

In principle, the Committee’s ideas are sound. In practice, their success hinges on alignment. Reform can’t happen in isolation.

But there’s a broader point here, too. A better buying process isn’t just about digitisation, regulation or shaving days off a timeline. It’s about service — clearer communication, better preparation and professionals willing to take ownership of problems before they become deal-breakers.

For an industry built around major life decisions, that cultural shift may matter just as much as any legislative one. Done properly, there’s a real opportunity not just to speed up transactions, but to make the entire experience feel more transparent, stable and considered.