Home Survey Standard & Home Buying Reform: what we know (and what we don’t)

A short explainer on home buying reform and the Home Survey Standard, written to bring clarity where communication has caused confusion.

There has been understandable uncertainty following recent RICS communications about the Government’s home buying and selling reforms, particularly alongside the still-pending outcome of the Home Survey Standard (HSS) consultation.

I’ve set out a summary of what is known, what is not yet known, and why many surveyors are feeling unsettled and anxious. If you’re reading this feeling uneasy or distracted by what this might mean for your work or your business, that reaction is entirely understandable.

What is known

RICS has now published the full PDFs of its consultation responses to Government on home buying and selling reform and on material information in property listings. These documents go beyond the original high-level commentary and clarify the direction RICS has advocated, the delivery assumptions it has shared with Government, and the role it believes professional surveying should play in any future system.

Across both responses, RICS supports mandatory upfront information and envisages this including property searches alongside a professional property condition report. The emphasis throughout is on professional judgement: condition information should be whole-home, proportionate, risk-based and delivered by suitably qualified and regulated professionals. Data-only or agent-led approaches are explicitly rejected, and the Scottish Home Report is referenced as a comparator, while acknowledging that the systems are not identical.

The consultation responses also position the Home Survey Standard as central to this thinking. RICS indicates that any future work on upfront property condition reporting is likely to build on the current HSS and could include seller-commissioned reports.

What is not yet known

What we do not yet have is the outcome of the Home Survey Standard consultation itself. Members have not seen how consultation feedback has been analysed, what weight has been given to different concerns, or whether the draft standard will change in any material way. Questions around scope, liability, consumer understanding, capacity and business impact therefore remain unanswered.

It is also important to remember that RICS’s submissions represent one professional body’s position. Government has received responses from other professional bodies, industry groups and consumer organisations, some of which take very different approaches to early condition information and the role of surveys. No policy decisions have yet been announced.

There is also still no clarity on what, if anything, will ultimately be mandatory, what may remain voluntary, how reforms might be phased, or what exemptions could apply. Despite the level of detail in the consultation responses, those decisions sit with Government and remain unresolved.

To borrow a well-known phrase about “knowns and unknowns”, much of the concern sits in the known unknowns. Members can see what has been submitted to Government, but don’t yet know how that aligns with the still-pending Home Survey Standard outcome - and that gap is where uncertainty grows.

Why members are feeling unsettled

For many surveyors, the concern is not about reform itself but about process, timing and clarity.

An article was published on the RICS website on 9 January that read as high-level commentary or thought leadership. More detailed consultation response documents, dated 2 February, were published later, with a change in format and no accompanying explanation or editorial note. There was no clear signposting to explain whether these documents were additional context, formal submissions that already existed, or an evolution of the earlier piece.

When information is updated, expanded or reframed in this way — particularly while a related consultation outcome remains unpublished — members are left trying to join the dots themselves. That has made it difficult to understand what weight to place on different communications, what is settled, what remains open to influence, and how internal consultation feedback sits alongside external policy submissions.

This is especially unsettling where the issues involved have potential implications for professional standards, liability, capacity and business planning.

What this doesn’t mean

It’s important to be clear about what this does not mean. It does not mean that the Home Survey Standard outcome has already been decided, that Government policy is final, or that immediate change is required. Nor does it mean that consultation responses submitted by members will be ignored, knowing what we do now.

However, it does mean that clear, transparent communication now really matters. When members are being asked to carry future delivery and professional risk, context and sequencing are just as important as content.

A note for SMEs and sole practitioners

For small practices and sole practitioners in particular, it’s worth saying this clearly: nothing has been decided, yet that requires you to change how you work, restructure your business, or make investment decisions now. While future reforms may bring both opportunities and challenges, there is still time, and there is still space for evidence, proportionate design, and proper consideration of how different surveying businesses operate. Feeling anxious about the future of your practice is understandable, but this is not a moment for rushed decisions. Clarity will come, and when it does, it needs to work for the whole profession, not just those best placed to scale quickly. In the meantime, your professionalism, judgement, and experience still matter.

How this could have been handled better

With hindsight, much of this uncertainty could likely have been avoided. Publishing a high-level article first, followed later by detailed consultation PDFs, without explaining how the two relate - and while the Home Survey Standard consultation outcome remains unpublished - has unintentionally created confusion. A short statement setting out what was being shared, why it was being shared at that point, and how it sat alongside the unresolved HSS consultation would have gone a long way. Clear signposting between thought leadership, formal policy submissions and standards still under consultation doesn’t weaken reform - it strengthens trust.

A reasonable question to ask

At this stage, it is entirely reasonable for RICS members to want clarity on how the Home Survey Standard consultation outcome will be communicated, how it relates to the positions already shared with Government, and what remains genuinely open for discussion. Until that clarity is provided, some uncertainty is inevitable - and acknowledging that uncertainty is both fair and professional.

Until next time,
Marion

If you found this useful, you’re welcome to share it with others who may benefit.

Surveying, Actually articles are shared by email when new posts are published. You can subscribe to Surveying, Actually here.