Upfront Information: Principle vs Practice

This article looks at why upfront property information is widely supported in principle — and why the risks sit in how it’s delivered, not the idea itself.

What’s happening — and why confidence is running ahead of delivery

Recent consultation responses show strong support for providing buyers with earlier and more comprehensive information when homes are bought and sold. In principle, this includes condition-related information being available closer to the point of marketing rather than after an offer is made.

That support is not surprising. Earlier information promises fewer surprises, smoother transactions, and less wasted time for consumers and those working across the home-buying and selling process.

Yet there is a growing gap between confidence in the idea and confidence in the delivery.

Professional standards that would underpin any expanded role for condition information are still under consultation. At the same time, assumptions are already being made about what the market — and surveying practitioners — will be able and willing to provide.

Earlier information only reduces risk if judgement, scope, and understanding are clear.

Upfront condition information is not a simple add-on. It involves professional judgement, defined scope, limitations, and careful explanation. Without clarity on those elements, risk does not disappear — it simply moves earlier in the process.

Where the RICS response fits - and what it doesn’t try to do

Following the consultation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has set out its position on reforming the home-buying and selling process, including support for upfront information and the principle of earlier access to property condition reports.

In many respects, that response reinforces the direction of travel already visible across the industry. It emphasises that condition information must be professionally delivered, proportionate, risk-based, and supported by consistent standards. It also recognises the importance of capacity, capability, and a realistic lead-in period — acknowledging that rushed implementation carries real risk.

What the response does not attempt to do — understandably at this stage — is resolve the practical boundaries of delivery.

That includes questions such as:

• Where agent-led material ends and condition reporting begins

• How consumers will distinguish between different types of “upfront” reports in practice

• How reliance, scope, and responsibility will be understood consistently

These are not abstract concerns. They are the point at which consumer expectations, professional judgement, and liability meet - and where unintended consequences tend to arise when assumptions run ahead of clarity.

None of this undermines the intent of reform. It simply underlines the importance of getting the detail right before expectations harden into practice.

There is also a more subtle risk at this stage. While the Home Survey Standard consultation remains ongoing, signals given in broader policy responses can sometimes be interpreted — particularly by those outside the standards process - as indicating where that standard is likely to land.

That perception, even if unintended, matters.

Consultations work best when outcomes are clearly understood to be open, and when delivery models are not assumed before scope, reliance, and consumer understanding have been fully tested and agreed.

The question I keep coming back to

There is a widespread assumption that earlier information will reduce risk.
But the question I keep coming back to is this:

Have we agreed — and tested — what “good enough” looks like, and will consumers actually understand it?

Much of what’s happening now can be seen as different responses to that question.

Are some organisations seeing something the rest of us aren’t yet?
Or are they moving early in the hope that change will follow — at a time when political uncertainty means many are still unsure whether reform will happen at all, or in the form currently imagined?

Those distinctions matter because, while policy direction may shift, the practical consequences do not sit in policy documents.

They sit with individual practitioners.

If expectations set today harden before standards, scope, and consumer understanding are properly settled, it will be surveyors — not consultations or frameworks — who carry the professional and reputational risk.

Earlier information can be a powerful improvement.
But only if principle and practice move forward together.

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.