Published: 13/05/2025 By Elliott Rowland
On Friday 9th May, it was announced that National Trading Standards Estate & letting Agency Team’s (NTSELAT) guidance on material information guidance had been withdrawn.The aim of the guidance was originally brought about to bring clarity to agents as to what information should be made available for property listings up front. The guidance was clear on what information should be provided, where it should appear, and when it should appear by.
However, you could almost hear the palpable groan from the property industry as this clarity dissolved overnight. Despite the guidance being rolled out in stages over years and involving significant investment from both agents and the Proptech industry, it was withdrawn with seemingly not a thought for either.
The reason? The regulations have since been superseded and replaced by the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. This raises questions as to what specifically this act entails, where it differs from the material information parts A, B and C, and perhaps most importantly; why it has taken until May 2025 for this to be announced when the Act was passed in 2024?
Confusion now reigns where clarity was once the aim.
Is the industry properly understood by those governing it?
From my conversations with agents, I’m not entirely convinced it is. Defining legislation that has a clear target or goal is one thing. However, taking the time to understand how the implementation of such legislation will practically work within an industry is another; it is the later which seems to be lacking.Our view, was that although broadly one could see the overall aim of the parts A, B and C of the material information, the implementation seemed badly thought out from the start precisely because there wasn’t a full understanding of how it could be achieved.
For example, did the information really need to be at the forefront of all marketing? The property portals and agent’s websites are there to help property hunters find potential properties to view. The physical viewing itself then either validates or discounts a property in the eyes of the buyer. The due diligence of ascertaining the finer details of the property comes later; I suspect very few applicants are basing their initial decision on whether a property might be of interest based solely on the building materials used or the sewerage system when simply understanding the space, quality and location of the property is the first port of call.
This seems to be backed up by the portals who spend millions in research and development to understand applicant's behaviour. The material information has never formed part of the portals main search criteria or subsequent filters which tells you everything you need to know; applicants aren’t using these details to narrow down their property preferences when searching for property nor do they desire to do so.
Certainly this information should be available to applicants and a defined list of information is welcome both for the potential buyer and for the agent to ultimately avoid fall throughs later down the line. However, making the information available at the appropriate stage of the buyer journey is just as important. This buying journey involves surveyors, and conveyancers as well as agents, yet it is agents who have seemingly always bore the brunt of the legislation.
Secondly, there seemed to be a complete lack of understanding of the complicated tech ecosystem that sits behind estate agency and the property industry as a whole. There are thousands of Proptech companies from portals, to CRMS, to websites and more, all of whom need to share information and integrate with each other. These integrations take time and a huge amount of collaboration, otherwise the very information that needs to be promoted remains siloed in separate systems.
The Government’s approach of simply “ask Rightmove” did not adequately tick the technical due diligence box of how the wider industry could adjust to the changes in the interest of agents. A wider consortium of technology companies should have been consulted to understand how the goals could have been achieved and in what timeframe. Only through such a consultation could a full understanding of the practicalities of implementing such legislation have been achieved and sensible time-frames have been put in place to avoid frustration from both technology companies and agents alike.
Notwithstanding all of the above, to then remove the guidance completely after years of development by each of these companies shows a complete lack of understanding of the technology ecosystem, wasting thousands of collective hours of research and development that could have been better spent.
Why does this matter?
We are all striving to make the industry more efficient. Time spent ticking compliance boxes that we knew ultimately wouldn’t make a tangible difference to the ultimate aim was frustrating and took time away from developing solutions that could have benefited the industry as a whole.If the UK Government is serious about seeking growth for the wider UK economy, it needs to work with SME businesses in the UK just like estate agencies and the technology firms which support them to understand the ecosystems they operate in.
Without proper consultation, it simply leads to an increase in costs, wasted time and effort, and increased administration without any tangible benefit to the consumer. The aims of protecting the consumer and bringing clarity for all can only be a good thing, However, the expertise in how best to implement that goal is held within the many businesses involved in the entire process. Properly unlocking this valuable knowledge from the industry will ensure the best outcome for the consumer and the businesses within it.
By allowing SMEs to concentrate on their core business and utilising their expertise, the government may just find the holy grail of growth they have sought so desperately might also be unlocked along the way.