Surveyors could face a sharp rise in workload if England were to introduce mandatory surveys for properties listed for sale, according to new research.

Research from Property Inspect suggests that if surveys were required for every property brought to market in England, demand for surveying services could rise by around 40%.

The findings come as policymakers continue to examine ways of reducing transaction delays and fall-throughs in the home buying and selling process. The idea of requiring up-front surveys, similar to Scotland’s long-established system, has periodically been raised as a possible reform.

Under the current system in England, sellers can list a property without providing detailed information about its condition. Buyers typically commission their own assessment, choosing between a Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 survey from a qualified professional.

While this approach gives buyers control over the level of inspection they require, it can also lead to duplication, delays and renegotiations, particularly where multiple buyers commission separate reports on the same property after earlier transactions collapse.

In Scotland, by contrast, sellers must provide a Home Report before marketing a property, including a survey and valuation. Supporters of the model argue that it improves transparency from the outset, shortens timelines and reduces the likelihood of transactions falling through after adverse findings.

A POTENTIAL SURGE IN DEMAND

Property Inspect surveyed homeowners in England who purchased a property within the past 12 months and found that 58% commissioned a survey before completion.

Based on that figure, making surveys mandatory at the point of listing would imply a roughly 40% increase in demand for surveyors across the market.

Such an increase would represent a significant structural shift for the profession. Capacity would need to expand quickly, raising questions about whether existing training pipelines, regional coverage and accreditation frameworks could absorb the additional workload without affecting turnaround times or report quality.

Technology and workflow systems would also need to adapt to support higher volumes while maintaining consistency and clarity in reporting.

However, more predictable demand could also bring benefits. A larger, steadier market for surveys may encourage greater investment in training, recruitment and digital tools.

Earlier access to property information could also reduce duplication in the system, particularly where multiple surveys are commissioned after failed transactions. Even a modest reduction in repeated reports could improve efficiency across the wider housing market.

PRICING AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

Another question is how a sharp increase in demand might affect pricing and perceptions of value.

Property Inspect notes that the average cost of a survey or home report in England currently stands at £505. In Scotland, where provision is mandatory, the average cost is £368.

There are several reasons for regional differences, including variations in property types and market conditions. However, the comparison raises questions about how mandatory provision can influence pricing dynamics over time.

The experience of Energy Performance Certificates offers a reference point. Before EPCs became a legal requirement, fees were typically around £100 to £150. Once mandatory, prices fell sharply, often to between £30 and £40 as competition and standardisation increased.

Surveys involve far greater technical complexity and professional liability than EPCs. As a result, any move towards mandatory provision would need to ensure that detailed inspection and professional judgement remain central to the process.

If demand rose quickly, new entrants might seek to enter the market. With robust regulation and accreditation, this could help expand the talent pool and improve access to surveying services. Without those safeguards, however, there is a risk that quality could become more uneven if some providers focus primarily on meeting minimum compliance requirements.

VALIDITY AND PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY

Timing could also present challenges. If a survey is commissioned when a property is first listed but the home remains on the market for several months, questions may arise about whether the report still accurately reflects the property’s condition.

While many structural features remain stable over time, issues such as damp, movement or external damage can develop. Any new framework would therefore need clear guidance on report validity periods, update mechanisms and lender acceptance criteria.

Clarity around duty of care would also be essential, particularly if seller-commissioned surveys were relied upon by multiple buyers during the marketing period.

Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, operations director at Property Inspect, said: “A 40% increase in survey demand is not a marginal adjustment. Based on current transaction volumes in England, it would mean hundreds of thousands of additional surveys every year.

“That level of expansion would materially affect capacity planning, commercial models and professional indemnity exposure across the sector.

“Greater transparency at listing could help reduce duplication and improve certainty in a market where fall-through rates remain persistently high.

“But reform cannot focus solely on efficiency. It must also ensure that training standards, duty of care and lender alignment evolve alongside volume, so that increased access strengthens quality rather than compressing it.

“Surveys are not compliance paperwork. They involve technical judgement and legal responsibility.

“If mandatory provision is to be considered, it must enhance professional standards while improving consumer confidence.”