Let’s be honest, for mortgage advisers, the recent Panorama investigation into conditional selling by estate agents wasn’t so much a revelation as it was a long-overdue spotlight on something that’s been happening in plain sight for years.
I suspect I would struggle to find a single broker who hasn’t, at some point, lost a client due to the exact type of pressure tactics this programme revealed. It’s been an open ‘not-so-secret’ in our industry for decades – shocking only because, finally, consumers might now be waking up to it.
For years, advisers have watched buyers being told they must see the estate agent’s in-house adviser before their offer will even be considered, let alone passed on to the vendor. Buyers being denied property viewings unless they agreed to speak to the agent’s mortgage adviser. Buyers being led to believe their offer would only be credible if they used the favoured conveyancer.
All of this has been happening under the nose of regulators and within a system that still allows estate agents to operate as the only part of the property transaction chain without regulation.
The damage this causes is real and measurable. Buyers are coerced into using in-house advisers or favoured conveyancers who may be tied to a very limited panel, offering reduced choice and higher costs.
IN-HOUSE LEGAL FEES
The BBC report referenced in-house legal fees of over £2,000. And let’s not pretend this only harms the buyer. In these scenarios, vendors are also being done over. If their agent is filtering or withholding offers purely because the buyer won’t take the in-house route, then they are not acting in their client’s best interests. How can this be justified? Whose interests are really being served?
This isn’t just an ethical issue; it’s a legal one. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations prohibit misleading or aggressive commercial practices. If offers are being dismissed, or access denied, based on whether someone has spoken to an in-branch adviser, that’s not just murky, it’s potentially unlawful.
And in a market where purchase volumes might be low and pressure on agent staff is intense, it seems clear this behaviour is driven by the relentless need to generate additional income from ancillary services. But that doesn’t make it right.
THE FUTURE
So what next? We hesitate to say this could be the beginning of the end for conditional selling because we know how long it’s been going on. Even with the weight of public opinion, even with the evidence in plain view, change will only come with action. That means extending regulation to cover estate agents, not just relying on voluntary codes or internal whistleblowing policies that rarely see the light of day.
But it also means mortgage advisers must keep playing their part. That starts with educating clients that they do not have to agree to these terms. That their offers should be passed on regardless of whether they use the in-house team. That they can contact the vendor directly if they suspect games are being played. And that they can report any aggressive or misleading tactics to Trading Standards or the Property Ombudsman.
It also means advisers must stay engaged across the whole transaction, not just the mortgage. Advisers need to be actively discussing conveyancing options, explaining fee structures, and helping clients compare genuinely independent services.
Because every time a client is left to fend for themselves in this part of the journey, the risk increases that they’ll get swept into something that doesn’t serve their needs or budget.
We may not be able to stop this overnight. But every adviser who stands up to these practices, who arms their clients with knowledge, who challenges a gatekeeping agent, brings us one step closer to a better, fairer system.
The BBC may have lifted the lid for the public, but for the advice community, this was déjà vu. Now we need to make sure something actually changes.
