A newly qualified solicitor has named the Building Safety Act as the most damaging recent development in conveyancing, citing law firm refusals to handle affected transactions, insurer reluctance to provide cover, and resulting service gaps that leave leaseholders facing higher fees and prolonged delays.
Freya Wright, who qualified in February 2024 and works in the property team at Bermans, told a trade publication that "many firms refuse to take on such work, and some insurers don't even cover law firms for taking on transactions involving the Building Safety Act." She added that this has "left clients vulnerable to higher legal fees from the few firms that offer Building Safety Act work, difficulties finding a solicitor and prolonged transactions."
The claim points to a potential access problem in the conveyancing market for properties caught by Building Safety Act requirements, though no quantified data on firm refusal rates, fee premiums or transaction delays has been published by the Law Society, Council for Licensed Conveyancers or professional indemnity insurers.
Why insurers may be limiting BSA exposure
Professional indemnity insurers typically exclude or restrict cover for new regulatory regimes until claims patterns stabilise. The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced obligations on building owners and leaseholders in buildings over 11 or 18 metres, including requirements for safety certificates, remediation cost transparency and leaseholder protection provisions.
Conveyancers handling these transactions face advice liability on lease terms, building safety certificate interpretation, remediation funding structures and Section 20 notices. Insurers have limited actuarial data on claim frequency or severity for BSA-related negligence, creating uncertainty around pricing and coverage limits.
If insurers are issuing policy exclusions or sublimits for BSA work, firms without alternative coverage or appetite for uninsured risk may decline instructions entirely. Wright's observation would then reflect rational risk management rather than competence gaps, but with the same client-facing consequence: reduced panel choice and premium pricing from firms willing to take the exposure.
No insurer has publicly confirmed BSA exclusions or sublimits. Conveyancing firms and lender panels have not released data on BSA instruction acceptance rates.
The service gap and its commercial consequence
If Wright's experience reflects broader market behaviour, leaseholders in buildings requiring BSA compliance face a two-tier conveyancing market. Firms accepting BSA work can command premium fees due to limited competition and elevated insurance costs. Firms declining the work shrink the available panel for buyers, sellers and remortgage clients in affected stock.
For estate agents marketing leasehold flats in buildings over 11 metres, this constrains the pool of conveyancers able to act and may lengthen transaction times if buyers struggle to instruct. Portfolio landlords disposing of affected stock face the same friction. Lenders with conveyancer panels may need to identify which firms accept BSA instructions to avoid failed referrals.
The Law Society has published Building Safety Act guidance for conveyancers but has not issued warnings about access to services or insurer coverage gaps. The CLC, which regulates licensed conveyancers, has similarly not flagged systemic refusal patterns. Without regulatory or trade body acknowledgement, the scale of the issue remains uncertain.
What Wright advocates: leasehold reform and Scottish-style conveyancing
Wright described the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 as "a step in the right direction" for addressing unfair ground rents and lease terms. The Act introduces ground rent restrictions, extended lease terms and easier enfranchisement, though implementation remains phased.
She also suggested adopting elements of the Scottish conveyancing system, where searches and reports are typically provided when a property is marketed, and binding contracts (concluded missives) are agreed before survey. Wright argued this could reduce gazumping and speed transactions in England and Wales.
The Scottish system allocates pre-contract risk differently. Buyers commit earlier, often before receiving survey results, which can create its own friction if defects emerge. Cultural norms around survey timing and contractual certainty differ, and structural barriers including Land Registry processes and local authority search provision would require reform. Periodic calls for Scottish-style changes have not led to legislative movement.