The Death (and Rebirth) of Material Information: An Industry Back to Square One

Mike Stainsby
Aug 22
3 min read

It’s hard not to feel déjà vu.More than a decade ago, the UK property industry was thrown into chaos by the short-lived experiment of Home Information Packs (HIPs). Marketed as a way to speed up transactions and reduce fall-throughs, they collapsed under the weight of poor enforcement, widespread hostility, and a lack of clear direction. Most estate agents cheered their demise.

But here we are again!

After months of work on Material Information (MI) rules - the so-called “HIP lite” designed to bring greater transparency for buyers - the plug was pulled overnight in May 2025. No warning. No clarity. Gone. Or so it seemed.

Was Material Information Really Scrapped?

Not exactly.

What disappeared was the official NTSELAT guidance that laid out, in black and white, what agents should disclose (from tenure and pricing through to flood risks and broadband speeds). This framework was introduced to make the law easier to follow and more consistent across the industry.

But the legal duty itself has not gone anywhere. In fact, under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC Act), the responsibility to disclose Material Information is stronger than ever.

Here’s the kicker:

Failing to disclose MI is now automatically an unfair trading practice - even if the omission didn’t affect the final decision.
Penalties are far tougher, with fines of up to £300,000 or 10% of global turnover.
Enforcement now sits with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), giving the rules more teeth than ever before.

So, while the structured guidance is gone, the duty remains - more powerful, but less clear.

What Went Wrong?

HIPs failed not because the principle was bad, but because implementation was a mess. Sellers carried costs upfront, enforcement was toothless, and political will collapsed. Estate agents cheered their abolition, but the core issues never went away:

Transactions still take 5–6 months on average.
One in four sales still collapse.
Buyers remain in the dark until late in the process.

Material Information guidance was meant to tackle some of this by standardising what should be disclosed at the start. Its sudden removal has left agents scratching their heads - with greater risk, higher penalties, but less clarity.

Who Benefits from Less Transparency?

Some agents may be “dancing on the grave” of MI guidance, but it’s a hollow victory. Longer transaction times, more uncertainty, and rising fall-through rates hurt everyone. Sellers get stuck, buyers get frustrated, and agents see pipelines dry up.

The public aren’t fooled either. In an era where consumers expect transparency in every other sector, the UK property market remains a throwback: opaque, slow, and stacked against the buyer.

The Industry’s Deafening Silence

What’s most alarming isn’t just the withdrawal of the guidance, but the silence that followed. Regulators and professional bodies talk of “working groups” and “stakeholder engagement,” but where is the leadership? Where is the clear plan to make the process better?

Instead, we are back in limbo - with no framework, no enforcement clarity, and no progress.

A Way Forward

If estate agents want to prove they are serious about improving the customer experience, they shouldn’t celebrate the end of MI guidance - they should fill the vacuum it leaves. That means:

Offering searches and key documents at day one of a transaction.
Committing to upfront transparency as a business practice, not just when regulators demand it.
Pressuring professional bodies to push government for clear, enforceable standards.

Because here’s the truth: buyers want this, sellers benefit from it, and the wider market desperately needs it.

Final Word

We’ve been here before with HIPs. We know what happens when reform is abandoned: nothing changes, and the property market remains a global punchline.

Material Information hasn’t died - if anything, it’s been reborn in a tougher, less forgiving legal form. The tragedy is that the clear guidance that made it workable has been ripped away.

If the government won’t lead, then it’s time for the industry itself to step up. Otherwise, we’ll be back in ten years having the same conversation all over again.