TALK YOU YOUR PACK SUPPLIER NOW.
DOES YOUR CURRENT SUPPIER protects you against this new law
Use these public reports and industry analyses to ask material information supplier to plug the gap as their last year versions are now unlikely to protect you under the new law.
Print it, share it in meetings. The Data is public and verifiable and crucial to review as Propertymark predicts enforcement for non-compliant agents in 2026 with fines, disqualifications, and lost business.
Stay ahead with solutions like ours.
The government backed bodies aren’t scared to fine or ban agents
Over 1,050 non comply penalties have already been for estate agents alone—the highest of any sector from the start of the stats being recorded.
Over 320 Estate Agents in 2024/25 (HMRC’s annual supervisory report for the 2024/25 fiscal year) with cumulative fines across sectors exceeding £5.15 million for noncompliance in AML
(170 Agents fined £835,842 in April-September 2025 (HMRC’s half-year update for the 2025/26 period) ranging from £1,250 to over £50,000 per agent. 11 17
the industry is expecting the new law is now going to bring similar proactive fines for missing or late material information
where even “minor” oversights will lead to costs penalties, as cited in industry news like Property Industry Eye and Propertymark.
CMA Enforcement and Historical Cases. Ramp-Up Expected in 2026.
CMA monitors property closely for misleading practices. The Competition and Markets Authority enforces competition and consumer laws, now with direct fining powers under DMCC. They investigate unfair practices (e.g., Schedule 20 banned tactics like misleading claims) and can impose penalties without courts.
Material Information (MI) Compliance and Property Section
Why you need to focus on Material Information (MI) compliance from 2026.
65% of agents Listings Inadequate.
Only 35% Comply
(source: the National Trading Standards (NTSELAT) analysis in their October 2025 MI guidance consultation).
They reviewed thousands of listings and found ~65% lacking key details like tenure, restrictions, or council tax—10% missing basics entirely.
Propertymark have called for “example fines” to deter non-compliance. 1 2
This data was echoed in the UK government’s response to speed up property transactions.
Propertymark Warnings:
In their 2025 member surveys and 2026 outlook reports, Propertymark found only 50% of agents fully MI-compliant, warning of “proactive audits” in 2026 (websites, portals, brochures). They’ve lobbied for clearer guidance since NTSELAT’s old MI rules were withdrawn in May 2025, shifting to DMCC. 0 1 2 3 5 8
Click to see more legal references.
Source: Links/Reports: NTSELAT’s “Material Information in Property Listings” guidance (gov.uk, updated October 2025); Propertymark’s “Compliance Checklist 2026” report and advocacy letters to CMA; Industry articles in Estates Gazette and The Negotiator.
The estate agent must be transparent before listing a property including legal Title as that could have the value of the property, the price.
For estate agents, this means CMA can audit listings for “misleading omissions” in material information and impose fines directly for property-related breaches.
Chapter 4 (Schedule 25) targets “misleading omissions” in listings (e.g., omitting lease terms leading to buyer assumptions of incorrect pricing due to a short lease because the term of lease years was wrong in the listing from lack of upfront search).
Relevance to Estate Agents/Property: Applies to agents as “traders” (s. 230) in consumer transactions (s. 218); requires upfront “material information” in invitations (s. 230: tenure, price, restrictions); breaches like omitting covenants are unfair.
CMA’s powers extend extraterritorially (s. 184); amends Estate Agents Act 1979 (Schedule 18) for alignment.
Propertymark notes increased urgency for leasehold info (e.g., LPE1 forms). Examples: False sales price claims because misleading “misleading omission” affecting the price.
The reason for the urgency in 2026 is that Propertymark and industry is predicting more proactive enforcement of action against estate agents for missing material information or late information because of the new legislation which only came into force last year and is ready to be pushed practically this year. 0 1 2 3 4 5 8
Unfair Contract Terms and New Legislation Section
The law under the new DMCC Act. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (consumer provisions effective April 6, 2025).
Part 4: Consumer Rights and Disputes (Sections 224-310): Prohibits unfair commercial practices (s. 225) including “misleading actions” (s. 226: false info on features/prices), “misleading omissions” (s. 227: hiding material facts), (s. 229: failing honest market standards). “Material information” omissions in “invitations to purchase” (s. 230: e.g., property ads with price/characteristics) are always unfair.
Criminal offences (s. 237) for most unfair practices.
Penalty Section
Enforcement orders: requirement to pay monetary penalty (section 158); online interface orders (s. 161) to modify digital content (e.g., removing misleading listings).
Penalties can be turnover based (s. 204), recoverable as civil debt (s. 206), and include daily accruals for non-compliance.
CMA Investigatory powers (s. 208) allow entry, seizures, and information demands.
Penalties and Offences: Criminal for “misleading actions”/“misleading omissions” (s. 237-241: up to 2 years jail/unlimited fines; strict liability except diligence breaches).
Civil fines up to £300k/10% turnover (s. 182); director liability (s. 203);
Disqualifications via Companies Act 2006 (up to 15 years).
Prosecution limits: 3 years from offence/1 year from discovery.
Source Links/Reports: Full Act text on legislation.gov.uk; CMA’s “Unfair Commercial Practices” guidance (gov.uk, November 2025); Explanatory Notes; Property Institute briefings; Dentons/Womble Bond Dickinson analyses.
CMA not scared of Director bans and fines. Historical Cases as Cautionary Tales:
- Burnham-on-Sea Cartel (2017): Six agents fined £370,084 under Competition Act 1998 for fixing 1.5% commissions—consumer harm via inflated costs. One got immunity for whistleblowing; others faced reputation damage.
- Berkshire Fee-Fixing (2020): Four agents (e.g., Romans) fined £266,000+ for colluding on fees. Included director disqualifications (3-7 years).
- Other Examples: Three Counties (2015, £775,000 for ad restrictions); West Yorkshire Lettings (2018, £370,084 for commission fixing).
Source Links/Reports: CMA case files on gov.uk (e.g., “Estate Agents: Burnham-on-Sea” decision, 2017); CMA’s “Annual Plan 2025/26” outlining property sector focus; Propertymark’s CMA briefings.
Why the above is important. Because whilst as of February 2026, no estate agent-specific MI fines under DMCC, but CMA launched 8 consumer protection cases against estate agents in November 2025 (e.g., on price transparency in other sectors). The AML fines feed into the fact that regulators are not scared to issue fines and disqualifications, having already issued over £5.15 million across sectors, which shows they have the teeth and appetite to enforce similar rules in material information instances.
Material information obligations remain with the estate agent. This service supports compliance by front-loading disclosure and documentation in line with current UK consumer law.