A recent Property Ombudsman ruling should make every estate agent, conveyancer, broker and property professional stop and think.

An agent was ordered to pay £575 after failing to disclose that a property may have been of non-standard construction. On the surface, it may look like a relatively small award. It was not a huge fine. It was not a national scandal. It was not the kind of story that dominates the industry press for days.

But that is exactly why it matters.

This was not really about £575. It was about a buyer making decisions without the information they needed and a survey cost that may never have been incurred. It was about avoidable frustration, wasted time and a transaction that did not progress as expected. Most importantly, it was another clear reminder that material information is no longer something the industry can afford to deal with later.

According to PropertyWire, the buyer made an offer, instructed a surveyor, and only then discovered the property was of non-standard construction. The Property Ombudsman found that the construction type was material information and that visible features in the property photographs should have prompted further enquiries with the seller.

The Negotiator's report on the same case makes the warning even clearer. The Ombudsman found that the agent had failed to provide timely material information. The fact that the property later sold without issue did not remove that responsibility.

That is the point every property professional needs to take from this.

"It sold anyway" is not the same as "we disclosed properly".

The real issue is not whether a property can eventually sell. The real issue is whether a buyer was given the information they needed before spending money, making decisions and becoming emotionally invested.

For years, the property industry has allowed too much important information to appear too late. A property is listed. A buyer falls in love with it. An offer is accepted. The sale starts moving. Then the real detail begins to emerge.

Tenure problems. Lease restrictions. Service charges. Missing consents. Rights of way. Building safety concerns. Planning issues. Flood risks. Non-standard construction. Unmortgageable properties. Historic alterations without evidence. Things that could have changed a buyer's decision at the very beginning are too often discovered after money has already been spent.

By then, the buyer has imagined their future in the home. The seller believes they have found their buyer. The agent thinks the sale is progressing. The broker is trying to hold the finance together. The conveyancer is under pressure to explain problems they did not create.

That is where transactions begin to crack.

Late disclosure damages trust. It creates stress for buyers and sellers. It wastes time for agents. It adds pressure to conveyancers. It creates uncertainty for lenders and brokers. It increases the risk of fall-throughs and leaves everyone wondering why the process is so painful.

Material information compliance is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the foundation of a better transaction.

The Ombudsman's wider case studies show that this is not an isolated issue. In one case, a property was later considered "unmortgageable and of nil value" by a lender, yet the marketing was not updated to warn future buyers that it may only be suitable for cash buyers or specialist lending. The Ombudsman found a failure to disclose material information and directed a total award of £7,270.

In another case, buyers paid an £8,000 exclusivity fee after an investment property was advertised as being under refurbishment to become a six-bedroom HMO with a seven-year lease to a social housing provider. They later discovered there was no planning permission or building warrants for the HMO conversion, and no actual lease in place. The buyers were refunded the £8,000 fee and awarded a further £400 compensation.

There was also the case of a fire-damaged property sold at auction without that serious damage being disclosed in the listing. The Ombudsman said the auction company should have done more to check the accuracy of the property information. The buyer was awarded £1,500.

Different facts. Same warning.

The industry has to move from assumption to evidence.

It is no longer enough to rely on vague seller comments, incomplete listings or the idea that "the buyer's solicitor will pick it up later". That mindset is part of the problem. By the time the solicitor picks it up, the damage may already be done.

Buyers may have paid for surveys. Sellers may have lost valuable weeks. Agents may have invested hours progressing a fragile sale. Brokers may have submitted applications. Chains may have formed. Families may have started planning their lives around a move that was never properly prepared.

That is why upfront material information matters.

The Government's material information consultation made the direction of travel very clear. Buyers and sellers lose huge amounts of money every year through failed transactions, and around one in three transactions fail. National Trading Standards has also made clear that material information should be disclosed in property listings so consumers can make informed decisions earlier.

This should not be seen as a threat to good agents. It should be seen as an opportunity for them to prove their value.

The best agents should want to know more about the property before taking it to market. They should want buyers to feel confident, with fewer late-stage surprises, fewer collapsed sales and fewer angry clients asking why something was not mentioned sooner.


The same applies across the transaction.

Conveyancers should not be left trying to fix missing information after the offer has been accepted. Brokers should not be blindsided by issues that affect lending. Sellers should not be allowed to drift into the market without understanding what they need to disclose. Buyers should not have to discover the truth by accident.


A better process has to be built around clarity from the start.

That is why WiggyWam believes material information is one of the most urgent issues facing the property industry. Not because agents need more pressure. They already have enough. Not because conveyancers need more work. They are already overloaded. Not because sellers need more confusion. They are already anxious.

The point is to make the process easier, clearer and more connected for everyone.

The WiggyWam Moving Hub is being built around that principle. Sellers packs, smart forms, documents, communication and property workspaces can sit under one digital roof, helping the right people access the right information at the right time. It does not try to replace the professionals. It simply supports a better way of working, where information is gathered earlier and shared more intelligently.

Because this is not just about compliance. It is about trust. It is about protecting buyers from avoidable surprises, helping sellers prepare properly, and ensuring agent listings are material information compliant from the start. It is about giving conveyancers better information earlier, and helping brokers and lenders assess risk with fewer hidden problems. It is about reducing the number of transactions that collapse because something important was left until too late.


The £575 ruling may look small, but the message behind it is not.

Material information is being tested. It is being judged. It is becoming a visible measure of professionalism. The old way of listing first and discovering later is no longer good enough.

The future belongs to the professionals who are willing to be more transparent, more prepared and more collaborative. That is also why the Maverick Movement matters.

This industry does not need more empty noise. It needs people who are prepared to raise standards, work together and stop accepting broken processes as normal. It needs agents, conveyancers, brokers, lenders and service providers who understand that better information upfront benefits everyone.

The warning signs are already here. The question is whether the industry acts now, or waits for more buyers, sellers and professionals to pay the price for information that should have been disclosed from the beginning.


Sources and further reading: