CQS Update 2026: climate change, the TA6 6th edition, and the compliance challenges ahead

Before handing over to Tom, I outlined the focus of this year's new risk and compliance course module: fraud. The course covers understanding fraud types, payment diversion fraud, Fraud Act 2006 offences, identifying warning signs of property and mortgage fraud, measures to reduce fraud risk, integrating fraud risk into client and matter risk assessments, and ongoing monitoring.

None of this should be new territory for competent conveyancers - but the reality is that firms are still being picked up for basic procedural failures. The course reinforces what should already be embedded in practice.

I also touched on the continuing pressure from the SRA around anti-money laundering compliance. The course covers ID verification, due diligence, the critical importance of the firm-wide risk assessment - which the SRA consistently describes as the lead document for all firms - client and matter risk assessments, source of funds, record keeping, and ongoing monitoring.

I'll say it again: where are the COLPs and MLROs in firms that are being sanctioned for basic AML failures? If firms are not doing firm-wide risk assessments, not conducting consistent client and matter risk assessments, and not monitoring on an ongoing basis, then compliance officers are simply not doing their jobs. 

A perennial issue, and one I make no apology for raising again. If people are doing the job properly, there should not be residual balances sitting on client accounts except in genuinely exceptional circumstances. Files should not be thrown into a corner waiting for someone to find time to clear a pound or two. The SRA Accounts Rules and Transparency Rules exist for good reason.

Tom Horrocks delivered a thought-provoking session on climate change and its implications for residential conveyancers. His key message was clear: his position has shifted. He now believes that conveyancers cannot ignore climate change, and that the question is not whether a duty to advise will crystallise, but when and in what form.

There is currently no specific legislation or regulation requiring solicitors to advise on climate-related risks. Common law authorities do not yet address climate-conscious lawyering directly. But the "reasonably competent practitioner" test is evolving, and the profession itself will determine where the threshold sits. As more firms begin providing climate risk advice, the median level of expected practice rises - and those who lag behind become exposed.

Tom drew a compelling analogy with the 1978 case of G. & K. Ladenbau (UK) Ltd v Crawley & De Reya, where the court found that solicitors should have conducted a common registration search that cost just 37 pence. The parallel is clear: if cheap, readily available climate change searches exist, a future court may well ask why a conveyancer failed to obtain one.

Tom emphasised that climate change advice must be particular to the specific transaction - not generic. The retainer sets the scope and limits of what advice is given, and firms need to be clear with clients that solicitors are not qualified to advise on the physical science of climate change. What solicitors can and arguably should advise on is the legal implications of potential liabilities arising from physical or transition risks.

This means understanding, for each transaction: the client's intentions (long-term ownership, buy-to-let, development), the property's characteristics (location, tenure, listed status), the mortgage terms and their climate exposure, and whether buildings insurance is obtainable at reasonable cost.

Tom unpacked the distinction between physical risks (flooding, heat stress, subsidence, coastal erosion, water stress, drought) and transition risks (legislative changes like MEES, insurance availability, regulatory changes to planning and building regulations). Each category generates specific legal implications that conveyancers need to be able to identify and advise upon.

A few examples that stood out:

• Flooding and riparian obligations: If your client is a riparian owner who fails to take reasonable flood management measures, they may face negligence claims from neighbouring property owners.
• Heat stress and subsidence: As temperatures rise and heatwaves become more frequent, the risk of foundation failure increases - with potential claims from adjoining owners for loss of support.
• Insurance: If a property becomes prohibitively expensive to insure or uninsurable, the client may breach mortgage terms. Tom drew a direct parallel with contaminated land: lenders will be happy to fix solicitors with liability for failing to spot discoverable risks.
• Coastal erosion: What happens when the land footprint literally falls into the sea? The property is uninhabitable, the land value is zero, but the mortgage debt remains.

I flagged during the session that some conveyancers have reported clients turning up with AI-generated outputs from ChatGPT, questioning the advice they've been given. This is a development that firms need to take seriously. It reinforces Tom's point about clients as back-door regulators, but it goes further - clients are now challenging professional advice with tools that may or may not produce accurate results. Firms need robust AI policies, and they need to consider their position on engaging with AI-generated client queries.

The TA6 6th edition became mandatory for CQS firms this month. The Law Society's stated intention is that the form should be understood by consumers, with sellers not having to ask their solicitor what questions mean.

Tom was broadly positive about the structural changes - the removal of preamble text from questions into separate explanatory notes is welcome and makes the form less intimidating. But he raised several concerns that I think are well-founded.

There is a tension between the Law Society's position that sellers should be able to complete the form with minimal professional input, and the Government's own consultation on Material Information in Property Listings, which acknowledges that consumers need support to interpret technical information. Both positions cannot be simultaneously correct.

• Boundaries: The addition of a front/rear/left/right diagram is welcome. However, the distinction between title plan boundaries and legal boundaries remains poorly explained, leaving the picture confused for consumers.
• Disputes: The requirement to disclose "anything that might lead to a dispute" risks pre-emptive disclosure of matters the seller may only be guessing about - potentially raising false flags that could impede a sale.
• Alterations: The simplified format is good, and the government guidance links are useful for conveyancers. But Tom rightly questioned whether lay clients would wade through complex planning and building regulation information.
• Guarantees: The removal of electrical work guarantees acknowledges practical reality. But the expectation that guarantees can be easily transferred remains questionable.
• Insurance: Excellent advice to sellers to maintain insurance until completion and to buyers to investigate insurance terms early - but buried deep in the explanatory notes.
• Japanese knotweed: A missed opportunity. Retaining "not known" as an answer option perpetuates the risk of a seller being told "but surely you must have known" when expert confirmation follows.
• Rights and informal arrangements: Tom argued persuasively that the explanatory notes attempt too much land law for lay clients, and that simpler questions would have been more effective.
• Sykes v Taylor-Rose: An important reminder that for opinion questions, a seller's honest subjective answer is not a misrepresentation - provided they have not taken legal advice on the answer. There are sometimes benefits to clients answering opinion questions without solicitor input.

Qualified Electronic Signatures (QES)

Since 1 August 2025, HM Land Registry has accepted applications with documents signed using QES tools, removing the need for a physical witness to deed execution. Commercial providers are now actively marketing QES solutions. Whether you embrace this or not, if your competitors are offering it, you need to consider your position.

SDLT tax adviser registration

This is urgent. Online registration opens from 18 May 2026, and firms must apply to create an agent services account within three months. Failure to register will result in HMRC issuing a formal stop notice - meaning you will not be able to submit SDLT returns or apply to HMLR for registration of title.

The CLC and Society of Licensed Conveyancers have raised objections, but Tom was pragmatic: conveyancers cannot credibly claim they do not give SDLT advice when they charge for submitting SDLT returns. The real issue is ensuring your staff know the boundary between standard and complex transactions, and that your CQS obligations around SDLT policies, procedures, and audit trails are robustly in place.

Do not leave registration to the last minute. Volumes will spike as the deadline approaches.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill 2026

The Government has stated its commitment to ending the leasehold system, re-invigorating commonhold, capping ground rents at £250 per annum (reducing to a peppercorn after 40 years), abolishing forfeiture, and repealing harsh rent-charge powers on freehold estates.

Tom was characteristically candid: commonhold brings its own problems because communal living spaces require collective management, and the experience with resident management companies in leasehold blocks does not inspire confidence. The ground rent provisions will face significant resistance from major ground rent holders. And if rent-charges are restricted, the question of who maintains estate roads, street lighting, and communal areas on freehold estates becomes acute - local authorities have no appetite to take on these costs.

Conveyancers will need to understand freehold, leasehold, unregistered land, shared ownership, and commonhold. The complexity is not decreasing.