Conveyancing Risk Controls: What Should Insurers and Lenders Ask Firms to Demonstrate?

Originally published September 2016. Updated 29 October 2026.

A conveyancing firm has a risk management policy, a digital checklist and a named supervisor. What happens when a fee earner is under pressure to complete while an important question remains unanswered?

That is where the firm’s controls are tested. Does the issue reach someone authorised to decide? Is the decision supported by evidence? Can the transaction progress without anyone noticing that a condition remains outstanding?

When this article was first published, it argued that conveyancing needed stronger safeguards against predictable mistakes. The useful question today is how firms demonstrate that those safeguards operate on live matters.

Ask what happens when a requirement is unresolved

Insurers and lenders have understandable reasons to examine how firms manage conveyancing risk. A useful enquiry goes beyond asking whether a policy or software licence exists.

Ask the firm to demonstrate a particular process:

• How does a required lender referral remain visible until an appropriate response is received?
• Who checks that redemption arrangements cover every relevant charge?
• How are changed payment instructions verified?
• Who reviews a matter when a material issue remains unresolved before exchange?
• How are registration deadlines and requisitions monitored after completion?

The answers should identify responsibilities, evidence and escalation. They should also explain what happens when the usual fee earner or supervisor is unavailable.

A useful safeguard connects a trigger with a response

A reminder can draw attention to a task. A review requirement can bring another person into a decision. A restriction on progression can prevent a step until a condition has been addressed.

Those controls serve different purposes. The firm should decide which is appropriate to the risk and establish how it works in practice.

For each important control, identify:

• The trigger: what information, event or deadline brings the issue to attention?
• The owner: who must assess it and take action?
• The decision: what needs resolving before the next transaction step?
• The evidence: what record supports the conclusion?
• The escalation: what happens if the issue remains unresolved?

A warning that nobody reviews provides limited protection. A signed approval also needs to explain what was approved and any conditions attached.

Use a lender referral to test the process

Consider an illustrative purchase involving a lease provision that requires referral to the mortgage lender.

The fee earner submits a report and receives an automated acknowledgement. The proposed exchange date is approaching, but no substantive response has arrived.

A useful control would distinguish submission from approval, identify the outstanding decision and bring it to the responsible person’s attention before the affected transaction step.

It would also preserve the report, response and evidence that any conditions were satisfied. Marking the task “sent” should not silently resolve the separate question of authority to proceed.

Our article on why a lender portal acknowledgement is not approval examines this distinction in detail.

Check the evidence behind a completed checklist

A completed checklist records answers. Its reliability depends on the accuracy of those answers and the work supporting them.

For example, “redemption statement received” does not establish that every charge and secured account has been addressed. “Registration application submitted” does not establish that registration has completed.

Reviewers should be able to connect the recorded answer with the relevant documents, enquiries and decisions.

Our guide to mortgage redemption checks covering every charge illustrates how an apparently complete payment instruction can leave an important obligation unresolved.

Where a checklist answer lacks support, investigate whether the underlying work was omitted, recorded elsewhere or misunderstood. Those findings require different corrective action.

Supervision needs time, competence and access to the work

The SRA’s effective supervision guidance describes a risk-based approach. Appropriate arrangements depend on the work, the people undertaking it and the circumstances of the practice.

A dashboard can help a supervisor identify matters needing attention. It does not provide the supervisor with unlimited capacity or replace discussion of a difficult legal issue.

Firms should consider whether supervisors have the expertise, information and time to assess the matters referred to them. Staff should understand when to seek help and what to do if their usual supervisor is absent.

Appropriate oversight should also extend to experienced staff. Seniority does not remove the possibility of an omission, an ethical concern or a decision requiring another view.

Control exceptions and overrides

Some controls need an exception process. A genuinely inapplicable question should not force staff to record an inaccurate answer simply to progress the matter.

Equally, unrestricted overrides can weaken the safeguard.

Where exceptions are permitted, record the reason, person authorising the decision, evidence considered and any follow-up conditions. Distinguish an inapplicable requirement from an unresolved requirement.

Management can then review patterns. Repeated exceptions may reveal a poorly designed question, inadequate training or a procedure that does not fit the firm’s work. They may also identify inappropriate attempts to bypass a necessary check.

What should insurers and lenders ask?

In my view, the more useful questions concern how the firm operates:

• Can it demonstrate the procedure on a recent matter?
• Do records show when the relevant checks and decisions occurred?
• Are outstanding conditions visible to the people responsible?
• Are exceptions reviewed and recurring weaknesses addressed?
• Do policy changes reach the workflow and the staff using it?

These are proposed assessment questions, not a claim that every insurer or lender currently requires the same evidence or mandates a particular product.

Firms should describe their arrangements accurately. A control requiring optional software configuration should not be presented as active until the firm has implemented and tested it.

Nor should the purchase of software be presented as a guarantee of panel membership, insurance availability or a particular premium.

Connect the risk policy with the working process

A policy should identify the firm’s approach and responsibilities. The operational procedure should explain how staff apply it, including the systems, review requirements and escalation arrangements involved.

Our guide to putting a CQS Risk Management Policy into practice considers that connection.

Firms developing their documentation can explore Lexsure’s CQS CPMS Risk Management Policy template as a framework to adapt to their practice.

After a complaint, near miss or file-review finding, consider whether the response requires a change to the policy, workflow, supervision or training. Allocate responsibility and check that the change has addressed the weakness.

How COMPLETIONmonitor can support oversight

Lexsure’s COMPLETIONmonitor provides structured pre- and post-completion checklists, alerts and reporting features for conveyancing practices.

These can support visibility of outstanding work and management review. Firms should confirm the features and configuration relevant to their subscription and assess how those capabilities fit their procedures.

Our article on managing risk between exchange and completion explains why tasks need continuing ownership as a transaction progresses.

As a Lexsure publication, we have a commercial interest in tools that support conveyancing risk management. The practical test remains the same: can the firm demonstrate that its chosen arrangements identify issues and produce an appropriate response?