A lender portal confirms that your report has been received. The completion date is approaching. The buyer wants reassurance. But has the lender actually authorised the proposed course of action?
Lexsure’s October 2026 POLICYmonitor update addresses this important distinction. Its revised lender-reporting wording states that an automated acknowledgement, confirmation of receipt or absence of a response should not be treated as approval.
The Formalities When Reporting to Lenders update provides suggested wording for the firm’s CQS CPMS Dealing with Lenders Policy. It strengthens the process from identifying a reportable issue through to obtaining, checking and recording the lender’s response.
The report was sent. What remains outstanding?
Submitting information completes one stage of the process. It does not necessarily resolve the issue reported.
A file may contain a portal receipt, an email acknowledgement or a message confirming that documents have been uploaded. Those records can establish successful submission, but they do not necessarily establish a decision.
The fee earner needs to identify what the lender has actually said, whether it addresses the issue reported and whether any conditions remain outstanding.
Where authority is required, the relevant transaction step should not proceed until that authority has been received in writing and its conditions satisfied.
An illustrative example: the missing approval before completion
Illustrative scenario: a conveyancer identifies a title issue requiring referral under the applicable lender instructions. The firm submits a report explaining a proposed indemnity insurance solution.
The portal acknowledges receipt. Several days later, the buyer asks whether completion can proceed. The file contains the acknowledgement, but no substantive lender response.
The unresolved question is whether the lender accepts the proposed solution. The conveyancer’s assessment that insurance is appropriate does not establish acceptance where the instructions require the lender’s authority.
The firm needs a clear owner for the outstanding report, a follow-up process and an escalation route if the transaction deadline is approaching.
A useful report explains the risk and recommendation
The October wording requires more than uploading documents and asking whether the lender is happy to proceed.
A report should identify:
- The property and mortgage reference.
- The issue requiring consideration.
- The relevant provision of the lender’s instructions.
- The material legal risks.
- The firm’s proposed solution or recommendation.
- Relevant supporting documents.
- Any deadline affecting the transaction.
The recommendation should follow from the investigation. Where important facts remain uncertain, the report should identify those gaps rather than imply that the proposed solution resolves them.
A concise, properly supported report helps the lender understand the decision required and reduces the risk of further exchanges caused by missing information.
Use the channel prescribed by the lender
The fee earner should check the lender’s current reporting instructions and contact details. Where a designated portal reporting facility is required, it should be used.
A message to a broker, an upload to a general document area or a telephone conversation should not be assumed to satisfy a prescribed reporting process.
Equally, a portal may contain different functions for submitting documents, reporting legal issues and requesting funds. The firm should establish which function is appropriate for the particular communication.
Our earlier article on drafting a CQS Dealing with Lenders Policy explains the wider need for procedures that reflect the instructions fee earners must follow.
Keep the report, response and conditions together
The revised wording requires the matter file to retain the report, supporting documents, submission confirmation and lender’s response.
Those records should enable another conveyancer or supervisor to establish:
- What was reported and when.
- Which documents supported the report.
- What the lender authorised.
- Whether conditions were attached.
- How those conditions were satisfied.
- What remained outstanding at the relevant transaction stage.
Saving the response is only part of the task. A conditional approval needs an allocated action and evidence of completion.
The file should not require a reviewer to reconstruct the decision from disconnected portal messages and emails.
Resolve ambiguity before relying on the response
A lender’s reply may acknowledge the issue without clearly accepting the proposed solution. It may request further information, refer the matter for valuation advice or impose a condition.
Where the response is ambiguous or does not address the issue reported, the October procedure requires clarification.
Consider whether the response covers every material point. Approval of one aspect of a report should not automatically be read as approval of another.
The relevant question is whether the firm has authority for the action it now proposes to take.
The Certificate of Title needs its own check
Before submitting the Certificate of Title, the fee earner should confirm that all matters requiring resolution or lender authority at that stage have been satisfactorily addressed.
This requires a check of outstanding reports and conditions, alongside the applicable instructions. Submission of the Certificate of Title should not be used as a way of testing whether the lender will overlook an unresolved referral.
Lexsure’s earlier Formalities of Reporting to Lenders policy paragraph provides related background. The October lender-reporting amendment expands the procedure to address reporting content, communication channels, evidence and follow-up.
If the lender rejects the Certificate of Title or raises further queries, the firm should resolve the outstanding matters and follow the instructions concerning amendment or resubmission.
Previous approval may not cover changed circumstances
A lender’s decision is based on the information supplied. If a material fact changes afterwards, the fee earner should assess the change against the lender’s instructions and report it where required.
For example, a revised deed, altered funding arrangement or newly identified title issue may affect the basis on which the lender previously responded.
The firm should not assume that earlier approval extends to materially different circumstances.
What should the buyer be told?
Buyers need a clear explanation of any outstanding lender decision that could affect their transaction.
A statement that the matter has been reported should not leave the buyer believing that approval has already been obtained. Explain what remains unresolved and any implications for the proposed exchange or completion timetable.
The buyer’s willingness to accept a risk does not remove the conveyancer’s obligations when also acting for the lender. Nor does lender approval replace advice to the buyer about the issue’s practical consequences.
What if the lender reporting is questioned years later?
A lender audit, complaint or professional indemnity claim may require the firm to establish whether an issue needed reporting and what authority was required before proceeding. Today’s instructions may differ from those applicable to the original transaction.
The Lexsure Lender Archive can help identify dated lender-specific requirements where coverage is available. Select the correct lender, jurisdiction, issue and relevant transaction date, which may require consideration of exchange, the Certificate of Title or completion.
Read the historical requirement alongside the applicable general instructions, mortgage offer, report, supporting documents and lender response. The archive can help establish the instruction; the matter file must establish what the firm reported and what the lender authorised.
Preserving both parts of that evidence helps the firm explain its decisions during an audit or claim review. A historical requirement alone does not establish that approval was obtained or that the conveyancer’s advice was adequate.
What should the firm change?
Review the reporting section of the Dealing with Lenders Policy and the workflow used by fee earners. The procedure should identify responsibility for outstanding reports, follow-up, escalation and checking conditions.
File reviews should test whether the evidence supports the decision to proceed. A completed reporting task or portal status is useful only where its meaning is understood.
This amendment is one of the five October 2026 POLICYmonitor updates. The full notification provides suggested wording for firms to assess and adapt.
Does your lender-reporting procedure close the loop?
Already have a Dealing with Lenders Policy? Review the individual October amendment covering reporting content, submission channels, written authority and file records.
Review the lender-reporting policy update →For ongoing amendments, explore the POLICYmonitor CQS Policy Update Service.
This article concerns conveyancing practice in England and Wales and summarises suggested October 2026 policy wording. Check the applicable lender instructions, mortgage offer and case-specific correspondence. The reporting, authority and timing requirements depend on the particular transaction.