Buyers split the question almost exactly down the middle, with No winning by two votes. The narrowness mattered: this was less a rejection of compensation than a refusal to impose it before buyers can properly investigate what they are buying.
The floor’s most-respected No case warned that “penalising basic due diligence” could mean “trapping buyers into purchasing defective money pits”. Other No voices accepted the seller’s losses but resisted a blanket rule, arguing that “any house transaction is inherently uncertain” and that both sides must bear some risk.
Yes voters answered with a system they saw as needlessly loose and expensive. Their strongest case said the market was “littered with heartache, uncertainty and bad practice”, while another called for “an initial contract at deposit stage”; the two sides talked past each other, one seeing protection against capricious withdrawal, the other liability for discovering a bad roof, failed search or broken chain.
The deeper argument was about sequencing: should commitment come earlier, or information? A sympathetic No voter still suggested “perhaps a nominal return of fees by the surveyor”, while Yes voters repeatedly paired compensation with seller-funded surveys; that points towards the government’s planned 2029 reforms rather than a simple penalty imposed on buyers now.
On this platform, the verdict was a refusal to cure an uncertain process by making one party carry all the uncertainty.
38 Opinions
In England, you only discover if the roof is collapsing, the titles are toxic, or the lender down valued the house AFTER an offer is accepted.... We need to mandate upfront seller survey packs like in Scotland otherwise we are just penalising basic due diligence and trapping buyers into purchasing defective money pits.
What if the survey or searches flag major issues, or the prospective buyer loses their job after making the offer? Buyers bear the brunt of the costs for the transaction during those initial weeks anyway.
Our buying and selling system is littered with heartache, uncertainty and bad practice. Gazumping or worse, threatening to pull out of deal, at last minute unless price reduced. In Netherlands they had a system that an accepted offer is fixed with a 10% deposit. (Those without funds can take out a bond, issued by a bank). Buyer forfeits deposit if drop out (unless significant, eg death!). Similarly, seller has to pay compensation. Process is calm, planning is confident!
Depends on how far gone but "gazumping" needs to be addressed and it is both ways
Any house transaction is inherently uncertain, both sides just gave to accept there are risks.
I'd tentatively agree if both buyers and sellers would be compensated for the other withdrawing, but it shouldn't only go one way.
I've said no but it was difficult because I think sellers should be recompensed in some way, perhaps a nominal return of fees by the surveyor, the new laws in 2029 should help but in the meantime this should be an option.
There can be many reasons a sale does not proceed. I do not agree with blanket provisions, which might cause more injustice than the problem ths is trying to solve
There are existing mechanisms allowing to protect seller: Lock-out agreements. Home buyer/seller protection insurance. Speed up the process of selling and constantly verify buyer readiness. Sometimes despite best will on both sides, accidents happens.
In Spain buyers have to pay a deposit with their offer. If they don't proceed the deposit is forfeited. I think that's fair