header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 May 2007
Issue: 7274 / Categories: Features , Local government , Property
printer mail-detail

Information meltdown

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

HIPs will be hindered by the failure to reform the local authority search market, says Mark Riddick

Local government holds the information required by conveyancers to undertake their due diligence requirements on the purchase of a property by their clients. It competes with private companies in the compilation of searches for conveyancers from that information. It is claimed that certain local authorities compete unfairly by restricting the private search companies’ access to the information.

LOCAL AUTHORITY SEARCH FEES

Local authorities can justifiably claim that they do not have the resources (funding or personnel) to cope with providing the necessary facilities to private search companies. This is because central government has set a fee for access to this information at a level that is not currently calculated to recover all of the cost of maintaining and providing the information.
The fact that the fee charged to private search companies for access is £11, and the cost of a search compiled by a local authority (the so-called “official search”) can be as much as £300, suggests that either the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll