A small market-town agency lists a stone-built terrace at £325,000. The Part A fields are populated correctly — price, council tax band, tenure. The Part B and Part C disclosure fields are partly populated, but the construction-type field reads simply "stone" and the flood-risk field is left blank because the negotiator handling the instruction has not received a definitive answer from the vendor and decides to come back to it. The property is in a postcode with a documented surface-water flood risk that appears clearly on the Environment Agency's public mapping. The property sells. Eleven months later, a localised surface-water flood event damages the buyer's ground floor. The buyer's solicitor pulls the original listing, the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team (NTSELAT) guidance, and the relevant flood mapping, and writes to the agent alleging misleading omission under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. A redress scheme complaint follows; a Competition and Markets Authority enquiry is raised by the local trading standards office; a PI notification goes in. The claim is for £88,000 plus costs.
That sequence is the new shape of estate agency Professional Indemnity exposure. Material Information is not a tick-box exercise — it is a structured regulatory expectation, with a now-extensive published guidance regime, with consumer-protection statute behind it, and with a direct private right of redress under the DMCC Act 2024 that did not exist three years ago. This cluster guide sits alongside our pillar guide on estate and letting agents PI insurance and goes into the regime in the depth the sector now requires.
The legal architecture in 2026
Material Information disclosure for property agents sits on three legal pillars and one piece of detailed regulator guidance.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) were the foundational regime, prohibiting misleading actions, misleading omissions, and aggressive practices in business-to-consumer dealings. The CPRs were the source of the body of misdescription and withholding case law that built up between 2008 and 2025 in the property sector.
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act 2024) replaced the CPRs from April 2025. The substantive prohibitions on misleading actions and omissions are carried forward, but the enforcement architecture is materially stronger. Three changes matter from a PI perspective. First, the Competition and Markets Authority can now impose direct civil penalties — up to 10% of global turnover — without first taking court action. Second, a new private right of redress allows a consumer to claim damages, contract unwinding, or a price reduction where they have suffered loss as a result of a banned practice. Third, the test for a misleading omission is articulated more clearly — whether the omission causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken.
The Estate Agents Act 1979 remains in force as the sector statute and the source of the NTSELAT power to issue prohibition orders against unfit persons. An NTSELAT investigation under the EAA will frequently consider Material Information conduct as part of its fit-and-proper assessment.
The NTSELAT Material Information guidance, issued in three parts between 2022 and 2024, is the practical operational standard. The guidance is not statute, but it is guidance under the CPRs (and now the DMCC Act), and an agent who departs from it without good reason will struggle to argue that they have not committed a misleading action or omission. The portals — Rightmove, Zoopla, OnTheMarket — have built their listing data fields around the NTSELAT structure, and listings that do not populate the mandatory fields can be removed.
What Parts A, B and C actually require
The NTSELAT guidance divides Material Information into three parts.
Part A — basic information that must appear in every listing. Mandatory for sales since May 2022 and lettings since 2023. The Part A fields are price (or rent), council tax band (sales) or council tax band and deposit (lettings), and tenure (sales) or tenancy type and length (lettings). For lettings, Part A also covers the letting agent fees and other charges where any are permitted under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Part A is the floor — a listing without Part A is non-compliant on its face.
Part B — information that should be available for every property regardless of location. Phased in across 2023. Part B covers property type (detached, semi-detached, terrace, flat, etc.), property construction (standard or non-standard, with detail), number and type of rooms, utilities (water source, electricity, sewerage, heating, broadband and mobile signal availability) and parking. The Part B fields require an answer; a "not known" answer is permissible where genuinely not known, but a pattern of "not known" answers across multiple instructions will be read by trading standards and by underwriters as a process failure rather than a series of individual ones.
Part C — information that is material if it applies to the property. Phased in across late 2023 and 2024. Part C covers building safety issues (including cladding above 18 metres and other building safety concerns), restrictions and rights (restrictive covenants, public rights of way, easements), flood and erosion risk, planning permission and proposals (including planning enforcement notices and proposed development affecting the property), accessibility and adaptations, and coal mining and other mining activity. Part C is the area where most of the new PI exposure sits. The obligation is to disclose where the matter applies; a property in a flood risk zone, a property with an active planning enforcement notice on the neighbour's site, a property over a known mining seam — all require disclosure.
NTSELAT is explicit that the disclosure obligation rests on the agent in the listing. The agent is not the source of the information — that is the vendor, the conveyancer, or public databases — but the agent is the one who has to populate the field, and the agent who lists without making reasonable enquiries to populate Part C correctly is the one a redress scheme complainant will reach for.
How Material Information failure becomes a PI claim
There are three principal routes by which a Material Information issue produces PI exposure.
Misdescription. The agent has stated something that is factually wrong. The property is described as freehold when it is leasehold; the floor area is stated as a figure that proves wrong on measurement; the construction is described as standard when it is non-standard. Misdescription has been the staple of property PI for decades. The Material Information regime has not changed the underlying law, but it has made misdescription easier to evidence — the discipline of populating standard fields creates a documentary record that can be compared with the truth post-transaction.
Withholding. The agent has been told something material by the vendor or another source and has not passed it on. The classic example is a vendor disclosing a flooding history at the market appraisal stage, the information not being recorded on the file, and the buyer discovering it post-completion. Under the DMCC Act 2024 this is a misleading omission. The fact that the information existed within the agency and was not communicated is itself the breach; whether or not the buyer asked is not the test.
Omission through failure to enquire. The agent has not asked the question they should have asked. Part B and Part C are essentially a structured enquiry list, and an agent who has not made reasonable enquiries to populate Part C is on weaker ground than an agent who asked, recorded the answer, and reasonably relied on what the vendor said. The "reasonable enquiry" standard is at the heart of the modern defensive position.
Each of these routes can produce, in 2026, a redress scheme complaint to TPO or PRS with an award of up to £25,000 plus a published decision; a private consumer claim under the DMCC Act for damages, contract unwinding (rare in practice but available), or a price reduction; a CMA enforcement action with the possibility of a direct civil penalty; an NTSELAT investigation under the Estate Agents Act 1979 with the possibility of a prohibition order; and a PI notification, with defence costs and any settlement falling within the policy. In practice the redress complaint usually lands first, the private claim follows on the back of the redress decision, and the regulatory action runs in parallel.
What underwriters now look at on Material Information
Underwriters have adjusted their proposal forms over the last two renewal cycles to reflect the Material Information regime. The questions a firm should expect at 2026 renewal cover the firm's process for populating Part B and Part C fields at the point of listing (who is responsible, what training they have had, what sign-off process applies, what audit trail is maintained); how the firm handles vendor-disclosed information that bears on Material Information, including whether there is a structured pre-listing questionnaire; the firm's complaints history with its redress scheme over the last three years, and what proportion of those complaints involved a Material Information issue; how the firm handles "not known" answers (permitted where genuinely not known after reasonable enquiry, but a high incidence will need explanation); and the process for updating a listing where Material Information changes during the marketing period.
The proposal-form answer to each of these is now a meaningful underwriting input, and a firm that has invested in a documented process is increasingly differentiated from a firm that has not.
What the PI wording should say
Most modern PI wordings written for the property sector treat Material Information disclosure and NTSELAT compliance as part of the definition of "professional services". A few specific wording points are worth checking at renewal.
The definition of professional services should be wide enough to capture all listing-related advice and disclosure activities, including the populating of portal fields and the production of particulars. A wording that defines professional services as "estate agency services" without elaboration may be argued in a tight case to exclude the listing-disclosure piece. The exclusion for "deliberate breach of regulation" should also be examined; a negligent misdescription is not a deliberate breach, but an agent who has knowingly failed to disclose is in a different category, and the threshold for "deliberate" varies between insurers.
Cover for DMCC Act 2024 civil penalties imposed by the CMA is generally unavailable, both because civil regulatory penalties are not insurable as a matter of public policy and because most wordings carry an explicit exclusion. Cover for defence costs of a CMA investigation that does not result in a penalty, and cover for private consumer claims under the DMCC right of redress, should be present in a properly drafted wording. Cover for adjudication costs at The Property Ombudsman or the Property Redress Scheme is usually present but worth confirming — some wordings cap it.
The aggregation clause — what counts as a single claim — is worth examining where the firm has used a single piece of standard wording or a single training approach across multiple instructions. A systemic Material Information failing across thirty instructions could be one claim under one wording and thirty under another.
Practical steps to reduce exposure
A firm that wants to reduce its exposure in this area can do five things, each of which produces a meaningful underwriting benefit at renewal. Document the process for populating Material Information fields — a short written procedure (who does what, when, with what sign-off) is the single most useful piece of paper to have on file. Train the negotiators: NTSELAT runs free webinars, the redress schemes publish guidance, and the training record is one of the first things a redress adjudicator will ask to see when a complaint lands. Capture vendor disclosures in writing through a short pre-listing questionnaire covering the Part B and Part C matters — not a transfer of liability to the vendor but a documentary record supporting the reasonable-enquiry defence. Update listings when conveyancing throws up a new fact; the obligation to keep the listing accurate runs throughout the marketing period. And notify circumstances promptly — where a redress complaint, a CMA enquiry, or a buyer's pre-litigation letter raises a Material Information issue, the PI insurer should be notified even if the firm believes the complaint is not well-founded. The threshold is "may give rise to a claim" and late notification is the most common reason a property PI claim fails to be covered.
How Apex helps
Apex is an independent FCA-authorised insurance broker. We are not tied to any insurer and we have no inducement arrangement that would skew our recommendation. On Material Information, what we do at renewal is examine the wording your current policy provides for Material Information exposure, identify any gaps in the definition of professional services or in the exclusions, present your renewal to insurers we think will price your particular Material Information profile thoughtfully, and document the decision so that it stands up at internal review and at redress scheme scrutiny.
We also handle the notification end. Where a Material Information matter has arisen and the firm is not sure whether it crosses the threshold for notification, the broker view is to notify and let the insurer decide; we will walk a firm through that conversation without commitment. The route to our Terms of Business and our Complaints page is on the website.
What to do next
If you are within ninety days of your PI renewal, this is the moment to look at the Material Information wording in your current policy and at the process you have in place for populating Parts A, B and C at the point of listing. If you have had a redress scheme complaint or a buyer's letter raising a Material Information issue in the current policy year, this is the moment to notify the insurer if you have not already done so.
To talk through your firm's Material Information PI position with an Apex broker, see the estate and letting agents sector page or contact us. The first conversation is free and does not commit you to anything.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between NTSELAT Parts A, B and C?
Part A is the basic information that must appear in every listing — price or rent, council tax band, tenure or tenancy type. Part B is information that should be available for every property regardless of location — property type, construction, room count, utilities, parking. Part C is information that is material if it applies to the property — flood risk, planning issues, restrictive covenants, building safety, mining. Part A has been mandatory since 2022 (sales) and 2023 (lettings); Parts B and C were phased in across 2023 and 2024.
Is the NTSELAT guidance legally binding?
The guidance itself is guidance, not statute. It is, however, guidance under the CPRs (until April 2025) and under the DMCC Act 2024 (from April 2025). An agent who has not followed the guidance will find it much harder to defend an allegation of misleading action or omission. The guidance is treated as the operational standard by the redress schemes, the CMA, and underwriters.
What does the DMCC Act 2024 change for estate agents?
The DMCC Act replaced the CPRs from April 2025. The substantive prohibitions on misleading actions and omissions are carried forward. The enforcement architecture is stronger: the CMA can impose direct civil penalties without court action (up to 10% of global turnover), a clearer private right of redress allows consumers to claim damages or price reductions, and the test for misleading omission is articulated more clearly. A Material Information failure can now produce a CMA action, a private claim, a redress complaint, and a PI notification in parallel.
Does my PI cover redress scheme awards?
Most modern property PI wordings cover redress scheme awards and adjudication costs as part of professional services, but the position varies. Some policies cap adjudication costs; a few exclude them. The maximum award by TPO or PRS is £25,000 per complaint, but the same facts can give rise to a private claim or a CMA action separately.
Does my PI cover a CMA civil penalty under the DMCC Act?
No. Civil regulatory penalties imposed by the CMA are generally not insurable as a matter of public policy and are excluded from PI policies. Cover for defence costs of a CMA investigation that does not result in a penalty, and for private consumer claims under the DMCC right of redress, should be present in a properly drafted wording. A firm facing a CMA penalty bears that cost itself.
What is the threshold for notifying a Material Information issue to my PI insurer?
Claims-made policies require notification of any circumstance that may give rise to a claim, as soon as practicable after the firm becomes aware of it. The threshold is low — "may give rise to" rather than "will give rise to" — and the broker view is to notify and let the insurer decide. Late notification is the most common reason a property PI claim fails to be covered.
Can I rely on vendor disclosures to defend a Material Information claim?
Partially. A vendor's written disclosure on a pre-listing questionnaire is a useful documentary record and supports the "reasonable enquiry" defence. It does not transfer liability to the vendor — the agent's obligation runs to the consumer regardless. But an agent who has asked the questions, captured the answers, and reasonably relied on what the vendor said is on much stronger ground than one who has not.
Related guides
- Estate and letting agents PI insurance — UK guide 2026 (pillar)
- Lettings agent deposit handling and the PI overlap
- Estate and letting agents sector page — speak to a broker
About Apex Insurance Brokers — Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA firm reference 724952. Registered in England and Wales, Companies House 07014570. Last reviewed: May 2026.
This guide is general information about Professional Indemnity Insurance for UK estate agents and is not advice tailored to any individual firm's circumstances. For advice on your own renewal please speak to a broker — contact@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk or 0117 325 0027.
FAQPage JSON-LD (hand-rolled — add via Yoast Custom Field or theme injection)
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "FAQPage",
"mainEntity": [
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the difference between NTSELAT Parts A, B and C?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Part A is the basic information that must appear in every listing — price or rent, council tax band, tenure or tenancy type. Part B is information that should be available for every property regardless of location — property type, construction, room count, utilities, parking. Part C is information that is material if it applies to the property — flood risk, planning issues, restrictive covenants, building safety, mining. Part A has been mandatory since 2022 (sales) and 2023 (lettings); Parts B and C were phased in across 2023 and 2024."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Is the NTSELAT guidance legally binding?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "The guidance is guidance, not statute, but it is guidance under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (until April 2025) and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (from April 2025). An agent who has not followed the guidance will find it much harder to defend an allegation of misleading action or omission. The guidance is treated as the operational standard by the redress schemes, the CMA, and underwriters."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What does the DMCC Act 2024 change for estate agents?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "The DMCC Act replaced the CPRs from April 2025. The substantive prohibitions on misleading actions and omissions are carried forward. The enforcement architecture is materially stronger: the CMA can impose direct civil penalties without court action (up to 10% of global turnover), a clearer private right of redress allows consumers to claim damages or price reductions, and the test for misleading omission is articulated more clearly."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does my PI cover redress scheme awards?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Most modern property PI wordings cover redress scheme awards and adjudication costs as part of professional services, but the position varies. Some policies cap the cover for adjudication costs and a few exclude it. The maximum award by The Property Ombudsman or the Property Redress Scheme is £25,000 per complaint, but the same facts can give rise to a private claim or a CMA action separately."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does my PI cover a CMA civil penalty under the DMCC Act?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "No. Civil regulatory penalties imposed by the CMA are generally not insurable as a matter of public policy and are excluded from PI policies. Cover for defence costs of a CMA investigation that does not result in a penalty, and cover for private consumer claims under the DMCC right of redress, should be present in a properly drafted wording. A firm facing a CMA penalty bears that cost itself."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the threshold for notifying a Material Information issue to my PI insurer?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Claims-made policies require notification of any circumstance that may give rise to a claim, as soon as practicable after the firm becomes aware of it. The threshold is low — may give rise to rather than will give rise to — and the broker view is to notify and let the insurer decide. Late notification is the most common reason a property PI claim fails to be covered."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Can I rely on vendor disclosures to defend a Material Information claim?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Partially. A vendor's written disclosure on a pre-listing questionnaire is a useful documentary record and supports the reasonable enquiry defence. It does not transfer liability to the vendor — the agent's obligation under NTSELAT and the DMCC Act runs to the consumer regardless. But an agent who has asked the questions, captured the answers, and reasonably relied on what the vendor said is on much stronger ground."
}
}
]
}