^{By Elizabeth Jarvis, Managing Director, OneSearch}

I read recently about a term in psychology called the ‘normalisation of deviance’. It describes what happens when teams repeatedly encounter a problem, nothing catastrophic comes of it, and so the problem gradually becomes accepted as the norm.

The deviation from the standard becomes the standard.

It happens in conveyancing practices all the time, and search provider relationships are one of the most common places it takes root.

You chase an update. Nothing terrible happens. You chase again the next time. Still nothing terrible. After a while, chasing is just part of the process. The deviation – your provider not updating you proactively – has become normalised. And the energy you spend managing around it has become invisible, because it’s been absorbed into the rhythm of your working day.

This is what I’d call the ‘Cost of Quiet Stress’. And unlike the obvious costs in legal practice, things like missed deadlines, errors, complaints… it rarely appears on anyone’s radar because it never quite crosses the threshold that would force a response.

But it has a real impact; on your time, on your focus, on the cognitive load your team carries through every transaction. And if you’ve just completed our search provider scorecard, your results are partly a measure of how much of it you’ve been absorbing.

What each category is really measuring

Let me take you through the six categories – not just what the questions ask, but what the underlying scores are actually telling you.

Data accuracy: do you have a reason for confidence, or just an absence of evidence.

Low confidence in data accuracy doesn’t always mean you’ve experienced problems. More often it means you don’t have enough visibility into the process to be sure either way.

There’s an important distinction between a provider who hasn’t caused you a problem yet, and one who has systematic verification built into their process. The former gives you hope, the latter gives you grounds for confidence. If you can’t explain why you trust your provider’s data – if the honest answer is “we haven’t had issues” – that’s worth examining.

Turnaround times: is your confidence based on consistency or just recent luck?

A fast average turnaround is less valuable than a predictable one. What creates the Cost of Quiet Stress in this category isn’t the occasional delay – it’s the background uncertainty about whether you can plan around your provider when it matters.

Everyone talks about speed; the more useful question is reliability. If you scored well here, consider whether that’s based on a consistent pattern you could describe with confidence, or on the fact that it hasn’t been seriously tested recently.

Customer service: partner or supplier.

This is the framework I come back to most often.

Suppliers process orders. They respond to queries. They resolve problems when raised. Partners do all of that – and they anticipate, they flag, they stay in contact without being prompted. They treat your problem as their problem before you’ve had time to begin stressing over it.

The distinction is invisible when everything runs smoothly. It becomes very visible (not to mention very consequential) when something doesn’t.

Account management: the relationship that should exist but often doesn’t

Of all six categories, this is the one with the biggest gap between what firms typically experience and what they could reasonably expect.

Genuine account management means someone who knows your firm well enough to notice when something has changed; in your caseload, in your market, in the regulatory environment you’re operating in, and brings relevant information to you before you’ve had to ask.

If the only time you see your account manager’s name is on a Christmas card or an auto-renewal notice… you don’t have a relationship, you have a pen pal.

Search pack completeness: the risk that’s invisible until it isn’t

The normalisation of deviance is particularly acute here. Firms order what they’ve always ordered. Transactions complete. Nothing catastrophic happens. The assumption that the pack is appropriate hardens into habit, even as caseloads evolve and the landscape around specific transaction types changes.

A strong score here reflects active review – either by you, or prompted by a provider who flags relevant additions. A weaker score often reflects an assumption that hasn’t been examined recently.

Value and confidence: what is quiet stress actually costing you.

The final category gets closest to the real question. Not whether your provider is delivering to a minimum standard, but whether they’re giving you genuine confidence – the kind where you advise clients knowing the data behind you has been properly verified.

That confidence has a value that doesn’t appear on an Excel spreadsheet. Its absence shows up in extra checking, in slightly more cautious advice, in the cognitive overhead of holding a low-level background uncertainty through every transaction.

Across a full working week, across a full team, that overhead is not trivial.

The standard worth measuring against

To make this concrete, here’s a simple way to think about what you should be expecting versus what many firms have normalised:

 The ‘Cost of Quiet Stress’ lives in the gap between those two columns. It’s real, it’s cumulative, and it’s optional.

---

What to do with your result

If your score was strong across the board – genuinely, not just in the absence of problems – the main thing is to keep asking the questions. Provider quality drifts. The firms who notice earliest are the ones who check periodically rather than assuming continuity.

If your score flagged gaps, particularly in data accuracy, account management, or customer service, those are worth a proper conversation. Not a presentation. An open chat around your specific situation – what you’re currently getting, what you’re not, and whether the gap is worth closing.

That’s what our search pack review is. Straight talking, no agenda beyond giving you a clearer picture.

The cost of quiet stress is real. But it’s also optional.

^{By Elizabeth Jarvis, Managing Director, OneSearch}

There’s a particular kind of underperformance that’s hard to see from the inside.

It doesn’t announce itself. It doesn’t cause a catastrophic failure that forces a reckoning. It just accumulates – quietly, consistently – until it becomes the background noise of your working day. And then you stop hearing it.

After more than three decades in property search, I’ve had countless conversations with conveyancers who, after switching providers, said something like:

“I didn’t realise how much energy I was spending managing around them until I didn’t have to anymore.”

That’s the friction you stop noticing. Not because it goes away – because you absorb it.

Why the worst underperformance is the hardest to spot.

The providers most likely to cost firms time and confidence aren’t usually the ones who make obvious mistakes. Those are easy to act on.

The harder cases are providers who are mostly fine, who deliver reliably most of the time, who respond when chased, who process what they’re asked to process, but who don’t do the things that would make your working life meaningfully easier.

They don’t flag when something in a result looks inconsistent. They don’t proactively suggest a more appropriate product when a transaction warrants it. They don’t reach out when they haven’t heard from you. They don’t have a person who knows your firm, your caseload, the particular pressures of your market.

None of those omissions look like failures on an invoice. They show up as friction, in the extra ten minutes here, the nagging uncertainty there, the occasional moment when you wish you had someone to call who knew the context.

A real example worth considering.

We see cases where planning history in a local authority search has been correctly recorded but attached to a different property. Same street name, same numbering format, different location within the same council area. The data itself is accurate. The connection isn’t.

To a provider processing at volume, this kind of inconsistency is far too easy to miss; to a conveyancer advising a client on the basis of that planning history, it can mean rework, delay, and a difficult conversation at exactly the wrong moment in a transaction.

The question isn’t whether your current provider has made this kind of error. It’s whether they have the processes in place to catch it before it reaches you… and whether you’d know either way.

The problem with “it’s fine.”

In busy practice, it’s fine is a completely rational response to a provider who isn’t actively causing problems. You have enough genuine fires to deal with without manufacturing concerns about something that’s mostly working.

But mostly working and working well are meaningfully different things.

The gap between them tends to widen gradually, in ways that are easy to miss until you step back and look at the whole picture.

When did you last actively think about whether your search provider is the right one? Not in response to a specific problem, but as a considered question in its own right?

For most firms, the honest answer is: not recently. Possibly not ever.

That’s not a criticism. It’s just the reality of how these relationships tend to work. You make a choice – based on a recommendation, a price point, or simple inertia from whoever the firm used before – and then you get on with the work.

Let’s set a new baseline for what you should expect.

Your provider should have a genuine understanding of your caseload – not a vague sense of what kind of firm you are, but a working knowledge of the transaction types you oversee regularly, the local authority areas you operate in, the complications you most commonly encounter.

They should be telling you things you didn’t ask, not just answering the questions you raise, and when something goes wrong – because it will, sometimes, in any complex data-driven process – they should be on it before you’ve had to chase.

Not because it looks good. Because your time is too valuable to spend following up on things that should already be resolved.

An honest five minutes

Rather than take my word for it, do your own assessment.

We’ve put together a short scorecard – eighteen questions across six categories – that gives you an honest picture of where your current provider stands. It takes about five minutes. There’s no obligation attached to the result.

If your provider is doing well across the board, you’ll have more confidence in that than you probably have right now. And if there are gaps, you’ll know where they are – which is always more useful than a vague sense that something isn’t quite right.

The friction you’ve stopped noticing is still there. The only question is whether it has to be.

“Safe Harbour.” We hear this term thrown around in conveyancing teams a lot, but what does it really mean? And is it something you have to do?

Over the years, property fraud has become quite the headache for conveyancers. Fraudsters have been selling properties they don’t own, running off with the cash, and leaving buyers high and dry. The Solicitors Regulation Authority even flagged vendor fraud as an emerging risk in its latest AML Sectoral Risk Assessment.

Naturally, after case law like Dreamvar, lawyers are pretty nervous about getting it wrong. It’s the case that changed the liabilities and responsibilities of lawyers and conveyancers when dealing with residential property transactions. For those who aren’t familiar with the specifics of the case of Dreamvar, here’s what happened…

A fraudster managed to sell a London property worth around £1 million by impersonating the real seller. After the sale, the fraudster (and the money) disappeared into thin air. Fortunately, the Land Registry caught the fraud when the transfer documents came through, so the title never changed hands.

But poor Dreamvar was left with no property and no cash, so they took legal action against their solicitors, alleging negligence and breach of trust. They also sued the fraudster’s solicitor for failing to spot the fraud. Initially, only Dreamvar’s solicitor was found liable, which seemed harsh to many, as the fraudster’s solicitor hadn’t done enough to verify their client’s identity under Money Laundering Regulations (MLR).

The case eventually made its way to the Court of Appeal. There, the judge determined that the solicitors representing the fraudulent property seller should also shoulder some responsibility alongside those representing the deceived buyer for any incurred losses.

Following this, the Law Society updated its Conveyancing Protocol. Now, if you’re acting for the seller (especially if you’re a Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) firm), you need to:

• request details of the bank account for the sale proceeds and
• obtain evidence that the account belongs to the seller, showing that they have had and been using the account for at least 12 months and
• confirm proceeds will only go to that account

This is a great way to ensure the purchase funds are going to the correct person! But let’s face it, fraudsters are still out there trying their luck. Take the case of a Vicar in 2021, who came home to find his house gutted and the locks changed. Someone had stolen his identity and sold his home – and this time, the Land Registry approved the title transfer. It took him two years of legal battles to get his house back!

Safe Harbour protects conveyancers who might unknowingly get caught up in a fraudulent transfer, as the Land Registry won’t hold them liable. The aim is that, by applying the Safe Harbour standard properly, you’ll spot a fraudulent seller right from the start.

---

This is an excerpt of a guest article written by Kayleigh Smale, of Smale Compliance. To continue reading on the Safe Harbour Standard and its potential implications for your business, you can download our detailed guide: Mastering AML compliance in 2026, which is additionally packed with in-depth analysis and actionable information designed to help you navigate the world of Anti-Money Laundering effectively.

The SRA’s most current AML report marks a clear shift in enforcement. More inspections, more failures, and far less tolerance for underperforming compliance.

Here’s what the findings actually show, and what firms should be doing about it.

The numbers are difficult to snub. In the year to April 2025, the SRA carried out 935 proactive AML engagements, up from 545 the year before. Of the 833 firms reviewed, nearly one in three were non-compliant, and a further 54% were only partially compliant.

That leaves fewer than one in seven firms fully compliant with their AML obligations.

This is not incremental improvement. It’s systemic underperformance in an area where the regulatory, financial, and reputational stakes are only increasing.

What the SRA found

The report identifies several areas of consistent weakness across the firms it reviewed. None of them are new. What’s changed is the SRA’s tone, the specificity of its findings, and its willingness to act.

Risk assessments are still failing in practice

Up to 39% of reviewed files did not effectively assess AML risk. Firm-wide risk assessments exist on paper but aren’t being applied at client level. High-risk matters are progressing without the senior oversight they require. Defective AML policies, controls and procedures contributed to a significant proportion of enforcement outcomes.

The SRA has been explicit: it expects risk assessments to inform decisions, not just document them.

Identity verification is inconsistently applied

Documents are missing from files, checks are relaxed for familiar clients, enhanced due diligence is not being triggered when risk indicators are present.

Emerging threats, including deepfake ID fraud and remote onboarding risks, are exposing gaps in already inconsistent processes.

Source of funds checks are being treated as a formality

The SRA’s thematic review found that, across more than 5,800 client files reviewed, 11% lacked source of funds checks entirely and 18% showed inadequate scrutiny.

Firms are collecting documents but not reviewing them. The distinction between source of funds and source of wealth is still not being applied consistently, even in higher-risk matters.

Ongoing monitoring remains the most overlooked obligation

For many firms, AML compliance still ends at onboarding. There is no structured mechanism to revisit matters, reassess risk, or refresh PEP and sanctions checks as circumstances change.

The SRA has identified ongoing monitoring as one of the most effective controls available, and one of the most consistently absent.

Training and governance weaknesses underpin the gaps

Template policies are not aligned to real-world practice. Training is not consistently refreshed or embedded. Governance structures, including MLRO oversight, do not always translate into effective day-to-day compliance.

An intensifying direction

The scale of supervisory activity tells its own story. Scrutiny is increasing, and it’s not slowing down. The SRA engaged with nearly twice as many firms in 2024-25 as the year before, and it has signalled clearly that all firms should expect attention.

At the same time, enforcement is intensifying. Combined AML penalties exceeded £1.5 million in 2024-25, the highest total yet based on SRA enforcement outcomes. The number of cases referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal rose sharply, and criminal enforcement is no longer theoretical.

The message is clearly that AML compliance is no longer a paper exercise.

The more significant shift however, is structural. The government has confirmed that the Financial Conduct Authority will become the single professional services supervisor for AML, replacing the SRA and other supervisory bodies. The SRA will continue supervising AML through 2026 while legislation is prepared, but the direction of travel is already clear.

The FCA’s approach is more data-driven, and backed by broader enforcement powers. Firms that treat 2026 as a year to prepare for FCA-level scrutiny will be far better positioned than those that wait.

What firms should be doing now

The SRA’s findings point to a clear set of priorities for firms that want to stay on the right side of compliance.

• Fix your risk assessment framework first

The firm-wide risk assessment should reflect how the firm actually operates: its client base, transaction types, and geographic exposure. It should be actively used, not filed and forgotten.

Matter-level risk assessments should be completed before work progresses, include clear reasoning, and link back to the firm-wide view.

• Stress-test your identity verification process

Are all relevant parties being verified? Are enhanced checks triggered at the right time? Is there a clear and auditable record?

As fraud risks evolve, reliance on manual document checks is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.

• Move beyond “box-ticking” on source of funds

Receiving documentation is not the same as assessing it. Firms must actively review what is provided, question inconsistencies, and document their conclusions.

Source of funds should be standard on every file; source of wealth should be assessed in higher-risk matters.

• Build ongoing monitoring into your workflow, properly

This requires a defined process, not good intentions. Whether through scheduled file reviews, case management prompts, or automated re-screening, firms need to ensure monitoring actually happens and that changes trigger reassessment.

• Strengthen training and governance from the top down

AML training should be current, relevant, and regularly refreshed. Policies should reflect how the firm actually operates, not generic templates.

Governance structures must support consistent application of AML controls across the firm.

Our 2026 AML guide

If this raises questions about where your firm stands, Mastering AML Compliance in 2026 provides a practical starting point.

It covers everything from risk assessments and identity verification to source of funds, Safe Harbour, the DVS Trust Framework, and the role of technology, written specifically for conveyancers who need practical guidance, not regulatory theory.

OneSearch AML is a digital AML offering built specifically for conveyancers. To find out more, visit onesearch.direct/products/onesearch-aml.

We are delighted with the response to OneSearch AML since we unveiled the product two years ago; we hope you’ve had the opportunity to explore yourselves into the solutions it can provide your firm when it comes to managing risk and protecting your firm.

We understand the world of Anti Money Laundering can seem overwhelming at times: new regulations, confusing jargon and acronyms… and that’s not forgetting keeping on top of ever-evolving fraud strategies. On top of all that, you may often find yourself explaining this to your clients as well.

To help you conquer compliance, and master your firms AML checks, we’re offering a downloadable guide packed with practical advice and best practices for conveyancers.

In our guide, you’ll learn about:

• Understanding your KYC/AML Obligations in 2026 
• A comparison of Manual vs Digital AML Checks 
• A detailed explanation about the Safe Harbour Standard
• A guide to the most common AML phrases and what they actually mean 
  
  And also:
  
• A full breakdown on the features and benefits of OneSearch AML, the most comprehensive anti-money laundering solution on the market. 

There’s a particular kind of stress that comes with being responsible for something you can’t control.

You’ve done the work. You’ve filed everything correctly. But the transaction is slow, the client is anxious, and every time your phone rings you already know why. You handle it. You move on. You do the same thing on the next file.

That accumulates. And because it’s so consistent, because it’s just how the job is, it’s easy to stop noticing.

It’s worth naming what that actually is. You’re being asked to absorb anxiety you didn’t create, on a timeline you can’t influence, while remaining the calm, professional point of contact for everyone involved. That’s not just difficult, it’s a specific kind of difficult. The kind that doesn’t always get acknowledged because it looks, from the outside, like you’re just doing your job.

Mental Health Awareness Week feels like a reasonable moment to say: yes, but at what cost.

The things that genuinely help

None of these will be news to you. But they’re worth saying plainly.

• Set boundaries where you can: You don’t have to be reachable by every client at all hours. Most clients, given clear expectations early in the relationship, will work within them. The ones who won’t are a different problem, but they’re the exception, not the rule.
• Get your caseload visible: The ambient pressure of not quite knowing where everything stands is draining in a way that’s easy to underestimate. A clear picture of what’s actually in progress, even a basic one – reduces that background noise.
• Talk to someone: Conveyancing can be oddly solitary for a team-based job. If something is weighing on you, speak to a colleague, a supervisor, or someone outside work. It helps more than you realise.
• Know that support exists: LawCare provides free, confidential help to anyone working in the legal sector. It’s not just for crisis situations. lawcare.org.uk

The connection between the two

Everything in the guide we published this week applies to you as much as to your clients. Every proactive update you send is one fewer anxious call to deal with. Every clear expectation you set is one fewer difficult conversation. The habits that reduce client anxiety also, quietly, reduce yours.

That’s not a coincidence. It’s the point.

The full guide: Managing Client Anxiety Through a Transaction is available here:

If you’re finding the pressures of legal practice difficult, LawCare provides free, confidential support to legal professionals. Visit lawcare.org.uk or call 0800 279 6888.