HM Land Registry has published its third avoidable requisitions dataset, giving conveyancers and law firms updated information on the preventable errors that slow property registration. The release covers applications dealt with between 1 April and 30 September 2026 and is intended to help firms improve submission quality before cases reach the register. For practitioners, the policy message is straightforward. Better application quality reduces repeat contact with the registry, shortens avoidable delay and lowers the volume of corrective work for both firms and HM Land Registry staff.
The dataset sits within a wider operational effort by HM Land Registry to reduce preventable disruption in the registration process. In the department’s terminology, a requisition is a request for further information or action before an application can be completed. An avoidable requisition point is one that could usually have been prevented before submission. The examples set out by HM Land Registry are familiar to conveyancing teams: missing identity evidence, discrepancies in names, unclear plans and absent supporting documents. The department also notes an important technical point for readers of the figures: a single requisition can contain more than one avoidable point.
HM Land Registry’s broader analysis shows a marked fall in avoidable requisition points over recent years. According to figures referenced in its October 2026 communications, the annual total fell from around 839,000 in 2022 to 439,000 in 2025, a reduction of 47.7%. After adjustment for application volumes, the rate fell by 39.1%, which indicates that the change was not simply the result of fewer applications being lodged. HM Land Registry also reports that between January and September 2026 there were about 94 avoidable points per 1,000 applications, 11% lower than the 2025 rate.
There is, however, a methodological point that firms should keep in view. HM Land Registry’s notes to editors state that the 2022 to 2026 trend figures come from wider analysis published in its October 2026 blogs and should not be presented as a direct comparison of the three public datasets alone. The same caution applies to interpretation of the rate data. A figure of 94 avoidable points per 1,000 applications does not mean that 9.4% of applications received an avoidable requisition, because one case can generate several separate points.
HM Land Registry presents the improvement as a shared result involving conveyancers, post-completion teams, industry bodies and registry staff. Andrew Robertson, Head of Customer Policy, said the latest release should help firms identify recurring errors and direct checks and training to the areas where change will matter most. That framing is consistent with the department’s current service approach. Rather than treating requisitions purely as individual case issues, the data is being used as management information to support quality assurance, training decisions and more consistent operational practice.
The latest publication also makes clear that avoidable work remains substantial. HM Land Registry says missing or unclear information is now the most common broad category of avoidable requisition, while failure to supply identity evidence is the most common individual avoidable point. For firms, that points to a clear compliance question. Where requisitions are recurring, the issue may lie less in unusual title complexity and more in routine controls such as document checking, name matching, plan clarity and evidence collection before submission.
HM Land Registry says each firm’s Responsible Person, the individual overseeing its online account, has been emailed with more detailed information on the avoidable requisition points raised against that firm. That gives practices a firmer basis for file review, supervisor oversight and targeted retraining. The department is also directing users to free support, including its training hub and the resource titled Tackling avoidable requisitions. In policy terms, the third dataset is less a standalone publication than part of a continuing service-improvement programme: publish the data, show where errors persist, and ask firms to reduce preventable delay before applications enter the system.