CLC consults on 4% practice fee increase for 2026-27

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has opened a consultation on its funding arrangements for 2026-27, with a proposed 4% increase to practice fees at the centre of the proposals. For licensed conveyancing practices, that means two things: a budgeting exercise for the year ahead, and a short window in which to put a view to the regulator before the rates are confirmed.

What is being proposed

The CLC funds its regulatory activity almost entirely through the fees it charges the practices and individuals it regulates. Each year it sets out how much it needs to raise and how that burden is distributed, and consults on the result. The headline for 2026-27 is a proposed 4% uplift to practice fees, alongside the associated individual licence fees and contributions to the Compensation Fund arrangements.

A 4% rise sits broadly in line with the cost pressures most regulators and professional bodies have been reporting, but it lands on firms that have absorbed several consecutive years of rising overheads. Professional indemnity premiums, salaries, search and data costs, and technology spend have all moved in the same direction. A percentage increase that looks modest in isolation can still be uncomfortable when it arrives on top of everything else.

What it means for your budget

Because CLC practice fees are turnover-linked, the cash impact varies considerably between firms. A small practice may see an increase measured in hundreds of pounds; a larger multi-office firm with a substantial residential caseload will feel it more. The practical step is to model the increase against your projected turnover for the coming year rather than last year's figure, particularly if you have grown, acquired, or shed volume.

It is also worth remembering that the fee is only one line in the wider cost of regulation. Compliance officer time, training, file audits and the systems needed to evidence good practice all sit alongside it. Firms that treat regulatory cost as a single annual invoice tend to be surprised; those that treat it as a running operational cost tend to plan better.

Why responding matters

Consultations of this kind often attract a thin response, which weakens the evidence base the regulator works from. If the proposed distribution of fees does not reflect how your practice actually operates, the consultation is the mechanism for saying so. That includes points about how turnover bands are drawn, how the burden falls between smaller and larger practices, and whether the regulator's cost base is being managed proportionately.

Useful responses tend to be specific. Rather than objecting to the principle of an increase, set out what the increase means in cash terms for a practice of your size, what you have already absorbed in other regulatory and operational costs, and what trade-offs you would be forced to make. Regulators respond to evidence far more readily than to sentiment.

Practical steps before the deadline

Three things are worth doing now. First, calculate your likely fee under the proposal using your projected turnover, and add it to your 2026-27 budget so it is not a surprise. Second, check whether your fee band is likely to change, as crossing a threshold can produce a step change rather than a smooth 4% rise. Third, allocate someone, usually the COLP or practice manager, to draft and submit a response before the consultation closes.

It is also a good moment to look at where else costs can be recovered through efficiency rather than price increases to clients. Ordering searches, chasing results and reconciling supplier invoices absorb fee-earner and support time that rarely shows up as a line item, but which materially affects the cost of running each file. Firms that have tightened these processes have generally found the savings outweigh a 4% regulatory uplift several times over.

The wider picture

Regulatory fees are unlikely to fall. The direction of travel across all legal services regulators is towards more supervision, more data collection and more thematic review, all of which cost money to deliver. Planning on the assumption of steady annual increases is more realistic than treating each rise as an anomaly, and it makes the annual budgeting conversation considerably less fraught.

If you want to take cost and time out of the search ordering process, see how Searchpoint can help.