A prospective client needs more than a starting price: what work it covers, which costs might change, who handles the transaction and what happens next. We reviewed eight public conveyancing fee pages to find useful ways of answering those questions.
Key findings
The most useful examples connected the price to a particular transaction, explained dependencies and put identifiable people alongside the service.
The pages we reviewed
One designated pricing page per firm, captured on 22 September 2026. We do not name the firms: a review of absent information is not a fair basis for public judgements about individual businesses. Letters A to D (Leeds) and E to H (Manchester or its wider area) are labels, not a ranking; inclusion is not a recommendation or a league table.
These are the recorded observations behind the three counts above. “Not found” means not found in the designated captured page: we did not find that information on the one page reviewed; it may be available elsewhere on the firm’s website. A recorded feature does not establish completeness or accuracy.
| Firm | At least one extra cost quantified | Included tasks or stages listed | Numerical transaction duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firm A Leeds | Found | Found | Not found |
| Firm B Leeds | Found | Not found | Not found |
| Firm C Leeds | Found | Found | Found |
| Firm D Leeds | Found | Found | Found |
| Firm E Manchester | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Firm F Manchester area | Found | Found | Not found |
| Firm G Manchester | Found | Not found | Found |
| Firm H Manchester | Found | Not found | Not found |
What else we recorded on these eight pages
All eight contained numerical legal-fee information, some VAT wording and an enquiry route. That is expected in a sample selected for pricing pages. One additional page described duration qualitatively. Information not found on the designated page may be available elsewhere on the same website.
Download the eight-page observation sheet (CSV). Page addresses, capture times and SHA-256 hashes are held on file; a firm in the sample can ask for its own coding.
A practical review of your own service page
Six questions, three with a pattern we saw on the eight pages. Open one page and record the exact evidence, the person responsible and the next correction in the 12-question worksheet that accompanies this review (the tick boxes are only a reading aid and save nothing).
- Identify the service, client and transaction assumptions behind the information.
- Separate your fee, VAT treatment, third-party costs and conditional extras. Say what needs a tailored quote. Firm C’s pricing page gives a worked purchase example that separates legal fees, additional charges, third-party costs and government fees, with net, VAT and total columns, and states assumptions and possible leasehold charges, so a client can see which amount pays for the firm’s work, which charges are conditional and which costs go elsewhere. A worked example needs a defined scenario and regular review; it does not replace a tailored quote.
- Describe the important tasks and where a separate fee may be needed.
- Use a supported estimate, a clear starting point and the main dependencies. Firm D’s pricing page separates transaction types and the work involved; its freehold-purchase section gives a 10–12 week indication and names what it depends on, such as the searches, the buyer’s mortgage and how quickly others in the chain act. On a long page, make sure a broad introductory estimate is easy to distinguish from transaction-specific guidance further down.
- Use accurate names, roles and relevant experience, with useful profile links. Firm H’s pricing page includes a section on the people who may handle a matter, naming team members with role, experience and qualification information for several people. Say whether someone is a solicitor, licensed conveyancer or another member of the team.
- Make the enquiry route clear and explain what information is useful for a quote.
Observed page structure, not an endorsement of any firm or a validation of the worked example’s legal or tax calculations; for the timetable we record the firm’s published indication and did not validate how quickly its transactions complete. A content-review aid, not a regulatory checklist or legal advice. Your firm’s responsible reviewer should approve legal information, fee statements and claims before publication.
How this relates to AI visibility: these checks identify information a prospective client can read and verify. They do not show that a page is recommended by ChatGPT or cited in Google’s AI answers. Google’s current guidance emphasises useful original content, accessible pages and a good visitor experience; it does not promise inclusion. When changing a page, keep the original, record the change and compare search performance and genuine enquiries over time; if testing AI answers, retain the questions, dates, product settings, answers and links, separate from a page-content review. Our measurement guide explains the distinction. Download the full observations, including price presentation (CSV).
Method, boundaries and corrections
Read the full method, boundaries and corrections
We selected four firms associated with Leeds and four with Manchester or its wider area from public searches for conveyancing fee information. The sample is purposive, not random. Selecting pricing pages favours firms whose prices can already be discovered in search.
Eight pages returned HTTP 200 to our capture tool. One initial candidate returned HTTP 403 and was replaced before coding; its accessibility was not scored. We retained the returned HTML and extracted text, with UTC capture times and SHA-256 hashes. The public observation sheet contains our classifications and summaries, not copies of the firms’ pages.
A task/stage list means an explicit list of included work or transaction steps. A numerical duration means a stated transaction-duration range. An additional charge means at least one supplementary or third-party cost given as an amount or range. Presence does not establish completeness or accuracy.
We inspected returned page text and links, including expandable content present in that HTML. We did not complete quote forms, contact firms, test phone responses, verify professional records, inspect every page or execute every interactive feature. Relevant details may appear elsewhere or be supplied during an enquiry.
The review questions draw on the subjects addressed by the SRA Transparency Rules and SRA guidance on price and service information. This narrow page review does not determine whether a firm complies with those rules.
The examples and counts were checked against the retained source material before publication. Send specific corrections, with the page URL and relevant passage, to hello@answari.co.uk. Later corrections will be dated here.
Correction, 28 September 2026: the firms were named when this review was published on 22 September 2026. From 28 September 2026 they are identified by letter, in line with our other seven evidence reviews. No finding changed.