When I first moved to the UK almost 35 years ago, the market felt genuinely open for business. London was at the centre of a modern global sector that was connected, regulated and, crucially, accessible by clients from all over the world.
Looking at the industry now, with decades of professional and personal experience in property purchasing, I am no longer certain such a balance exists.
In the last few years, my specialist conveyancing firm RSL LAW has seen a stark increase in clients who have found themselves frozen out of the market; flatly refused by lenders and solicitors because of vague notions of ‘risk’ tied to their nationality or source of funds. Are these buyers criminals or hiding behind shady shell structures? Absolutely not. In almost every case they are ordinary, professional people living and working in the country – British residents with dual citizenship, overseas workers based and paying taxes here, and young families trying to start a new chapter of life together.
And yet, these people are missing out on the right to own a home because they don’t meet purely arbitrary criteria. Their transaction records, their links to other countries and even their names set off alarm bells in compliance departments when no wrongdoing has taken place.
This issue is affecting thousands of legitimate buyers, and it needs to change. I believe solicitors have a key role to play in bringing that about.
Just like banks, we solicitors have an obligation to carry out robust AML and sanctions compliance checks, to genuinely get to know our customers and to raise concerns where appropriate. That is non-negotiable, and rightly so. But what is less rigid is our professional judgement, and frankly, our common sense. Unfortunately, as the geopolitical world has become more uncertain and less trusting, such common sense appears to have gone out the window.
It can be as little as a single transaction on a client’s file. A transfer of funds, perhaps from an aunt based in India, or a family name – just like mine – originating from Russia, triggers an automated alert and, without any further investigation, the lender suddenly disengages. Solicitors hear of this and close ranks. No effort is made to explain this to the client, and they feel they have been blacklisted.
Can the banks be blamed? Perhaps not. After all, the regulatory penalties for non-compliance have become increasingly severe, and the reputational damage by association with unscrupulous or dangerous customers can be devastating. But banks, again, like solicitors, have a professional duty to be as fair as possible to their fee-paying customers.
This is where solicitors need to take note. At RSL LAW, we pride ourselves on dealing with the most complex of property transactions, many of them involving clients with international ties. We have helped buyers secure homes when all hope feels lost, working with people whose legitimate applications have been rejected by lenders for no other reason than where they and their savings come from.
It happens more often than you might think. Just a couple of months ago, a British citizen working and living in London came to us in distress. He’d saved to buy his dream home – a property worth millions – but his deposit came from his mother, a well-known businesswoman based overseas. These funds were fully declared, the source clearly evidenced, and yet the bank withdrew the offer at the eleventh hour, citing only a lack of ‘risk appetite’. Fortunately, our team was able to step in, restructuring the purchase and securing agreement with an alternative lender, resulting in the client moving into a beautiful new home.
But not everyone chooses to persist, and having the door closed in your face can be profoundly disheartening. If we can’t accommodate these buyers, they will leave. The property market will suffer, and so will our reputation as a modern, open country.
Recent data shows that the number of overseas-linked buyers fell to its lowest level on record in 2025. Behind those numbers are families, skilled professionals, and investors who have decided that the UK is simply too difficult.
So how can we combat this worrying trend? Guidance which affirms the importance of AML and other compliance, but distinguishes genuine risk from surface-level indicators, would empower lawyers to exercise discretion without fears of breaching rules. Law firms should also work with compliance officers and fee-earners to ensure that context is not ignored, and client needs are placed front and centre.
My colleagues and I are continuing to campaign for greater awareness of this issue across the property, banking and legal sectors, and have this type of discrimination viewed just like any other. The legal profession is at its best when it recognises the individual behind the paper trail, and we should all strive to hit that mark for clients.
Tatiana Sharposhnikova is chief executive, RSL LAW