The National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts for secure housing transactions

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! I had not actually intended to sign up for this debate. There are no reservations in the matter, and the committee proposes that the letter be added to the records. On paper, this therefore appears to be an undramatic matter. But the other day, I received some answers from the Minister concerning just this. Then I thought: When will I be able to have an interpellation debate with the Minister? It will soon be over here. When is one supposed to debate these important issues? That was why I signed up for the debate. I apologize to the office if I have caused any trouble in the chamber calendar, but after the answer from the government, I still felt that I had to say a few words.

I have for a longer period asked questions about bidding, the broker's responsibility, and the protection for buyers and sellers in housing transactions. Already in 2023, I asked the Minister for Justice whether the government was prepared to review the Swedish bidding rules. The answer was that no review was current. In January 2026, I asked again, this time about the broker's responsibility and the buyer's protection in real estate transactions. The message was the same: No review.

After the National Audit Office's report, which we are to decide on today, I posed a new question. It was directed to Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer, but he referred it to Civil Minister Erik Slottner. The government's response remains that they will follow and monitor the agency's work.

Madam Speaker! This is weak for me. It is not acting, but rather waiting. It is not political leadership, but passivity. There is something provoking in how the government handles housing policy. When one speaks of small houses, owner-occupied homes, and housing dreams, there are big words, mandates, and investigations. But when people face the biggest transaction of their lives – a home purchase – and need security, the government becomes very cautious. As Dagens Nyheter's editorial page has pointed out, it is not serious to reduce housing policy to a villa for everyone.

Sweden needs a housing policy that corresponds to reality and the need for rental apartments, condominiums, small houses, student housing, and housing throughout the country. But there is also a need for security for those who are to buy or sell their home. What does it help to talk about housing dreams if people at the same time must feel anxiety regarding the bidding, the property description, or whether all important information actually comes to light? One cannot speak warmly about ownership and at the same time accept that people risk getting caught between brokers, banks, insurance companies, and a difficult-to-access regulatory framework.

Madam Speaker! The government's passivity is repeated in several areas of housing policy. It is visible in the construction, in the lack of rental apartments, and in the difficulties for many to obtain a home. Now we see the same pattern when it comes to security for those who are to buy or sell a home. These are big words when the cameras are on, but too little action when people need a policy that works in everyday life.

Housing policy is not just about the number of homes. It is also about security in people's everyday lives – being able to move out of the parental home, start a family, and change housing when life changes. It is about being able to buy or sell a home without simultaneously needing to be a lawyer, an economist, or for that matter, a detective.

Madam Speaker! Here, the government's passivity becomes extra clear. The National Audit Office shows that the supervision risks missing the most serious problems. It is serious, because what is it worth if a system looks functional on paper if the buyer and the seller are still left alone in complicated housing transactions? Then the government should act. Instead, we get the same answer again: no review, no timetable, just ongoing monitoring. That is not security policy. It is passivity.

This should be a warning signal for the government and not just a matter to be added to the files. It should lead to clearer initiatives, not merely agency dialogue and ongoing monitoring.

The Real Estate Broker Inspection's statistics show that this is not a marginal issue. Between January and May 2026, the authority received 539 reports against brokers. These concern, among other things, bait pricing and hidden bidding. These are therefore issues that are completely decisive when people are to make decisions about very large sums. When hundreds of reports come in over a few months while the National Audit Office warns that the supervision needs to become more accurate, the government cannot be satisfied with leaning back.

Madam Speaker! Behind these reports are people of flesh and blood. In 2025, attention was drawn to the case of a woman in Gothenburg who, ten years after she sold her home, was demanded to pay 1.6 million kronor because an old mortgage had never been released, which several actors had missed. The case illustrates how serious the consequences can become when control fails in several links.

P4 Stockholm has recently revealed two real estate deals where elderly women state that they have been swindled out of millions by their brokers. The investigation has simultaneously shed light on Fastighetsmäklarinspektionen. The National Audit Office has criticized the authority for the risk that difficult cases may be left lying and for deficiencies in the follow-up of brokers who have already been audited previously. In one of the cases, the broker had previously been reported ten times and warned, but still, the woman's case had not been investigated. It shows how serious the consequences can be when the supervision does not hit the mark and when people are left without redress despite serious warning signs.

We also see how hidden bids create uncertainty. According to SBAB's brokerage barometer from January 2026, hidden bids occur in approximately every fifth housing sale. In the sale of condominiums in Stockholm, it is reported that almost every third transaction is hidden. The same survey also shows that six out of ten brokers want this to be prohibited. This says something important about how the phenomenon affects confidence in housing transactions. How can people feel secure if they do not know which bids actually exist? How can the buyer experience processes as open and understandable? How can the seller know if the price is right or if they are being pressured into a decision too quickly? Here, the government's passivity becomes extra clear.

I have asked about the bidding rules, about the broker's responsibility, and about the government's conclusions following the National Audit Office's criticism. I have also asked about the distribution of responsibility. Today, much of the responsibility is placed on the individual broker. At the same time, today's housing market does not only consist of individual brokers but also of companies, chains, brands, internal routines, digital systems, economic incentives, and business models. Yet, the answer has repeatedly been the same: We are not conducting a review. We are following the developments. We are monitoring the agency's work.

Madam Speaker! How long is the government going to follow the development before it starts leading the development?

Many brokers do a serious and important job. Precisely for that reason, clear rules, effective supervision, and strong consumer protection are needed. Serious brokers benefit from unserious actors being detected, and serious companies benefit from the trust in the industry being strengthened. Above all, ordinary people benefit from the state not leaving them alone when something goes wrong.

This is about order and clarity in a market where a lot is at stake for the individual, and that is why I am standing here today. As I said, I cannot take this up with the minister. I do, however, hope that he looks into this.

My criticism of the government is very simple. You know that the problems exist – you yourselves acknowledge in the answers I have received that they exist. You yourselves say that buying a home is often people's biggest transaction, but you do not act with the force that the issue demands.

When the government wants to talk about small houses, there is energy, and when it wants to talk about housing dreams, there are big words, but when people ask about security in the transaction itself, the answer is: "We are following the development." That is not enough – it is not sufficient. People do not buy a decree, a dialogue with an authority, or a formulation about the development being followed. They buy a home, and when you buy a home, you should not have to hope that the bidding process goes correctly, that the property description is accurate, that the broker provides all important information, or that the mortgage is actually controlled. You should be able to trust that the system works.

There are also clear aspects of justice here. The one who has money and legal knowledge, the one who speaks good Swedish and who has time and strong contacts has an easier time pursuing their cause, while the one who is weaker in all of this stands alone.

If consumer protection in practice is based on the individual having to understand what went wrong themselves, know where to turn, have the energy to report it, and be able to drive the process, we get a protection that works best for those who are already strongest. We cannot have that in the housing market. A home is not just any commodity. It is the foundation for people's everyday lives, freedom, and security.

The National Audit Office's recommendations are reasonable. The Real Estate Broker Inspectorate needs to develop the criteria for prioritization in the supervision strategy, and more thematic and self-initiated supervision is needed, especially regarding serious violations in connection with brokerage assignments. The follow-up of the supervision's direction and results needs to be improved, and the supervision of alternative dispute resolutions needs to be strengthened.

These are not major demands; this is truly common sense. If we know that risks exist in the bidding, in the marketing, through bait prices, in property descriptions, and when it comes to the duty of control and the distribution of responsibility, then the supervision must also be directed where the risks are. Otherwise, we risk that the supervision looks sufficient on paper but does not help people enough in reality.

Madam Speaker! The government's passivity is repeated throughout the entire housing policy. It is visible when housing construction is insufficient and has stalled, when rental apartments are not prioritized, and when young people are kept out of the housing market. It is also visible when the security in the housing transaction fails, but the government nevertheless content itself with merely monitoring.

Safety for me is not just police, punishment and press conferences. Safety is also being able to buy a home without being cheated, being able to sell one's home without being subjected to fake bids and being able to trust that brokers and brokerage firms take their responsibility. Safety is that ordinary people are not left alone in complicated systems.

Continuous monitoring is not enough. Following the developments is not enough, and filing the letter in the records is not enough either. When people risk losing hundreds of thousands of kronor – even millions – in a housing transaction, more than passive management is needed. What is needed then is political will, clear mandates, and a review of the regulatory framework's shortcomings. This government has failed on all these points.

The Swedish National Audit Office has done its job. It has audited, pointed out deficiencies, and issued recommendations. Now the government must do its job and not only monitor and follow up but also act to strengthen the protection for buyers and sellers in these transactions, because when people buy a home, they should not have to be afraid. They should be able to feel secure.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)