SOLICITORS RESTRICTIVE ACTION!

[Agile]

A friend of mine is ( or was ) buying a house from another friend.

After several weeks the sellers solicitor is now refusing to complete the sale unless the purchaser employs a costly solicitor.

Surely this is an illegal restrictive practice? He has been advised to do this by the Law Society which is his Union and well known for encouraging restrictive practices! They operate a complaints scheme to protect their members from the public.

His stated fears are in relation to money laundering and identity. However the purchaser has offered all the documents and details which he requires.

If Solicitors charges were reasonable then this purchaser would employ one but if you think a plumber is expensive at £65 per hour what is a solicitor at £250 an hour ???

The plumber comes to your home and does not charge for travelling time but the solicitor sits in his comfortable office while most of the work is done by his low paid minions.

When cheap conveyancing firms opened up solicitors tried to close tham down to protect their overpriced cartel. Solicitors even charge YOU £40 insurance to cover them if they make a mistake while working for you. What would you think of a plumber who did this?

Any suggestions from solicitors on how to encourage this seller's solicitor to complete the sale?

Tony

MOD

moved as posted in WRONG forum

 

[nstreet]

Why doesn't the seller speak to the buyers directly and explain what's happening with their solicitor. If they really want to buy the property they may pay the extra solicitors cost, suggest to the buyers that the sale will fall through unless the situation is resolved.

 

[Agile]

I posted this in the general DIY classification because it relates to a problem which has arisen during DIY conveyancing.

The unnamed Moderator has moved it to General Chat.

How can a problem with a DIY situation be "General Chat " which is where you put rubbish postings about people's football teams?

Please would you move it back or ask your boss to explain to my why he gives you free reign to upset people?

I would also ask why you are frightened to give your proper name?

Tony Glazier

MOD

it was moved beacause it does not come under general diy

if you wish to complain about my actions

[email protected] should help you

and no i wont move it back , also i havent got a boss i do this thankless job for the good of the forum

and quite a few people on this forum know who i am

not my decision again down to admin

 

[david and julie]

I have no sympathy for solicitors and agree they charge to much for straightforward work. However my agreement stops there. The solicitor cannot act for two parties because there could be a clear conflict of interest. Which party would he support if anything went wrong? As to this quote.

Solicitors even charge YOU £40 insurance to cover them if they make a mistake while working for you. What would you think of a plumber who did this?

I presume you mean some kind of indemnity insurance, which would no doubt cover all parties for any mistakes and not just the solicitor. Any reputable plumber does insure against his mistakes (albeit not for bad workmanship) but against damages arising from it. It is more usually called public liability insurance or product liabilty insurance(paid by the manufacturer) if its was product with a design fault which caused problems.

In reality there is no such thing as friends where money is concerned and I thing the solicitor is right. Why does your friend want to save such a small ammount in the scale of things? Don't forget the selling solicitor won't do searches etc either.

I am not certain about this but I would of thought(if there was no mortgage involved which is a different area) to sell an house doesn't actually need a solicitor anyway, if thats what both parties wanted. The seller obviously wants to protect his interests and thats what his solicitor is doing.

I don't know who the MOD is either,but you are wrong, this is not really DIY in the true sense at all. I don't know how you can see it that way either.

Tell your mate to get his hand in his pocket like the rest of us have.

 

[Agile]

"""However my agreement stops there. The solicitor cannot act for two parties because there could be a clear conflict of interest. """

I think that you have misunderstood what I have tried to explain.

The seller has a solicitor acting for him. The purchaser was doing the purchase without a solicitor, its really not difficult at all with registered property. There is no question of the sellers solicitor acting for the purchaser so no conflict of interest.

If you get an internet quote for conveyancing, one of the items making up the price is a £40 insurance fee in case the solicitor makes a mistake. You don't expect your plumber to charge you directly for his insurance premium!

Tony

 

[WoodYouLike]

If you get an internet quote for conveyancing, one of the items making up the price is a £40 insurance fee in case the solicitor makes a mistake. You don't expect your plumber to charge you directly for his insurance premium!

Tony

Regulations in invoicing/quotations by solicitors stipulates specified items in order to avoid 'grey-areas'. Hence the specified item insurance fee.
A plumber does included part of his insurance fee in his quote, but not specified.

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

The solicitor cannot act for two parties because there could be a clear conflict of interest. Which party would he support if anything went wrong?

The solicitor is not acting for two parties. He has a duty of care to his client but if the purchaser conducting his own conveyancing makes a hash things that is not the fault of the (vendor's) solicitors.

In reality there is no such thing as friends where money is concerned and I thing the solicitor is right. Why does your friend want to save such a small ammount in the scale of things? Don't forget the selling solicitor won't do searches etc either.

Because solicitors have a pretty poor record when it comes conveyancing issues. Needlessly slowing down the process of conducting the transfer, well who wants that? If somebody possesses the wherewithall to carry out their own conveyancing then why not? If you don't have to line the pockets of the legal set then why choose to?

I am not certain about this but I would of thought(if there was no mortgage involved which is a different area) to sell an house doesn't actually need a solicitor anyway, if thats what both parties wanted. The seller obviously wants to protect his interests and thats what his solicitor is doing.

It does not matter whether a mortgage is invloved or not, you are legally entitled to conduct your own conveyancing. On houses (freehold) there should not be too much involved if you have any eye for detail etc. With flats (leasehold) you would be required to fully understand the restrictive covenants that may pertain and here it may be wiser to use a professional.

I don't know who the MOD is either,but you are wrong, this is not really DIY in the true sense at all. I don't know how you can see it that way either.

Tell your mate to get his hand in his pocket like the rest of us have.

I think the point that Tony makes is a valid one. His friend is conducting the conveyancing on a DIY basis and has run up against an obstacle which is preventing him from exercising his very right to do so. Contrary to what the vendor's solicitor says re "...in his clients interests..." it sounds much more as if he is primarily concerned with his own profession's interests.

Tony, tell your mate not to worry about the Law Society. They are not the solicitors' union. They will look at any cases of dispute where members of the public maintain that they are not obtaining a reasonable service from a lawyer. It might be well worth him contacting them himself with a view to making a formal complaint about the position this solicitor is taking. A department within the LS, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, will deal with the matter. If your friend writes a letter to the vendor's solicitor notifying him of his intention to make a formnal complaint to the OSS it is quite likely that he will see a change of attitude and events can progress as normal. Keep us informed as to the outcome of this matter.

Quite like the crack of the moderators whip re fora etiquette occasionally. Brings a frisson of excitement to the proceedings.

 

[Moz]

Tony
A chippy I work with was involved with same problem ,his missus was doing a law degree,but dropped it when she fell pregnant , she is well up on the legalise stuff but his property sale fell through due too the sellers solicitor refusing to do busines with his missus,they took it up with the The Law Society who found in favour of the solictor ,

It cost them a bit an in the end lost ,

they have now a better property that they are converting into two flats

 

[david and julie]

chainsaw_masochist wrote

The solicitor is not acting for two parties. He has a duty of care to his client but if the purchaser conducting his own conveyancing makes a hash things that is not the fault of the (vendor's) solicitors.

The solicitor may well be acting for his client, but to sit there and watch an unskilled person make a cock-up would be at best unprofessional and may even be seen as negligent.

Because solicitors have a pretty poor record when it comes conveyancing issues. Needlessly slowing down the process of conducting the transfer, well who wants that? If somebody possesses the wherewithall to carry out their own conveyancing then why not? If you don't have to line the pockets of the legal set then why choose to?

There is no evidence that this solicitor is holding up the sale or that the buyer has what you call the wherewithall. It may be the buyer doesn't know what he's doing and the solicitor is fed up of it. Be real, the sellers solicitor may have quoted for this work and be doing much more than usual whilst dealing with someone who may not know all the procedures involved.

It does not matter whether a mortgage is invloved or not, you are legally entitled to conduct your own conveyancing. On houses (freehold) there should not be too much involved if you have any eye for detail etc. With flats (leasehold) you would be required to fully understand the restrictive covenants that may pertain and here it may be wiser to use a professional.

I suspect most lenders would be wary about handing over cheques without proper legal formalities being completed. Out of curiosity do you know of any cases where this has happened?

I think the point that Tony makes is a valid one. His friend is conducting the conveyancing on a DIY basis and has run up against an obstacle which is preventing him from exercising his very right to do so. Contrary to what the vendor's solicitor says re "...in his clients interests..." it sounds much more as if he is primarily concerned with his own profession's interests.

You have quoted a different reason than Agile, who said this.

His stated fears are in relation to money laundering and identity. However the purchaser has offered all the documents and details which he requires.

I do however agree with you that the solicitor probably is looking after his own and also that complaining may do the trick.

I would be interested in hearing both sides of this. Agile as lambasted the MOD on his/her second comment in this thread. If the friend is the same, you can hardly blame the solicitor. I would guess there is more to this than is being said.

Agile, was the sellers solicitor told he would have to deal with a member of the public, rather than another solicitor, at the outset?

 

[petewood]

Quite like the crack of the moderators whip re fora etiquette occasionally. Brings a frisson of excitement to the proceedings.

You should get out more!

 

[JulieL]

I posted this in the general DIY classification because it relates to a problem which has arisen during DIY conveyancing.

The unnamed Moderator has moved it to General Chat.

How can a problem with a DIY situation be "General Chat " which is where you put rubbish postings about people's football teams?

Please would you move it back or ask your boss to explain to my why he gives you free reign to upset people?

I would also ask why you are frightened to give your proper name?




MOD

it was moved beacause it does not come under general diy

if you wish to complain about my actions

[email protected] should help you

and no i wont move it back , also i havent got a boss i do this thankless job for the good of the forum
and quite a few people on this forum know who i am

not my decision again down to admin

I don't think that the moderator has done anything inappropriate by moving your thread to general chat - I'm sure you'll get just as much response if not more by your post being in the general chat section than where it was originally

I think it would cause more problems for the moderators if they identified themselves as they are obviously forum users as well - I would imagine it's a administration decision that they don't reveal their identities - not him/her being difficult!

General chat isn't only about 'rubbish football teams' There are lots of interesting posts - although I do appreciate it might not be everyones cup of tea, just like DIY isn't mine!!!

It is essential that all forums are moderated - my experience of the moderators here has been very good - there was one particular poster recently who was writing obscene, very sexually explicit and other offensive material - within minutes of these postings being put on they were removed (quite rightly so!)

MOD

we try juliet

 

[Agile]

Couple or three points, firstly solicitors insurance for internet conveyancing amounts to about 10% of their £400 fees. I doubt the plumber paying insurance of £650 p.a. only earns £6k. The plumbers insurance is on £35k income about 2% of turnover whereas the solicitors is 10%. Why so high? Are they so careless?

Next, in this particular case I know the buyer and seller but not the seller's Solicitor who is a friend of his, although he is charging him £720 plus vat. which is a lot more than internet solicitors charge.

Initially the Solicitor had no problem with the buyer doing DIY conveyancing and the matter has proceeded to the point of signing of the Contract by the buyer and tendering by cheque of the deposit.

The problem is that now the Solicitor is apparently refusing to allow the purchase to proceed further unless the purchaser uses a solicitor. Its not jobs for the boys ( in this case ) but because he is concerned by identity and money laundering aspects. He has been given access to all the information involved and even if the purchaser used a solicitor there would be no other information involved, thats the problem.

I do disagree about the Law Society, its paid for by solicitors and whilst it regulates their professional conduct, it generally supports them and tries to argue for their involvement in as many facets as possible. It was the Office of Fair Trading which during the 1970s insisted that DIY conveyancing should be possible and allowed Licenced Conveyancers to compete against solicitors for the 4m conveyancing transactions each year. The Law Society was arguing that only solicitors should do conveyancing.

Mortage lenders insist that a solicitor "on their panel" deal with the grant of a mortgage but that now works smoothly with DIY conveyancing and does not create any significant problem. I have used several licenced conveyancers and they are usually treated by the other side's solicitor with respect just as if they were solicitors.

Tony

 

[david and julie]

Its not jobs for the boys ( in this case ) but because he is concerned by identity and money laundering aspects. He has been given access to all the information involved and even if the purchaser used a solicitor there would be no other information involved, thats the problem.

Tony

Slightly off topic but I find these so called anti money laundering laws very odious. Last week I went into my bank(Nat West) to draw out £1000 in cash. I have had an account there for over 20 years and they know me well. The teller told me if I want a grand in cash I would have to produce ID and also fill in a form which recorded my ID and the transaction details. The teller advised me to take £800 off her and then get £200 from the cash machine outside instead. I declined and filled out a new cheque for £999

This collecting and keeping of personal information by the state is an unwarranted intrution into the private affairs of its citizens. I don't for one minute believe this to be anything at all to do with money laundering.

I don't know what the penalties are for not complying with these laws, but they must be high for the banks (and solicitors by the sound of things) to be as concerned as they are.

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

chainsaw_masochist wrote:

Quite like the crack of the moderators whip re fora etiquette occasionally. Brings a frisson of excitement to the proceedings.


You should get out more!

Took your advice Pete, and have done exactly that...so I am a bit late getting back to this thread...sorry.

The solicitor may well be acting for his client, but to sit there and watch an unskilled person make a cock-up would be at best unprofessional and may even be seen as negligent.

But the solicitor simply cannot issue a blanket refusal to deal with a member of the public who wishes to carry out his own conveyancing which is their legal right. True, if there is the smell of cock-up in the air then I agree that a solicitor declining to proceed any further in the sale may well be acting for the interests of both parties.

There is no evidence that this solicitor is holding up the sale or that the buyer has what you call the wherewithall. It may be the buyer doesn't know what he's doing and the solicitor is fed up of it. Be real, the sellers solicitor may have quoted for this work and be doing much more than usual whilst dealing with someone who may not know all the procedures involved.

I am not suggesting that the solictor is holding things up needlessly in this particular case; I was making a general observation: solicitors are often responsible for extending the time of the sale because of their own modus operandi. How many times have we heard of the sum of money for the property involved remaining in solicitors accounts for a few days/weeks extra? The result being that the firm involved trousers the interest. If the solicitor is doing any extra work at all I am certain of one thing: it will be invoiced. The point I am trying to make here is that solicitors cannot tacitly regard all diy-conveyancers as incompetent until they have reason to do so and therefore decline the work on that basis. As a further point a solicitor friend of mine reckons that in his own experience diy-cnvys tend to be pretty damn thorough in the process - perhaps because it is their money that is at stake?

I suspect most lenders would be wary about handing over cheques without proper legal formalities being completed. Out of curiosity do you know of any cases where this has happened?

I do know of cases where a buyer has conducted their own conveyancing when buying a property with a mortgage but I admit that these were instances seven or eight years ago. It would appear that mortgagees, regrettably, are less inclined towards the diy-cnvyr than previously.

You have quoted a different reason than Agile, who said this.

His stated fears are in relation to money laundering and identity. However the purchaser has offered all the documents and details which he requires.

I do however agree with you that the solicitor probably is looking after his own and also that complaining may do the trick.

You're correct here David, I did misquote. Agree also about claims of identity and laundering appearing to be pretty spurrious.

Agile (Tony)
Yes, the Law Society is paid for by solicitors. In the two cases in which I was involved in dealing with the Law Society my side were found in favour. One case was to do with excessive conveyancing charges, the other concerned with general solicitor negligence. Of course all cases will be judged on their own merits but I do see what you mean re the LS being sympathetic towards solicitors undertaking conveyancing.