Estate Agents: Unlawful restriction on freedom of choice of conveyancer

Add caption

Times are hard for a number of estate agents, and with a sharp fall in commission, a number of agents are focusing more on increasing their secondary revenue streams, particularly referral fees.

We all know that referral arrangements exist and are, at least for now, a fact of life. The question whether agents and linked conveyances are as open about these arrangements as they should, is less clear.

The pressure on agents to maximise secondary income has led to an increasing number of complaints about the unprofessional and unlawful tactic of ‘bad mouthing’ the vendor’s choice of conveyancer in an effort to ‘sell’ the service of their own pet conveyancer.

We have found ourselves the victim of this practice.   Three local agents have made unjust remarks about our service in an effort to deter prospective clients from engaging us.   We have written to each and have not had the courtesy of a response.

This conduct is abhorrent and is on the rise.   The objective is clear.  The agent is keen not to lose the commission that will be gained if the agent can steer the client to the agent’s pet conveyancer.  No regard is had to the wishes of the client or indeed the client’s rights. 

A truly independent conveyancer will undertake due diligence on the legal title without influence from the agent,  and may, for instance, advise the client not to proceed with the purchase if there is a major issue with the title.   The conveyancer may also assist the client to purchase the property at the current market price and not at the value advised by the agent.   In short the conveyancer will act independently to everyone apart form the client. 

The risk for the client who is pushed in the direction of the preferred conveyancer is that the service provided may be strongly influenced by the value to the conveyancer of the high volume of work it receives from that agent.    There will be pressure on the linked conveyancer not to upset the agent who is feeding it with regular work.   The conveyancer would be less likely to advise on issues that could delay or jeopardise the transaction. 

So what is the narrative these agents use to ensure a prospective client goes with their recommendation?

Firstly, its best to use “our conveyancer is local" - There is no great advantage in a conveyancing solicitor being local because nearly all conveyancing tasks are completed using email and telephone.  Just because the conveyancer is local does not mean the conveyancer is any good!

“We use them all the time" - by the very nature of the arrangement, which will not be disclosed,  this is true. However the agent will have no direct control over the pace of the transaction, nor the actions of the other conveyancers in the chain. 

"Our conveyancer  is quick" -  There is no conveyancer who can guarantee a quick service due to the fact that the transaction will only proceed as fast as the slowest party in the chain.   Conveyancers have little control over the delivery time of searches and mortgage offers, for instance. 

‘If you go with your choice of conveyancer you will have problems’  - if a client hears this he or she should run a mile. Though the agent may profess to know about very conveyancer under the sun, the reality is that the agent will have little genuine information on the conveyancer and will not be basing the opinion on any facts.   The very fact the agent has mentioned this should ring alarm bells straight away.  The best advice is to walk out of the agency and look to find an honest agent, or to go the choice of conveyancer direct who  we are sure will point you in the right direction. 

It is both morally and legally wrong to provide false information in the delivery of a service. 

The National Trading Standards' Estate Agency Team issued guidance on property sales in September 2015 which clearly sets out the duties which estate agents, must provide to consumers, what rights consumers and clients have and what redress they have.

The guidelines are far-reaching and legally enforceable and breaches can be prosecuted in the criminal courts, resulting in possible jail terms and unlimited fines.

In particular, unfairness in practice, as defined in the guidance, is defined as results arising from the following:

• Giving false or misleading information to consumers regardless of how delivered, whether verbally, in writing or via telephone. This would cover providing a client with misleading information about the clients preferred conveyancer.
• Exerting undue pressure on consumers including pressuring a potential buyer to use associated services for example to use a particular firm of conveyancers
• Not acting with the standard of care and skill that is in accordance with honest market practice and in good faith.

Furthermore it  is illegal under the Estate Agents Act 1979 for an Agent to force a client to use the Agent’s preferred conveyancer. 

Blame for this practice does not stop with the agent and a client faced with pressure should also report the Agent’s pet conveyancer. 

Both the Solicitor's Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) make it very clear that its members are meant to ensure that their client has chosen them to act without pressure being exerted on them to do so.

If  a client considers  he or she has been caught up in one of these referral arrangements and have been deprived of a free choice of conveyancer our advice is to complain to the Agent and also to the Regulator of the pet conveyancer. 

We will be happy to provide you with advice on you options. 

And finally….  Do keep in mind that it will probably cost the client  more - ( between £100 and £200) by engaging the pet conveyancer because most of these arrangements work on the basis of the referring agent’s referral fee being added to the fee paid for the conveyancing transaction. 

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at davidp@mjpconveyancing.com

Say 'No' to leasehold property

It goes against the grain to advise a client not to proceed with a property transaction, especially when the client has his or her heart set on purchasing the property.  However, as a responsible legal advisor we need to less afraid of saying ‘No’. 

Leasehold property is attracting a lot of negative press of late, and is the focus, as we know, of Government attention .  The temptation is to look at this as yet another ‘scare story, and one which, in time, will blow over. The reality is it is unlikely it will, and if anything, it is likely to get worse before we will see any improvement.  It's therefore dangerous, and potentially negligent, for conveyancers to stick their head in the sand and ignore the many warning signs appearing on a daily basis. 

Doubling rent review clauses and provision for rent increase at regular issues are presenting a major hurdle for those who are looking not only to buy, but also sell, leasehold properties. It was only yesterday that an estate agent called to enquire why we were advising a client to withdraw from a transaction when the agent was aware other properties in the same development had recently sold. 

It is now recognised that it will be more difficult to sell a leasehold property which has a doubling ground-rent charge that rises after 10 years. This doubling of ground rent may have an impact on the marketability and mortgageability of the lease when selling or buying with such a clause. Some lenders may not agree to offer a mortgage on a property with a doubling ground rent. Nationwide has formally started declining mortgage offers which include a doubling ground rent clause.

At present its a lottery as to whether a lender faced with one of these clauses with be prepared to lend. In the light of this, and the ever changing lender landscape, would it be sound advice to allow a client to purchase a property subject to a lease with one of these clauses? I would submit it would not, unless the lease could first be varied to remove the offending clause.  Some conveyancers looking to avoid the delay and cost of seeking a lease variation, advise clients to take out indemnity insurance.  I am not sure I agree with this because insurance only acts as a sticking plaster, and not as a cure. Furthermore, even if the lender is happy to accept insurance there is no guarantee that other lenders will be minded to accept the policy when it comes to sell/remortgage. Moreover, lender policy seems to be changing these days quicker than the wind. 

There is also a danger of some conveyancers becoming too fixated on what the clients lender is saying about the clause and ignoring in the process the best interests of the lay client.  It is unsafe to assume that just because the lender is happy to proceed, that the client will also be content to continue.  The client needs to be made aware of the dangers of purchasing a property with one of these causes in the lease, and in my mind advised not to proceed with the transaction. 

If the client disagrees then a letter setting out your advice should be sent and the client should be asked to confirm instructions in writing notwithstanding the advice. The client should be warned along that this type of rent review clause may:

• be costly to the client as the rent increase (although as it gets more expensive this won't be during the clients life time);

• stop a future buyer from getting a mortgage as mortgage lenders do not like doubling ground rent clauses (it might even prevent the client from re-mortgaging);

• cause an issue on sale as the buyer doesn't want to buy a property with ground rent that doubles; or

• reduce the property's value (the ground rent liability makes the property less valuable).

This represents a serious issue for conveyancers, and until Government makes these clauses illegal, conveyancers should be saying ‘No’ more often than I fear is happening at present.

David Pett - Solicitor  

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at davidp@mjpconveyancing.com

Help To Buy – Two steps forward one step back on the Property Ladder?

The difficulty for First Time Buyers in getting that first step on the property ladder is well documented; the price of homes. The Independent reported in April 2018 that the average house price is now up 8 times on the average earnings. Grim reading for most, and why schemes such as Help to Buy ISA’s, SDLT breaks for First Time Buyers and now Shared Ownership Purchasers are a welcome relief to many looking to purchase their first home. Is the Help to Buy loan really the silver lining in the gloomy cloud of the property market for First Time Buyers? Whilst it offers the additional 5% required to meet that first rung on the ladder is it a false start? 

Home moving company Reallymoving.com have suggested that Help to Buy loans could be as problematic as PPI claims and just as prevalent reporting that 70,000 First Time Buyers could be effected. The market research carried out shows that those using Help to Buy Loans paid on average 8% more for their homes, than those who did not, meaning that the short term gain is actually a loss in the long run. Clearly if there is more debt to pay off then when it comes to selling your property there becomes a real issue in terms of assessing what it is worth. The risk is that your home simply isn’t worth what you have paid for it and therefore you end up having to pay to sell your home.

The scheme works on the basis that you can borrow up to 20% of the property value and you don’t have to pay any of this back for the first 5 years. Subsequently you pay 1.75% for 5 years and thereafter 1% above inflation. Given you can only pay this loan back in either 50% increments, or wholly, and the average Help to Buy loan is  £56,000.00, not many first time buyers are going to have that kind of money. It therefore begs the question; is the Help to Buy loan scheme actually only serving to increase property prices artificially in order that these first time buyers actually have sufficient funds to pay them off!

The Help to Buy loan’s conditions make it very burdensome to pay back, it is not possible to pay in monthly installments, or alongside a mortgage or similar, it must be paid in large lump sums which simply do not suit its target market. The Government and Help to Buy agencies should perhaps realign the Help to Buy Loan with its intended audience to make a more effective and worthwhile product. The success of the Help to Buy loan is that it has helped over 183,000 first time buyers buy their first home, but unfortunately for those in this scheme the worst may indeed be yet to come.

Thomas Barnes  - Trainee Solicitor 

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at davidp@mjpconveyancing.com