What is the Lender Exchange and how does to provide benefit to conveyancing clients?

The Lender Exchange is a service designed by Decision First to aid communication between solicitors and lenders. It is intended, writes Katie Easter, Trainee Solicitor with MJP Conveyancing, to reduce the risk of fraud by providing a secure portal for exchanging information. 

The lenders currently working with lender Exchange are Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Santander and HSBC Bank.

What are the benefits for clients?

The benefits of Lender Exchange include reduced administration which is designed to prevent delays for clients. The system enables lenders to send mortgage offers to solicitors electronically which is much quicker than more traditional post or Document Exchange. At MJP Conveyancing we are well equipped for receiving documents electronically which means that we can deal with documents received through Lender Exchange efficiently.

Mortgage offers are usually accompanied by forms such as Mortgage Deeds which we provide to our clients for their signature. Prior to Lender Exchange it was not uncommon for offers to be sent without these documents which led to delays for clients when solicitors had to request the forms separately. A function of Lender Exchange is to make standard documents such as Mortgage Deeds and Consent to Mortgage forms always available to be downloaded. By downloading forms manually, solicitors can help to prevent delays.

Although clients may be unaware of Lender Exchange, they are benefitting from the system. Waiting for lenders to produce mortgage documents can cause unnecessary stress and delays for clients. Lender Exchange represents a new means of communication which is likely to prevent these delays.  

                

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

The fallacy behind mortgage fraud

Steps by some of the main lenders to push home owners down the route of only using certain solicitors has caused concern within the legal sector and has also led to increased expense for the consumer.  The main reason for this action seems to be the aim of the lender to reduce mortgage fraud.

Lenders take the view that by reducing the panel of solicitors undertaking mortgage work, and thereby monitoring those solicitors more closely, this will help to reduce the risk of mortgage fraud.

The suggestion is that sole cause of  fraud lies with solicitors who handle residential transactions.  I accept there have cases of fraud involving lawyers and other professionals and I also acknowledge that lawyers have access to large sums of money in handling this type of work.  The question is however can all of the incidents of fraud costing the industry over £1bn be attributed to the criminal activity of a small number of lawyers.  Is it also fair to use mortgage fraud as an excuse to restrict mortgage work to a limited amount of property lawyers at the expense of higher moving costs and a decline in conveyancing services?

In looking at these questions one must begin to understand from where the bulk of the fraud originates.  Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the majority of fraud stems not from crooked lawyers, but from individuals misrepresenting their personal circumstances. In fact over 90 per cent of attempted mortgage fraud in 201l was down to this failing.

Experian Identity & Fraud has revealed that fraudulent applications for mortgages increased by eight per cent in 2011, marking the fifth consecutive year in which the rate of mortgage fraud has increased.

Experian explain:

‘Around 34 in every 10,000 applications for mortgages were found to be fraudulent in 2011, compared to just 15 in every 10,000 in 2006. . Typically, these first party frauds involved falsifying employment status or financial information, and, most commonly, attempting to hide an adverse credit history’.

This would clearly suggest that, although I accept solicitors acting for lenders needs to be vetted and monitored, lenders should be doing more to stamp out the fraud which happens at the beginning of the process when the application is completed and often submitted by the applicant's independent financial adviser.

In a recent press release from the Council of Mortgage Lenders talk of a new scheme designed with this very aim in mind.  The CML explains:

 “….. the launch of a new mortgage verification scheme in September was the culmination of many months of carefully co-ordinated work we under took with HM.Under the scheme, lenders receiving mortgage applications that are not supported by adequate evidence of the declared income, or where fraud is suspected, can submit details via a secure link to HMRC. The tax authorities check the details that have been supplied to the lender against their own income tax and employment returns, helping to expose applications based on bogus claims about earnings or working history’.

The indicators are that some of these measures are working and as the CML reports mortgage fraud is now on the decline though I suspect that not much of this can actually be tied in with the rather inexplicable decision of lenders to arbitrarily restrict mortgage work to the exclusion of a large  number of honest and hardworking property lawyers.  

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Can HSBC restrict freedom of choice of solicitor?

The HSBC’s decision to make it less attractive for its mortgage customers to instruct their own solicitor has caused much anxiety within conveyancing practices , with many firms facing the loss of potential work from existing and potential clients.

The question is whether anything can be done to prevent this from happening.  Can a customer of HSBC insist on using his or her own solicitor without having to face a financial penalty?

Why freedom of choice is important?

One of the main concerns is conflict.   Solicitors have in the past acted for both buyer and lender and though the principles laid down in the recently introduced customer focused regulations ( Core Duties) would suggest ( if strictly applied ) that such a conflict should not be allowed to occur, it seems the Law Society has taken the view that its ‘business as normal’.    A decision which we as Conveyancers are of course happy to accept.

However when as in the present case HSBC has entered into a contract with one firm of solicitors and is providing its customers with a financial incentive to use those solicitors the dynamics of the relationship change and the scope for conflict is heightened.  How can the panel firm guarantee that it will not put the interests of HSBC before those of its clients? Surely it will not wish to lose what must be quite a lucrative contract with HSBC and therefore the commercial interests must clearly become influential.

What does the law say?

"It has always been the fundamental right of every citizen to be represented by solicitors of his or her choice" (Maltez v.Lewis (1999)). 

HSBC may argue that the client has a choice and is not so restricted. This may on the surface be correct, however when as is the case the client has received an offer of mortgage and is not looking to lose this, particularly in the present climate, and knows that if they decide to instruct their local solicitor they may be paying more, surely this all adds up to a rather tight and unreasonable constraint?

The Core Duties 3 & 4 of the Solicitors Practice Code 2007 say a solicitor's agreement with a third party's restriction on client choice could compromise the solicitor's independence and/or amount to a breach of Core Duty 4 where such a restriction may not be in the best interests of a client. As mentioned above one must question whether the solicitors acting under a high value commercial arrangement with the Bank is able, despite its best efforts, to provide unfettered advice to its clients.  Surely the very fact it is paid by the Bank and not the client makes this very different from the situation with other lenders where the client pays the fees.  The existence of a commercial arrangement between the bank and the solicitors must clearly compromise the solicitors in their dealing with the client.

Parallels with the insurance market

This issue is one which is often encountered in the insurance field when providers of legal indemnity insurance seek to limit the choice of solicitor, when a claim arises, to a member of the insurer’s panel of solicitors.  A conflict in these circumstances often occurs if the provider of the indemnity insurance also happens to be the insurer of the defendant against whom the claim is to be brought.  In this case the position is clear - the insurer must provide the freedom for the policyholder to choose its own lawyer.

Interestingly The Financial Ombudsman Service has confirmed the above points and also recommended that it is appropriate to use the policyholder's own solicitor in any cases where there is a suggestion of a conflict of interest, or in large and complex matters.   In this case if therefore an insurer insists on a panel lawyer, the policyholder may be able to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

It will be interesting to see whether clients with the help of their choice of solicitor look to what has happened in the insurance industry and begin to challenge through the Ombudsman Service the financial disincentives imposed by HSBC on freedom of choice.

Conclusion

HSBC must be taken to task on this policy decision.   The scope for conflict is wider and different from the relationship between other lenders and their panel of solicitors who are sanctioned to act on their behalf but with whom there is no commercial arrangement under which money is paid to the solicitor direct.

Solicitors affected by this decision may consider making a complaint relying on Core Duties 3 and 4. 

Clients affected may decide to refer the latter to the Ombudsman for investigation though in practice and with the fear of losing a mortgage offer this may not happen.

Alternatively clients could vote with their feet and choose mortgage products where there is no such constraint.    For those solicitors affected and who bank with HSBC may I be bold enough to suggest that it might be a time for a change!


Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk