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

Open Letter to the President of the Law Society - Conveyancing Fees

Open Letter to the President of the Law Society - Chancery Lane, London

Dear Sir,

I am a practitioner who manages a practice which provides residential conveyancing services to clients nationwide.  

I have over the past 5 years worked hard to introduce efficiencies as well as measures to combat the increasing risks which continue to arise.  Much of the work has centred around the development of an ‘in house’ risk and case management system.  I along with my co-directors have invested a large amount of time and money to ensure we have a business which can compete with larger conveyancing practices and which more importantly can offer our clients a safe and efficient service.  It has not been easy and apart from an understanding Bank we have had no help or support whatsoever  from the Law Society or any other body.  

Instead we have had to adjust and  show complete flexibility to accommodate the ever increasing flow of regulatory and compliance hurdles thrown our way.   As conveyancers we are required to fund not only our own overheads but also the cost of money laundering checks and the long list of statutory and  other compliance requirements.  Indeed we have had to employ one person who spends all of her time watching out for changes and making sure these are applied within our practices. Tracking as we do the number of hours we spend on each type of transaction it is clear that the hourly rate we receive from providing a good and reliable service is barely above that paid to our office cleaner! 

It never gets any easier, and indeed  if there is at the end of the day any profit left  within a conveyancing transaction it is almost lost in discharging these obligations and taking out PII insurance.  The  financial pressure this imposes is highlighted in a an article which appears on your Small Firms Division website written by Mark Carver : ‘Conveyancing - is the reward worth the risk?’

In this article  Mr Caver makes the following salient observations:

‘In real terms, solicitors are earning less now than they did 10 years ago from conveyancing, with average fees increasing by 36.5 per cent – significantly less than standard inflation for the same period (40.63 per cent). This is in stark contrast to estate agents, who have clearly benefited from the increase in property prices as their earnings are linked to the sale price, and to a lesser extent, surveyors, whose fees have increased above the level of inflation’

‘Not only are solicitors getting paid less for conveyancing than in 2004, but the potential risk is significantly higher, driven primarily by an increase in property prices’

‘Even firms fortunate enough not to experience a conveyancing claim should be aware that approximately £100 of an average conveyancing fee will contribute towards professional indemnity insurance premium for the transaction’.

These are findings which do not come as a surprise but are still nonetheless alarming and must on any interpretation be viewed as a stern warning.   Unless something is done, and done soon, to address the imbalance between fee income and the increasing risk,  high street conveyancers like ourselves will, despite our efforts, be condemned to history. 

Its shocking that through inactivity and unnecessary distraction in projects like Veyo the Law Society has allowed this situation to continue  unaddressed for so long.   The time has now come for action to be taken to reverse this trend and to make sure that conveyancing is not seen as a worthless and inferior profession.  

So some questions for you to answer please.

How much has the Law Society invested in Veyo?

Was any thought given at the time Veyo was conceived about spending the money on forming a strategy to  see how the difference in value attached to the fees of a professional conveyancer and those of estate agent and other  property professionals could be addressed? 

Why is that as a profession  our indemnity insurance is one of the highest when compared to other professionals?

Do you consider  the Law Society has discharged its duty to its members by failing to protect its members who undertake conveyancing  from suffering a severe erosion in the level of their fees at a time when the burden of compliance and other risk management has increased substantially?

Finally, what do you intend to do to make sure action is taken to address this concern?

Yours, 

Success Story for East Anglian based Legal Practice

Legal 500 Norwich based legal Practice, MJP Solicitors, will soon be following the path taken by many of the Country’s leading lawyers by incorporating their business as a Limited Company.

From 1^st May MJP Solicitors will be creating two new companies – MJP Limited and MJP ConveyancingLimited – with the view to add strength to their already successful national clinical negligence and conveyancing services.

They will be part of a growing trend of legal practices taking steps to bring their business into line with modern day thinking on taxation and succession issues. 

According to Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) figures, 2,400 of the 10,973 law firms as of July 2012 were incorporated companies, compared to 1,898 a year before – a rise of 26%.

This move comes on the back of a very successful year for MJP who have seen their profits treble through the expansion of their clinical negligence and conveyancing offerings.  

David Jones, head of the MJP clinical negligence team, explains how despite the recent withdrawal of public funding and some of the worst trading conditions in the business’ history, he has seen business go from strength to strength:

“Trying to anticipate trends and careful forward planning has been the key.   This coupled with an investment in IT of over £80K and some focused marketing has helped us retain a national reputation in helping families all of the country with the consequences of surgical and treatment failures”. 

He adds:

“Many clinical negligence lawyers receive a bad press, but what is often overlooked is how lawyers like us have helped to provide a good and rewarding quality of life to many victims who through no fault of their own have suffered life changing injuries.   I also believe that due to our work we have helped to raise standards within the health service industry.

Commenting on the recent withdrawal of public funding and welfare reforms, Mr Jones remains upbeat:

‘Gaining access to legal services of the type we provide will be more difficult but we have several options and ideas on offer which will ensure that we will remain highly accessible to victims who wish to seek advice and support from our team of specialists.

Another part of the success story has been high level of growth in the property division of the business.  

“ We have over the past 12 months moved over 5000 clients”, states Head of Residential Property, David Pett. He adds “that despite the slowdown in the property market, we have seen over the past 18 months, the level of completed transactions increase from around 20 to over 200 each month.

Much of the success for this lies with the “in house’ creation of an online tracking and property log book IT system.   This allows estate agents and clients to track the progress of the transaction and with our unique Property Log Book we have been able to offer our clients added value to accompany a very competitive fee structure”.

Looking forward there exists, as Mr Pett explains, a positive plan for growth:

“We continue to recruit new staff and are already looking to expand the business further through careful acquisition decisions. We are on the constant look out for other providers of property related legal services that may be looking to be part of the exciting plans we have for the future.   Our aim is to be one of the largest providers of conveyancing services in this region within the next 5 years”.

MJP Solicitors – contact DavidPett on 01603 887067 for further information

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

Dont let romance blind you when buying a home!

I have acted for many first time homebuyers and as you would expect many of these clients have had to make significant financial sacrifices to save money for a deposit.  For many of these clients their heads are very much in the clouds. The romance of living and owning a home together for the very first time makes it difficult to discuss and provide advice on the financial implications of what is clearly a major life changing decision.

In a number of these cases advice has to be given because one partner may be putting more money into the transaction than the other. It is not uncommon for the deposit to be as much as 30% of the purchase price and for this to be funded by savings accumulated before the couple met. This is not of course an arrangement confined to the first time buyers.  There are also clients who are for example looking to buy a property with a new partner following death, separation or divorce.

The common thread is that at this point in time the relationship may be at an early stage and the buyers are only really concerned about the immediate future, and not what might lie ahead.

In general, couples purchasing a home instruct me that they wish to purchase the property as “joint tenants”. The significance of this is that if one of the partners were to die then the share of the profit in the property would automatically pass to the other partner, even if the deceased partner makes a different provision in his or her will.  A Court would not be able to interfere in that arrangement even if the deceased partner had contributed more towards the purchase of the property when it was originally purchased.

Even though it is often an unpalatable exercise I always advise my clients that they should think about whether it would still be their wish for their share to pass to the other in the event of death or separation.  More than often they shrug their shoulders and I am greeted with a perplexed look.

There are times however when I am instructed to set up the way in which the property is bought so as to provide for the equity (money left over after the mortgage and fees are paid) in the property once it is sold, to be divided on an unequal and predetermined basis.

If one party for example put 2/3 of the money forward for the deposit and the other the remaining 1/3 then they might instruct me to ensure that the property is held in such a way so as to provide that 70% of the equity/profit in the property goes to one, and 30% of it goes towards the other.

There are also three or four other different ways in which unequal contributions can be recorded and it is therefore important that if you are in this situation and seeking advice that you ask your solicitor to explain these options to you. The way in which the division of the proceeds is expressed at the outset can have quite a substantial bearing on the financial outcome in the event of a future sale.

Even though your solicitor may try and persuade you to look beyond the romance of owning your first home together you may still decide even though unequal contributions are made, for the property to be held jointly. This is understandable. There is however a half way house in that you can instruct your solicitor to record that you are holding the property as joint tenants but that if anything happens in the future, and one of you decides that you want to serve notice to say to the other to say this arrangement should no longer apply, that the net process should then be divided in accordance with shares predetermined at the point of purchase.

I am happy as ever to answer any questions you might have about this or any aspect of property transactions. Please feel free to email me at my email address shown below.

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

Have you heard the one about the lawyer, accountant, banker and of course the Legal Services Act?

Put a group of lawyers, accountants and bankers together mix in some good food and drink and with a bit of luck you will generate an evening of lively debate. 

This is exactly what happened when I was invited along to a dinner hosted by a high street bank and a nationally known firm of accountants.   The purpose of the informal gathering was to debate the future of the legal profession in the light of the never-ending changes and challenges that lie ahead.

Putting to one side the countless opportunity seized by many to self congratulate, and ignoring in the main the sales pitch by the hosts, I was intrigued, and indeed surprised, by the differing views around the table on the changes that will occur once the Legal Services Act is fully implemented in October.

By way of background, many of the lawyer participants were from medium sized firms leaving my firm as the only three-partner firm in attendance.  The majority of these firms have in recent times become LLPs and much of the discussion (the dull part) centred on how these firms have put in place corporate structures to provide management. One firm was smitten about its decision a couple of years ago to bring in some high flyer from London to take on the role of Chief Executive.

Listening to these firms it occurred to me that many were so embroiled in trying to emanate the larger City firms they had to a large extent become oblivious to the bigger picture.  It may have been professional pride getting in the way but not one of these firms seemed in any way perturb by the inevitable challenges that will arise with the full implementation of the Legal Services Act.  One of the representatives actually popped up and announced that there was nothing to worry about! He expanded on this by saying like many of these ‘things’ it will all blow over!

I am not sure whether this reflects arrogance or a reckless disregard of the threats.  Perhaps it’s a bit of both.   The most worrying aspect was that the view expressed had the support of the majority of the legal attendees.  It was clear however that the banks and accountants are not so confident. There was much discussion around the table on how banks are beginning to tighten the screw on legal practices.   Firms with working capital deficiencies and succession issues now seem to be regarded as ‘high risk’.

The sudden change of fortune for  a certain large Manchester based practice that was forced into liquidation and the ramifications for its bankers, has clearly made banks look more closely at the balance sheets of law firms.  Add to this the uncertain future many high street firms face with increased competition and Jackson and the future does not look too good, particularly for the smaller firms.

The time to take ones head out of the sand and to give recognition to the threats posed by national brands with deep pockets to fund marketing is now. It is a sad indictment, and a very worrying one, that there are still a large number of lawyers out there who have yet to take any steps to protect those services that will inevitably become post Legal Services Act commoditised. These will include conveyancing, wills and personal injury.  We already know that SAGA, AA and the Co-Operative have plans to market services direct to the public, and more recently Quality Solicitors has agreed a deal with WH Smith to allow representatives to be in store to provide legal advice.

However wonderful we may believe we are, the fact is that those with legal problems who once would come through our doors, will without doubt be lured away with the power of national advertising and the attraction of low fees and perhaps even ‘club points’.  We live in a world where money is sparse, where people are looking to make cut backs in spending, to believe as some do that a good quality service will always ensure a client’s return, is, delusional.  Client loyalty is about to face its biggest ever test.

So you might ask what are we doing to prepare.  We are looking to establish a local co-operative to produce resources to run a campaign to keep work local and to look at ways of sharing services to reduce overheads.   The scheme has the backing of local banks and accountants have designed the financial model.  I am sure it will work and prove successful, however if it does not at least I can say that we have tried to do something.  Doing nothing cannot be an option.

Back to the dinner…. Great food and a fantastic insight into how divided our profession has become.

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