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, 

Do we really need conveyancing awards?

We are about to enter the season of conveyancing awards and in this article I consider the question of whether we should view this as ‘silly season’ or a season to recognise and celebrate the success of those who are held out to be to be best conveyancers in the Country. 

I must start by admitting that I was persuaded last year to enter my business into one of the national competitions.  I was reluctant to do so but decided  I had nothing to lose apart from some time and a relatively small entrance fee.  

Surprisingly we  were shortlisted for a prize and our expectations were raised  but only to be dashed on the day of the awards when speaking to others at the awards dinner that we were told  that  we stood no chance whatsoever  of winning.  This naivety was soon revealed as correct when the winners were announced.  It seemed the seasoned entrants had an uncanny skill of predicting the winners!

Not to  be deterred and having a stubborn streak to prove everybody else wrong we entered the same competition this year and as secretly anticipated on enquiring ( and  after having received no prior notice ) we were told that we had not made the shortlist.  

So how are the ‘winners’ chosen?   

One might expect there is a call out of the blue to say your business has been nominated by a number of satisfied clients and you then turn up at the awards ceremony to see if you have won.   Not quite.   Instead you have to sign up and pay a fee.  You then have to complete an application form to say how fantastic you are and why you consider you should win the award.  This is then followed by a telephone interview involving an interviewer who has the status of a conveyancing expert.  You are asked questions and are rated on your performance.  There then follows a ‘secret shopper’ call.  Its only one call so if your new business team are not on the ball on that one occasion you will lose points. The experts then meet to choose a winner.  The experts are chosen by the organisers and come from various different areas of the conveyancing spectrum. 

A simple format and one that can be easily manipulated especially if you are fortunate to have a good PR team on hand.  A team that can help you with the application form and can brief the partner or director who will be involved in the interview. As for the mystery shopper, most businesses are good at getting new work in and whether or not the response to the mystery shopper is good or bad it really is not the most informative means of assessing the ability or otherwise of the business to undertake conveyancing work. 

This leads me to the question - how can you objectively conclude that one business is better than all of the other businesses if a) not all of the other businesses enter, and b) there is no engagement with the clients who must clearly be in the better position to express a view on the level of service offered. I acknowledge that the assessment carried out can help to see if a business is focused and committed to providing a quality service but its hardly a means of identifying a business which offers a quality conveyancing service better than others in that particular region.  There is a difference. 

At the end of the day the question one must ask is does it really make any difference or indeed matter who wins these awards.  Can those who come away with the kudos of an award say with any validity that it has led to an increase in work.  Most clients these days are won at grass root level, recommendation and or price.  Saying you were the regional winner of some national award from a company which has no meaning whatsoever to the consumer is unlikely to have any real influence.  Its about pride and the massaging of egos and nothing else. 

So if Heineken was running an awards ceremony how would they approach it.   On a practical level it would probably prove problematic.   My view is that a criteria based on client feedback, efficiency and staff morale levels would be a good start.  Being a good conveyancer is not about how well your PR machine might be, its about efficiency, speed, safety in terms of compliance and client satisfaction. 

As long as there are egos around there will always be companies around to exploit that hunger for recognition and for that reason the phenomenon of winning awards will always be an attraction.  For those who work hard, make a decent profit from efficient processes and who know from feedback that clients are happy and are returning, the message must be carry on as you are and do not lose sleep when you next read about business X winning a national conveyancing award.   

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

Veyo - A Change in Strategy

It seems the guys at Veyo are now listening to feedback and taking what appears to be a different course with product development.  The news comes following a recent presentation made by Veyo.

The presentation was given by Paul Humphreys Veyo’s Programme Director. Some new and interesting information came to light during the session.  

It was already known that Veyo has a budget of around 10 million pounds but what was not clear was how much of the fund had been expended so far.  Though no figure was disclosed it was revealed that it is estimated the funding will only last until 2017 at which point Veyo will need to be self funding.  It seems they employ 95 people with 25 based in the UK.  There are a staggering 45 developers employed on the project. 

The aim is still to launch in Spring 2015 but there will no integration with CMS until 2016.  Until then the method of data entry will be  manual. 

Despite the indication given before Christmas, Veyo claims it will not compete with other CMS suppliers. 

Mr Humphreys explains that they no have a modern approach to sharing data which is necessary for CMS and other suppliers to integrate with Veyo, although the the data exchange system has yet to be designed.  Veyo would like to see the spec for this to be agreed between the LSSA (or individual suppliers if necessary) over the next 3 or 4 months. 

Following this there will be a development period and then a testing period after which suppliers could write their own integrations into the Veyo platform. Realistically, Veyo accepted that they would not expect any CMS suppliers to be ready to deliver an integrated product for a least 9 months from today. Veyo claim that whilst its system will work without CMS integration it will work better with it.

Again, despite the massive investment, and 45 developers, there was still no demonstration of the system (although they are apparently in a test phase now).  

An outline of  headline features was however given . Perhaps the two key features were that Veyo would store the data for both sides of a transaction (with appropriate security) and they also wanted to display the “chain view” so a client can see all of the transactions in the chain. Uncanny that this is what I was suggesting should happen when Veyo first announced its arrival.  There was a clear need for a unique identity and it seems that this may now be what is happening with this change in course.  

Interestingly however, Mr Humphrys was not suggesting that lawyers should use their system where they have a solution from another suppliers. He said they may wish to use it where existing suppliers don't have the ability to do it. It is unclear what he meant by this as if it offers a unique chain data view then why would lawyers not wish to use it along side their existing CMS?

Still no news however on pricing! 

Veyo said it is proposing a flexible pricing structure which will consist of a licence fee and a transaction fee but the details of this have not been announced yet. Nor have they formed an opinion on how CMS suppliers and others should integrate with Veyo commercially. 

They are talking to lenders about Veyo but there is no suggestion that lenders would mandate the use of this over any other portal at this point.  Still no views on where the lender aspect to Veyo will fit in given the stronghold Lender Exchange has in this area. 

Veyo was asked about the number of users they anticipate will sign up  and in response all they could say is that they were pleased with the large number of pre-registrations on their websites.   No contract signing will take place until March. I suspect the number of registered lawyers will when fall far short of actual  users with much depending on the eagerly waited announcement on price. 

This sudden though not unexpected change of direction will be welcomed.  The arrogance or self denial which prevailed seems to have left and it is encouraging that Veyo despite claiming they had consulted with the legal technology industry has now made a commitment to do this.  There is no doubt lawyers and those like myself who have an interest in the project have helped to  guide Veyo onto a less rocky road. 

The empathise has moved away from the case management aspects of their system though this may turn out to be a cynical move to get other CMS suppliers on board.  It must be kept in mind that until integration with CMS can commence users of Veyo would need to fall back in the CMS within Veyo. This may lead to some users sticking with Veyo. 

The lack of a clear message on how users might wish to use the system when they already have invested in a CMS still seems lacking. Veyo appear to be saying that some users may wish to use aspects of Veyo that their current CMS do not provide.   Interestingly they are not proposing to charge a lower fee for this reduced usage. 

I suspect they are thinking here of the ‘Chain View’ which is now the USP of the system.  A good idea.  There still however remains an issue as we all know a chain is as strong as its weakest link. If it is not mandatory for all lawyers to be part of Veyo the chain will simply breakdown and become worthless.  Also what is there to prevent other CMS suppliers not building a chain view component of their own.  This would be at no additional cost to the user and would then render Veyo redundant to their existing users.  

The jury is still out I am afraid.  If I was a shareholder in Mastek however, I would still despite this change in approach be asking some probing questions about the level of investment and future expenditure in a product which stills seems to struggling to find a commercially viable identity different to that of existing and well established CMS suppliers.  

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

Reconstructing your conveyancing practice

Moving to a new conveyancing approach with technology at its heart, which allows you to keep track of any transaction at any time - and potentially involves lawyers for the other side - is a painful but necessary process, says David Pett as he shares his own recent experience:

Read Here: http://bit.ly/1gQGbSr

Conveyancing process needs urgent reform

What can be done to make moving home faster and less expensive?  

This is a burning question and one that has yet to be addressed by Government despite the fact we currently face a major housing crisis and a situation where first time buyers are finding it increasing difficult and expensive to find a home.  The problem facing the first time buyer is likely to increase shortly with the withdrawal of the stamp duty concession and the forthcoming changes to how mortgages will operate in the future.

A brave Labour Government sought changes, the first since 1925, with the introduction of the doomed home information pack, but this was shot down in a blaze of glory by the Coalition Government when it came to power in May 2010.  Unfortunately in the rush to score political points no one seemed to care that by removing this attempt of reform it left the door open once again for the return of the problems associated with aborted transactions, increased costs and delay.

In fact, we are still left with an antiquated process and one that cries out for immediate reform.  The question is whether the current Government has the courage and inclination to do anything about it. 

So where do the problems lie?

Disclosure

As the law currently stands it is for the buyer to do most of the running around and to ask the seller questions because the duty to discover any problems with the property rests with the buyer.  There is no duty on the seller to volunteer adverse information about the property unless asked.  This means we have this bizarre process of having to ask the seller a series of questions hoping that all of the right questions are raised.   This is often a long and protracted process and one that could be avoided if the seller was required to bear all about the property to be sold.  This could be through thee completion of forms/questionnaires, documents that could be completed when the property is first placed on the market.  

Why not get the estate agent to ask the seller to complete the form and to make this available to prospective buyers.  At least the buyer could then decide on whether a survey would be needed.  All of this would take place before the lawyer is instructed and would save so much time.

Some may argue this is a ‘HIP”.  No it is not.  There is no added expense for the seller or the buyer. The seller simply completes a form knowing due to a change in the law that the duty to disclose rests with him or her and this forms part of the marketing process.   It would save time, it would save money as the transaction could proceed that much quicker and it would mean both seller and buyer standing far more chance of completing the transaction than they do at present.

Searches

Before the days of the HIP there were often delays in procuring searches.   Due to the shake up of Councils caused by the introduction of the HIP, most Councils have streamlined and improved service levels.   On top of this, personal search companies following the collapse of the HIP have faced a drop in demand for searches and this has led to increased competition and a vast improvement in the time it takes to deliver search results.

Search related delay is therefore uncommon.

However it is a bizarre situation that each time a property is sold a buyer is required when purchasing with a mortgage to order new searches.   This is often costly.  Often the cost of the search package is more than the fee charged by the solicitor!

In a time when the majority of the land in this Country is registered at the Land Registry would it not make sense for information on water and sewage and environmental issues to be noted on the Land Registry Title Document so that future buyers could see that at the outset and decide whether to ask the suppliers of the information whether there has been any change to the data since it was first supplied?   The cost of checking would be far cheaper than having to order a new search each time the property is transacted.

The same could apply to planning and building regulation data requiring this also to be noted on the Register the first time a property is sold and the data is disclosed.  How many times have property lawyers had to run around after planning and building regulation documents. 

On this subject if lenders could make it clear that they are not interested in planning and building documents which relate to matters of over 15 years in age this would also save time and money.  Some simple changes to the law to make it clear that no liability can arise on planning and building regulation breaches after a set period of time would put an end to this ridiculous and unnecessary paper chase.

Title defects

There will always be the occasional problem with title that needs to be addressed through insurance.  Why is it not possible that when the effect is found and insurance is taken out that there is not a requirement on the purchaser to register the insurance details at the Land Registry?  This would in terms of future due diligence save time and money and also avoid a future purchaser who may not have had the original policy passed to him or her, having to take out and pay for a fresh policy.  

Mortgages

Obtaining a mortgage offer once the mortgage is approved is no longer a reason for delay.  Most buyers receive their mortgage offer very early in the process.  The reason for this is that the lenders are issuing far less offers than they were before and therefore the paperwork of those mortgages they take on is coming through much faster.

Client Delay

Clients who sell have quiet a bit of paperwork to complete and it always amazes me that responsibility of over seeing this rests with the lawyer.  I am not sure why the selling agent could not ask the seller to complete these when the agent is engaged. It would save a lot of time and would quicken the process.

Solicitor delay

I always tell my clients that I can only be as fast as the slowest solicitor in the chain.   It is frustrating when you do as much as you can to progress a transaction only to find the solicitor acting for the other party is not responding or taking too much time to respond.

What can be done to improve this?  Very little though in a climate where lender panel membership is of importance to the survival of most conveyancers perhaps lenders will in the future take a closer look at the activity and performance of panel members and be more inclined to remove members where there is evidence of   repeated ineptness.

Conclusion

I accept a change in the law to reverse the maxim of ‘buyer beware’ would involve a radical switch, however by doing this the whole process would be far more transparent, quicker and cheaper.    It would lead to the front loading of information on a sale and if the requirement to register search data at the Land Registry along with title defect insurance was also introduced this would mean a prospective buyer would have to hand before an offer is made all the information he or she would need in making an offer and thereafter engaging a solicitor.

The cost of obtaining the title information, a cost which is already met by the seller may increase due to the extra data recorded and supplied, but this would easily be off set by the saving on not having to order full searches and reduced conveyancing fees due to a more streamlined service.

What are the chances of this happening?  Remote I would say as there is too much vested interest in the process as it presently operates and you also have a Government that says on the one hand it wishes to reduce bureaucracy and save costs, whereas on the other hand it has clearly stated it is not keen on introducing regulation that could hamper an already ailing property market.   It seems to have little appetite to interfere with the process. 

So it looks as if we may be facing another 100 years of operating a slow, costly and totally unfit for purpose  home moving process.   

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

Merry Christmas

We would like to take the opportunity to wish all of the followers of our Blog a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year and to invite you all to take some time out to read our Christmas Newsletter which you can find HERE

All the best from the team at MJP Solicitors in Norwich - have a good one!

Solicitors face rise in professional indemnity premiums

There was an interesting article in Mortgage Strategy recently which caught my attention. The article predicted that around 50% of Lloyd’s customers could fall victim to negative equity if property prices decline by a further 10-15%. If this is correct then as is happening in Southern Ireland institutional lenders will inevitably be seeking recovery from somewhere or someone when they begin to suffer loss.  In Southern Ireland it is known that Conveyancing now counts for 70% of all professional indemnity insurance claims.

What is happening in the background should be taken seriously particularly at a time when many solicitors are now looking to renew their professional indemnity cover.

There is no doubt that premiums will rise.

The problem practitioners’ face is that there is a complete and total lack of transparency within the professional indemnity insurance arena.  Many of us are asked to complete quite detailed risk assessment documents. These are required by the insurers to that they can access the risk each firm presents and to then tailor a quote accordingly.

The problem is that when completing these forms there is little understanding on how an answer to a particularly question will affect the risk assessment and consequently the size of the premium to be paid. There is no guidance within the proposal form or risk assessment form that helps to understand how risk is assessed.

Knowing how membership of one particular accreditation scheme can affect the level of premium is important because it will encourage firms to invest time and money into obtaining ‘badges’ of this type.

Surely it is in the interests of the insurers to be transparent to make it clear what percentage reduction certain actions will result in so that all of us can then do all that we can to make sure those actions are taken in the  knowledge that this will result in lower premiums in the future.

I question what the Law Society is doing to assist in brining pressure on insurers to make this information available. Our insurer broker mentioned that being a member of the Conveyancing Quality Scheme is of importance but could not say whether it would actually result in a significant reduction in future premiums.

The other issue I have with insurance is that there are so many brokers out there looking for your business but the majority of these are tied in with certain insurance companies. Surely this must present a conflict of interest and not always lead to the best deal.

It would be better use of Law Society resources if it took the time to review and investigate this market and to bring in measures to improve the situation for practitioners who are for the majority of the time working very much in the dark.  Is this likely to happen?  No.

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

Leading Clinical Negligence Practice appoints new equity partner

Leading Norfolk based Clinical Negligence practice Morgan Jones and Pett has today announced the appointment of Sara Westwood as a new equity partner.

Sara joined the firm as a Trainee Solicitor in January 1996 with an Upper Second Class Honors Degree from London Guildhall University.  She qualified in February 1998 and became a salary partner in April 2001. She is a member of the Law Society's Clinical Negligence Panel and a Senior Litigator with APIL.

Announcing the appointment David Jones, Senior Partner at MJP, told staff:

‘’Today I am so very proud to announce that Sara joins the firm as an equity partner, the first in the firm’s 37 year history.  The firm recognised Sara’s many qualities from day one and all that she would bring to the firm. There is no substitute for a person who progresses through the ranks of the business, working from top to bottom, and now that Sara’s place in the future of the firm is secure, I find it tremendously reassuring’’

Sara is a senior litigator within the firm’s clinical negligence team and has in recent months handled several high profile clinical negligence cases. 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 sarawestwood@m-j-p.co.uk

How do I find a good estate agent?

There are good and there are bad Estate Agents.  There are Estate Agents that are helpful and there are other Agents who inadvertently cause delay. Finding a good Estate Agent is therefore not an easy task.  In this article I provide some tips which I hope will help you find an Agent who will provide you with a good service and one commensurate with the fee that they charge. 

The Estate Agent will charge a fee according to the value of the property to be sold and this varies from 1% up to 3%.  This is different from how Solicitors charge as most will quote a fixed fee for the work which more often than not is tied in with the value of the property.  The fee of the Solicitor often therefore represents a very small proportion of the fee that you will be required to pay the Agent for marketing your property.

The tips I have are as follows:

Shop around as there is quite a variance in the rates charged by Agents and there are a number of online Agents who now offer their services for a fixed fee.

Don’t be tempted to place your instructions with the Agent who is offering the lowest fee.  There may be a number of reasons why the Agent is not charging a fee in line with other Agents and one of which may be that the Agent will not advertise your property as much as one that is charging a greater fee. 

Indeed it is important to find out at the beginning how often the Agent guarantees that your property will appear in the local paper and also whether or not it will be listed on Right Move’s website or other similar portals. It is important to get some form of commitment from the Agent as to the extent and length of the exposure your property will receive.

Most Agents keep details of the properties they have sold each month and it may help if you ask for these details to be made available to you before you make your decision.

Does the Agent offer any online access to their service so that you can check on progress outside normal working hours?

The Agent may be open to agreeing a split commission arrangement with you which enables you to pay more if contracts are exchanged within the specified period and less if it takes longer to find a buyer. 

If the Agent refers you to a Solicitor it is important to ask whether there is any arrangement that exists between that Agent and the Solicitor whereby the Agent receives a referral fee.  The reason for this is that if a referral fee is paid then the solicitor to whom you are referred will need to disclose this and it is important to know because sometimes the Solicitor may look to add this referral fee onto the fee you are charged.

It is important that you always get an agreement from the Agent in writing and to check all the terms and conditions before the agreement is signed.  It may be advisable only to agree to a short period of time for marketing because if the Agent doesn’t perform then you will be safe to instruct another Agent.

If you do instruct another Agent it is important to read the small print because some agents even after you have left them still reserve the right to charge a fee if it can be subsequently shown that it was as a result of that Agents promotion that a buyer was found.  My advice therefore is that if you move Agents you get a letter from the other Agent to confirm that there is no longer a right to raise a fee.

On the whole Agents can be very helpful during the course of the conveyancing transaction.  However, they can create unnecessary delay because of constant requests for updates from the Solicitor you instruct.  At the end of the day you are instructing the Solicitor not the Agent and therefore it is important that you tell the Agent that they should not contact your Solicitor without first seeking your prior consent.

The Agent will be expected to be paid by the Solicitor once your house is sold. If for any reason you do not wish for the Agent to be paid or you would rather pay the Agent yourself it is important to tell both the Agent and your Solicitor in advance of completion. 

Once the sale particulars have been prepared and sent to you for approval it is important for you to read through these carefully as mistakes can often occur. The statements contained in those sales particulars are often relied on by the purchaser and if there is anything therefore that is not correct it is important for this to be pointed out straight away.

Feel free to consult with a Solicitor before you market your property because local Solicitors often know who the good Agents and may be able to help you find an Agent through recommendation.

At the end of the day you are paying quite a substantial sum for the service and it is for this reason that you should always do your homework and shop around and perhaps also seek recommendations from friends, family and work colleagues before making your decision. 

If you would like to find out how we recommend within the Norfolk area feel free to email me as I am more than happy to assist.

 David Pett.  Solicitor and Partner davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk 

Legal aid under threat for clinical negligence claims - Appeal for Help

Keith Simpson MP

David Jones has specialsed in Clinical negligence cases for 27 years on behalf of legally aided clients is meeting with Keith Simpson MP on the 1st July, 20011 to discuss the Governments radical plans to change the way legal costs are dealt with impacting significantly on the future of legal aid.

If you have a point of view why legal aid should be retained or even extended, please email davidjones@m-j-p.co.uk or call David on 01603877000

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

Is property indemnity insurance over used in conveyancing?

There seems to be a tendency these days to take the easy route whenever a problem with title arises.  Rather than carrying out investigation to inquire whether an alternative solution exists, an increasing number of conveyancers are turning to indemnity insurance to ‘plug the hole’.

I can understand the reason.  Conveyancing fees are being squeezed and there is pressure to move transactions quickly and with the minimum of case handler input.   On top of this is the increased pressure we all receive from clients to ensure there is minimum delay during the process.   Clients generally have only two priorities when moving home - to move quickly and at little cost.

It is often easier for a practitioner to ask the client to pay for the indemnity policy than to ask for extra fees to investigate other solutions.

I question however whether taking out indemnity cover is always the right decision to take.  Take for example the lack of building regulations.   Yes insurance is available to cover the cost of enforcement action but this does not address whether the loft conversion for instance is structurally safe.  I recognize this should be pretty evident to most of us but there is wide spread ignorance of cover afforded by indemnity policies.

In my view insurance should be viewed as a ‘last resort’ solution and one that should only be used after investigations of other solutions are at an end.  Yes this would mean extra work but if the reason for this is explained then there should not be any problem obtaining money from the client.  

Conveyancers should always check the terms and limitations of policy cover; failure to do so could result in a negligence action.  Conveyancers should also when a lender is involved consider the policy of the particular lender relating to the use of such policies.  If a policy already exists always check it against the current valuation of the property and consider if necessary top up insurance.

My other issue with indemnity policy is that there is no register to check whether a policy on a property has been previously established.   It would not take too much for the Land Registry to make it a requirement that policies activated on a property should be noted on the title.

Perhaps another answer is the adoption of a property logbook – as a firm we have developed an electronic logbook into which we upload for clients all documents (including the indemnity policy) relating to the property and which they will need when they come to sell.  We also include a loyalty voucher to ensure as best we can that the client comes back to us in the future.  If anybody wishes to know more about this product please feel free to email me

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