Veyo - A Trojan Horse?

The Veyo PR train continues to gain momentum with the bold announcement the week of attracting ‘orders’ in its yet to be released on line case management system from ’47 %’ of the conveyancing fraternity. 

Talking in the Law Society publication - Law Society Gazette - Stefanie van den Haak, commercial director of Veyo, said: ’The number of enquiries since the pricing was announced has been phenomenal but we are not complacent. We know we are offering something that is unique and we need to continue to promote our USPs. We are keen that conveyancers see for themselves that there is nothing comparable in the market.’

Going on record, and claiming such a significant number of potential customers is a bold step, and one which will either herald the onset of a conveyancing revolution or the start of a slippery slope for those investors behind the product, which includes of course the Law Society.   Ten million of pounds is a large sum of money to gamble, and on top of this also lies the professional reputation o a body which has been representing  and governing the interests of solicitors since 1875. 

So where does the truth lie?  Are conveyancers flocking to offer support for the product or is it the consequence of a well managed and orchestrated PR machine?  There is no doubt that Veyo has succeeded in the promotion of its brand as well as making Veyo a hot topic for discussion.   Hats off to Miss Vanden Haak and her team.  Even though much of the discussion has focused on negative features of the product, the fact is that any publicity whether it be good or bad must be a welcome outcome for Veyo.   

So in answer to the question, I very much doubt that half of the conveyancing businesses in the Country have ‘signed up’ or even at the very least registered an interest with Veyo.  I suggest the  claim is nothing other than ‘sales talk’ designed to appeal to our inherent sheep  gene.   If there is any truth in the figure it must represent a measure of the level of curiosity that  clearly  exists. Its out there in abundance. Curiosity however is one thing, from an investors point view hard cash is all that counts.  

One must also question the perimeters of the basis on which the claim is made.  The Land Registry has over 7000 firms registered with conveyancing interest.  So does this mean Veyo has received firm orders from over 3000 businesses?  I say ‘orders’ because this is how it was stated in the press release. Sounds fanciful, but clearly would if true, represent an epic achievement on the part of Veyo’s sales team.  

One should also ask how many completions do these 47% of conveyancing businesses produce each year, and what percentage of the overall completions number for all firms does this represent.  Keep in mind that the top 200 conveyancing business have around a 36% to 40% share of the market. 

I can understand why there is a need  for the statement to be made when the commercial success of Veyo hinges precariously on the products purported unique selling point.  Indeed Miss Vanden Haak makes specific reference to the importance of this in her statement.   So what is the USP?  Difficult to tell at this stage but it seems to centre around a ‘chain matrix’ and a ‘deal room’.   These features may explain why Veyo needs to convince us all that it already has accumulated critical mass since without this the product losses its USP.  It is as simple as that.  What is the point of singing up and parting with you hard earned cash if all you  are left with is an incomplete picture of a transactional chain?   The Land Registry spent  millions of pounds on a similar project which it then had to abandon in 2009 because of lack of interest. I am not sure why Veyo believes the market will take a different view now, especially when it will involve having to hand over money for the privilege. 

Only time will tell if the statement is true or not.  One thing is for sure that even with 47% of conveyancers as users this still means there are 53% who are currently not interested and unless these firms can be won over the platform and its USP will become meaningless.   

Just a thought.  If you were an investor in Veyo I am sure you would be thinking of Plan B to cover the prospect of the product nose diving.   It seems obvious to me that one plan B must be for Veyo to enter the market as a business offering a conveyancing service of its own. It already has the profile and brand awareness as well as, if you believe the hype, cut throat technology.  A trojan horse in the making.   The only thing that would prevent this from happening is its commercial tie with the Law Society.  Now that would be a story! 

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

Ten Reasons for the likely failure of Veyo

1.       Lack of Identity

I have made this point before, but despite the sea of negativity it has received, Veyo continues to be promoted without a clear and recognisable identity.  On one hand it says it is a case management system, but on the other, depending on the audience it is addressing, it says it is not. Despite recent announcements nobody, as far as I can see, is any the wiser as to what role Veyo will play in the conveyancing market when it is released. 

2.       Lack of USP

On the back of a lack of indemnity is the absence of a USP.  There is talk of a ‘Deal Room’ and of how this will promote collaboration between parties as well as a ‘Chain View’ allowing those involved in a chain to keep updated on progress of all of those involved in the chain of transactions.  A valid and brave objective, but how can it be sure that this will remain unique even if it proves practicable?  I know there are a number of well-established case management suppliers working hard at the moment to introduce similar features.  Once these become universal where will this leave the Veyo business model? Moreover, for this to prove to be a commercially successful USP, Veyo will need to see the vast majority of the 4,500 firms who undertake conveyancing to sign up to their promise of their conveyancing revolution.  Is that really going to happen? It will only take one party in the chain not to ‘buy in’ into the USP for the whole stack of cards to come crumbling down.

3.       Pricing

Why announce pricing before the product is available for viewing?   A £20 per transaction price tag seems on the face of it to be reasonable, but until we know what we will be getting for it, how can this be objectively judged. Furthermore, if this is going to be the price for both small and large providers, do Veyo really believe that the main players in the market are going to pay for a service over and above their existing services, which is unlikely in reality to add anything of real benefit?  The top five national conveyancers completed in January on around 7284 purchase/re-mortgage transactions (Land Registry Data). On top of this they would have also completed on around 3500 sale transactions.     So take as a monthly figure of transactions of 10,000, and apply to this the £20 transaction fee this would give a yearly financial commitment to Veyo if there were all to sign up, of a staggering £2400000.00!  How can this make commercial sense when for this money they could quite easily invest in similar enhancements to their existing systems!  The reality is that it will perhaps only be those who are doing a moderate amount of conveyancing work that may be persuaded to pay the fee.  The question is whether this type of take up would be enough to satisfy Veyo’s shareholders. Only the accumulation of critical mass will be its saviour.

4.       Not making the system free of charge

This ties in with three above, but represents a massive commercial mistake on the part of Veyo.  By making the system free, at least for a trial period, would have given practitioners the opportunity to evaluate the benefits of the system, and to be persuaded or otherwise by its features.  This would at least encourage those with curiosity to take a look.   Veyo could by making it free to join look to make money on the resale within the platform of third party services, by allowing for example search providers to offer the platform as an added value product. 

5.       Lack of reality on the  success of engagement with existing case management providers

Reality will dictate that existing case management suppliers will not sit back and allow Veyo to step in and eat into their market shares without a fight.  Why should they?  Until Veyo announces and clarifies the benefits of integration and offers to underwrite the cost of this, so that the practitioner has to pay for it, why would a CMS wish to hook up with the system of a competitor?  Unless I am missing something fundamental I just do not see how and why Veyo believes practitioners will be knocking the door down of their CMS providers to integrate.

6.       Underestimating the level of desire for practitioners to engage with forward looking technology.

If Veyo delivers what it says it will, is there a critical mass of conveyancers out there who will be prepared to change the way in which they work to encompass the vision of online collaboration and online engagement with clients and estate agents?  I doubt it.  Conveyancers are in the main traditionalists who, even if there was no charge for accessing the system, would still hesitate to sign up to a method of work which remains for a vast number, alien.   There needs to be major shift in outlook of use of technology,  which I do not consider currently exists within the profession. 

7.       Focusing too much on the consumer and not the practitioner

Much of the PR surround Veyo has focused on a campaign aimed at the consumer.  Veyo appear to be of the view that if they can present a picture to the consumer that Veyo will provide the answer to the dissatisfaction many consumers have about delay when selling and buying a property, this will force the consumer only to use a conveyancer who uses Veyo.  The logic behind this vision is that consumer demand will then leave conveyancers with no option but to buy into Veyo.  I believe this to be a misplaced vision because it is clear that although consumers would like to see transactions moving more quickly most home movers are more interested in factors like price, locality of the conveyancer and reputation.  I really can’t see a home mover turning down a quote from a competent conveyancer just because that conveyancer is not a customer of Veyo.  The Law Society should know from past campaigns involving its beloved CQS that there still remains an overwhelming proportion of home movers who have no idea what CQS stands for, let alone the benefits of engaging a firm who has the credential.

8.       Lack of clarity about mandating

Veyo continues to play its cards close to its chest on mandating and on the role it will adopt in the future in the delivery of the CQS accreditation.   There is one thing in life which has the effect of turning practitioners off and that is the thought of having to be forced to do something which they do not believe to be is in their best interests, or that of their clients.  Look at what happened to the mandating of home information packs and how the conveyancing industry rebelled against it.  No professional body should allow itself to make decisions about the affairs of their members which are commercially motivated.  Veyo has already said there will be no mandating but there remains scepticism and for as long as this remains there will clearly be a number of firms who will be holding back at this stage.

9.        Underestimating the future viability of Lender Exchange

Some may forget that we already have an established system used by the main lenders as a means of verifying panel members and for facilitating communication.   Veyo has said it is likely lenders will mandate Veyo.   By saying this they are blatantly ignoring the presence and success of the Lender Exchange and the fact that the lenders using it are probably tied into the system for a number of years in any event.   Unless Veyo can acquire critical mass in a very short time frame I really cannot see lenders contemplating the mandating of the system.  

10.     Arrogance  

    Practitioners need engagement to feel that they are part of something and have helped develop it.   Despite claims to the contrary Veyo has developed a product without meaningful recourse to the profession and the suppliers of CMS.   This has created a huge amount of resentment and negativity, and even though Veyo has started to open up and engage it may be the case that this has happened far too late in the day for the damage to be repaired.   Nobody likes arrogance and it will take some time this perception of Veyo’s approach to fade.  The golden question is that does Veyo have enough money in the bank to ride out the storm of negativity which continues to brew and blow strong.   

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

The Veyo revolution is a non-starter

I read recently that the Law Society joint venture Veyo intends to bring residential conveyancing into the 21^st century.    A revolution is on its way?  Well, this is what the Law Society would like us to believe.

So much so Veyo has and continues to spend a vast amount of money on its attempt to convince professionals and the homeowner that despite working within the tight constraints of an archaic conveyancing system, which has more or less remained untouched since the average weekly wage was about £5, its online portal with functions to allow a client to communicate with his or her solicitor without picking a phone up, will magically speed up the conveyancing process.

I am not sure whether its naivety or sheer arrogance on the part of those behind Veyo, but one thing is for sure, the product which has yet to materialise, is not, despite the claims to the contrary, a magic bullet to cure what are and continue to be a fundamental flaws with the home selling and buying process as well as the approach adopted by some conveyancers operating within it.

To be fair to Veyo there is a lot to be said for highlighting to some conveyancers that the time is now to ditch the pigeon post, to question whether there really is a need to operate with secretarial staff, and to provide a service which allows online collaboration between conveyancers and online interaction with the client.   

Not only are these changes essential to be able to compete with volume conveyancers they should also, per se, shout out as making complete financial sense.   Conveyancers who are looking to survive the constant onset of challenges must make these changes soon or face extinction.

The claims made by Veyo to the consumer that is holds the answer to the long delays and frustrations some home sellers and buyers experience are disingenuous in the extreme.     Yes, I accept there is a need for an improved and more transparent line of communication between those involved in the process especially with the client, but unless the philosophy and approach towards conveyancing changes no online portal on its own bring about the changes which are desperately needed to ensure both professionals and homebuyers/sellers are able to enjoy a less stressful conveyancing process.

There is no sign that with an election looming of any of any move by the main political parties to bring in changes to the conveyancing process.   The shambles surrounding the introduction and withdrawal of the Home Information Pack debacle has clearly taught politicians that changes to land law and processes is a total ‘no go’ area. There is no political appetite for change and we are therefore resigned to the fact that the system which we have is unlikely to be reformed probably for a further 100 years!

So where does this leave the homebuyer/seller? Is Veyo going to turn out to be the saviour, the consumer champion?   This is their idea though I suspect at best history will show it was the catalyst which the conveyancing industry needed to spark the fuse for long overdue enlightenment.

Veyo and other IT providers can provide the tools to assist the conveyancer to make changes, but what they cannot do is force some conveyancers into adopting the changes in their own processes and approach to work which are required before significant improvement will be seen.

So what is needed to start the revolution?

The starting point is the need to lose the legacy which holds a number of conveyancers back.   Just because it is the tradition do certain tasks in a particular way does not mean that way is the only way or is indeed financially efficient.  For example, we use our own in-house developed software to engage collaboratively with the client and the buyers solicitors when going through the additional enquiry process.  We invite clients and the solicitors to engage in the process.  Significantly we have no trouble with the client but looking to engage the buyers’ solicitors has proved far more problematic.  ‘Can we please ask you to send to us your replies on paper’, is often the response. Others say ‘we are unable to access the replies’, which is often code for ‘ We can’t be bothered to go on line to see the replies!’.

Another legacy is the long flowery letters which the dutiful secretary has painstakingly typed.  Why?  Lawyers should all be capable of writing in succinct and concise terms and what is the point of dictating and having typed information which can be standardised and communicated in template electronic notes? 

How may conveyancers scan their post and other written communication?  The cost of the scanner is reasonable and by operating with an electronic file is not as alien as some may believe. The problem is there is no mind set or ambition to change to explore innovation of this type.

Veyo at the end of the day has the right ambition and reflects the objectives and outlook of my business and many other ‘21^st century’ conveyancing operations, but unless there is a major sea change in the way in which the majority of other conveyancing business are run, the revolution it is promising is unlikely to materialise.   The reality is that Veyo and other innovative conveyancing portals are currently ahead of their time.

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

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

Veyo's Fundamental Flaws

The Law Society’s joint venture with Maestek UK has become a hot topic of conversation within the Legal Community and has in the main courted a great deal of  negative press from property practitioners.  The product to be delivered by Veyo is described on Veyo’s website as a ‘revolutionary home conveyancing portal’ offering to save practitioners ‘time and money’.  Speaking at a recent conveyancing conference Veyo’s Chief Executive, Elliott Vigar, announced that the launch of the product is still on schedule for spring of next year.

In this article I look to examine and discuss those areas of Veyo’s business model in which there is I believe some fundamental, and perhaps fatal, errors.

I must begin however with a disclaimer as well as a declaration of self-interest. I am not an expert in legal technology; though I must disclose that in 2011 I designed and built a risk and case management system (Quick Conveyance) with the help of one full time programmer.  The system was built on a ‘shoestring’ but has proved largely successful and has helped my business process around 30,000 transactions since it was launched.  The cost of building the developing the system (which boasts the majority of the features of Veyo) has been no more than the salary of a full time programmer.  Contrast this with the news that Veyo has and continues to consume millions of pounds of investment, not only in relation to build but also in marketing and promotion.

The first feature of the business model to consider, and an aspect which is pretty fundamental to any new business venture, is the question of identity.   Is Veyo a communication and compliance hub for the benefit of those who subscribe to the Law Society’s national Conveyancing Protocol, or is it a case management system for those undertaking conveyancing. Or is it both?  For any product to achieve successful traction in the market for which it is designed and promoted, it must be capable of being clearly understood by the target market.   Unfortunately from what has been disclosed and presented to date the message is far from clear.   At the recent Society of Licensed Conveyancer’s Conference held in Derby those representing Veyo (Des Hudson, former Law Society Chairman and Mr Vigar) were clearly confused.   In response to questions from practitioners it was clear that they themselves do not know whether they are entering the highly competitive market of legal case management systems, or whether they have a system which is designed to supplement existing case management systems.  From reading the literature and despite a clear statement from Veyo to the contrary, it seems obvious to everybody other than Veyo that they are offering nothing unique or different.  Veyo is a case management system which is no different from most of the other case management products out there and which are far better established.

So what would have I done differently?   To begin with I would have consulted with both the practitioners and the legal technology industry at an early stage and looked to see what I could have done to supplement rather than compete with existing offerings.  Why re-invent the wheel?  Veyo swears blindly that it has consulted and carried out extensive focus group exercises.   I am no business guru, but even a candidate from the BBC show the Apprentice could see that there is very little evidence that if this did take place, little if any reliance has been given to the feedback.    The case management market is saturated with similar products and products with lengthy and successful track records.  Why do we need another case management system?   For a practitioner who has already invested a significant sum of money in a case management system there is little incentive to switch or spend money on integrating with Veyo. It simply does not make any commercial sense.

Keep in mind that Veyo claims its system will speed up the conveyancing process and help to save cost.   This strap line simply does not inspire confidence.   It is reported that Veyo will need to charge a license fee and also a transaction fee.  It is not clear how much these fees will be, but based say on a license fee of £2000 per user and a transaction fee of £15, a business which handles 2400 transactions each year and has 20 fee earners would be looking to pay Veyo £76,000 per annum.  If the business already operated a case management system then it would be looking to pay this on top of its existing commitment without any apparent additional benefit.   This hardly demonstrates a saving.

The lack of identity caused by flawed business development investigation was avoidable.   The Law Society could have looked to introduce for example a system which acted as communication hub to bridge existing case management systems and offer a ‘negotiation room’ and or a ‘chain matrix’.   An idea that would not have competed against existing and established systems but which brought something new and innovative to the table.  One question which springs to mind is why the Law Society not look to reviving the Land Registry’s failed at a chain matrix. The idea of the system was to reduce the uncertainties of house buying by allowing all parties in a chain to see what stage of the process had been reached by everyone else. It was to be the centrepiece and public face of a scheme to computerise the entire conveyancing process. However, the scheme was postponed at the end of 2007 after a pilot showed little interest from conveyancers or their clients.  I am sure that with full and proper consultation with conveyancers and the legal technology industry there could have been some merit in looking to resurrect this project particularly if there was some appetite evident from private investors.

The other significant failing has been the lack of engagement with the target market.  Veyo is either naive or extremely arrogant in its approach to the presentation and marketing of its product.  This is not a current issue but goes back in time to when the product was first devised.    Veyo claims it held focus groups and consulted with grass root conveyancers but has up until now failed to disclose details of that consultation.   The legal sector is a difficult market place at the best of times.  Those selling to lawyers find it difficult to engage interest and to earn sufficient trust to then sell.   Veyo seems to be oblivious to these factors and seems to believe that conveyancers will come forward in sufficient numbers and sign up.  I suspect this is a highly optimistic view and indeed the recent announcement by Myhomemove might suggest that conveyancers have already turned their back on Veyo.  Myhomemove, the UK’s largest provider of mover conveyancing services, recently selected Lexis Visual files 2014 as the firm’s next generation workflow and case management system.

To succeed in the legal sector there needs to be a sense of belonging and unfortunately this has been lacking in the approach adopted by the Law Society in the development of Veyo.  I am sure if there had been effective and extensive consultation with conveyancers in its development conveyancers would have been warmer and more receptive to Veyo’s introduction.

It may not be too late to save Veyo providing those behind it begin to listen to the feedback and perhaps look to redesign the product.   It needs a unique selling feature and to demonstrate that for the money it will demand that it is actually adding to and improving the conveyancing experience for the conveyancer and client.

Veyo - Raising more questions than it is answering : http://bit.ly/1p5U1t3 

By David Pett Director of MJP Conveyancing 

The Law Society Conveyancing Portal - Destined for failure?

A new online conveyancing portal purporting to simplify and speed up the house-buying process, has entered the final stages of development and is scheduled to be launched to the conveyancing profession in Spring 2015.

The new online service, called Veyo ( named after a small town in the US?) , is a joint venture between The Law Society and Mastek UK, a global IT solutions specialist.

Its aim is to bring together all the processes from client instruction to completion, including checks and documentation prepared and undertaken by solicitors and licensed conveyancers in the sale and purchase of residential properties.

At its  recent launch there were some bold statements made  about this new system

“Veyo will shift the balance of power and give the profession greater control.” Jonathan Smithers, Vice President, The Law Society

  “Veyo will transform the way we do conveyancing.” Desmond Hudson, Chairman

   “Veyo will be secure, efficient and transparent” Elliott Vigar, CEO, Veyo

Conveyancers will be asked to pay a licence fee and a charge per transaction. The likely costing will be announced later this year, with a view to getting firms signed up from January 2015 onwards.

To justify the charge being the industry is told that Veyo will “reduce your costs of undertaking a conveyancing transaction and, fatten your margin.”

The investment?

A staggering £10million pounds has, or will have been invested in developing Veyo with the Law Society setting up a company to develop the system owning 60% of the shares and Mastek UK holding a 40% interest.

Money well spent?

Only time will tell but one must question the size  and  safety of this investment when it was not too long ago that the Law Society was left with egg on its face when its joint venture with MDA Advantage  to produce a Home Information Pack offering became one of the most famous IT debacles of recent times.   The cost of that project failure has never been released but it is clear that a sum not too far off that already spent on developing Veyo was lost. 

Spending such a large amount of members money on a project which claims to be there to support the CQS Protocol also begs the question whether the money would have been far better spent on looking to reform an antiquated conveyancing process ( last reformed in 1925) and or on extra staff and other resource for a Scheme which is clearly buckling under its own success. Why run with a new project and look to advance this with haste whilst  there  remain major cracks in the infrastructure of CQS? 

It is evident from speaking to some major conveyancing IT providers that the offer of making existing and proven systems available to the Law Society when the idea was first mooted, was not well received.  In fact the feedback is that quite a number of those technology companies were given the ‘cold shoulder’ in a way which had  caused much alienation.   Its surprising  that the Law Society chose not to go to a recognised supplier but instead decided to re invent the wheel and in the process spend a large chunk of money which could have been utilised on a  far more deserving project. 

My firm decided back in 2011 to invest in our own technology and with one developer we were able to develop an online conveyancing case management system which I know performs 80% if not more of the functions which Veyo say it will be offering.  The cost of our investment  baas peanuts in comparison. I acknowledge the Law Society is looking for robustness and security and I accept this accounts for part of the cost.   However there are plenty of Technology providers out there who could have delivered at a much reduced cost. 

There must also be some concern over the commercial aspects of the ‘partnership’. Like many of these joint ventures the actual terms of the arrangement will not be made public even though a large chunk of the investment has come from the Law Society's members. One thing for sure the commercial partner will not be making a hefty investment  without assurances that the project will be providing its shareholders with a sizeable profit within a reasonable amount of time.   This means  Veyo will need to pay for itself within 12 to 18 months and much of the early revenue will be dependant on a heavy take up of the system. It will also probably mean a high license fee and transaction cost.  

The dependancy on licence and transaction fees must give rise to the fear of ‘lock in’ arrangements with the CQS sitting at the top of the tree.  How long will it take before all CQS  members will be required to renew and  or apply for panel memberships through Veyo? Making membership of Veyo as a pre - requisite for joining or continuing with CQS must also be announcement waiting to happen. 

On top of this we will soon surely see restrictions on the use of third parties through Veyo. It will clearly follow that only preferred suppliers of ID checks, Searches will be available to the users of the portal.  To make money and to ensure its longevity I fail to see how the Law Society can avoid passing down the same route as those companies which run and operate successful referral platforms.  

We should all be calling on the Law Society to disclose its future plans and details of its business plan for this project for the next 3 years.  I suspect this will fall on deaf ears. 

Take Up 

I was told not too long ago by the Project Manager that a survey had been conducted and the results of this gave a clear indication that a large number of conveyancers have already committed to subscribing to Veyo.   This may be so, but its surprising that none of the large players in the industry have following the recent launch stepped forward to record their support and commitment to the system. I also question why the survey data has never been released. If supportive of the large investment why have we not had sight of it?

The sale literature around the system boasts ‘A system made by conveyancers for conveyancers’  I am sure we would a all like to know which conveyancers were involved in the development as its clear that the Law Society is very far removed from grass root conveyancing and would not be best placed to advise on how processes work on a day to day basis. 

Integration 

There will we are told be third party integration kits. The Law Society say most of the Legal IT providers have said they will integrate with Veyo.  Surprisingly none of those suppliers have as yet come forward. I suspect they may be waiting for the commercial terms of the arrangement to be published before going public. 

There may exist conflicts between the commercial objectives of Veyo and other IT providers and going forward this may prevent the widespread use of Veyo.  Why would a large conveyancing business having already invested a large amount of time in securing and training with a current supplier wish to spend further time and money on either switching or having to change work flows etc to accommodate what in many cases would be an unnecessary ‘add on’.

Lenders

I was told that one of the aims of Veyo is to facilitate the movement of money between conveyancers on completion.   This is an ambitious step but would suggest that the Law Society has been working with Lenders.   Bearing in mind the large investment already made in this project it is again worth recording that as yet none of the major lenders have come forward and given their backing to this project. On the contrary they have instead focused their attention on establishing and promoting a different system namely the Lender Exchange. 

The Exchange had a shaky start but has found its feet; I suspect Veyo is likely to face a more difficult introduction and having not it seems engaged with the Exchange during development this could in due course prove to be a fatal  error of judgment. 

Viability 

Unless the Law Society and or  PII insurers decide to compel all of those undertaking conveyancing to use Veyo ( which is most unlikely) it seems that that the system like many others before it may be destined for failure.  Its no good having a hub to communicate with others , when some of the conveyancers in a chain have chosen not to use the system. 

Conclusion 

It is far too early in the day of course to pass judgment on a system which has yet to be released and which continues in the meantime to be nothing other than a concept.  

However for this to work and to be successful there needs to be complete transparency on the commercial arrangement as well as low start up fees.  There will also be a need for the Law Society  to win the hearts and minds of the conveyancing community.  This may be difficult given its appalling track record and its continuing failure to connect with those who operate at  grass root level. 

David Pett - Director and Solicitor 

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