The Mortgage Credit Directive - Guidelines for Conveyancers

The Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD) introduces a European framework of conduct rules designed to foster a single market for mortgages and to protect consumers.

The MCD will be implemented in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).  The Rules are effective from 21 March 2016, although firms can elect to adopt the majority of them from 21 September 2015.  This will assist lenders in managing pipeline in the absence of any transitional rules. 

Any ‘new agreement’ entered into after 21 March 2016 will need to be MCD compliant and therefore, lenders will need to review their pipeline and ensure that, where required , additional disclosure is given to customers, along with the offer of a 7 day reflection period

The MCD, once implemented, will impose various requirements on lenders, including:

Assessing affordability:

Lenders must conduct an affordability test, looking at consumers' income and expenditure to ensure that they can afford the mortgage. This requirement to undertake an affordability assessment is different from the requirements of the Consumer Credit Directive 2008 and will apply when a lender takes on an existing borrower from another lender or when advancing additional borrowing to existing customers; however, there will be no requirement for an affordability assessment where a borrower switches products with an existing lender unless there is an additional borrowing and/or changes to the terms affecting affordability.  This could make it difficult for older purchasers for example to purchase but to let properties if as is likely the lender will be looking to the mortgage being paid in full before retirement.

Providing advice:

Minimum standards must be applied when providing advice to consumers.

Disclosure:

Lenders must provide a "European standard information sheet" (ESIS) to enable consumers to shop around. This will replace the existing "Key Facts Illustration" (KFI) which applies in the UK - firms will be able to continue to use the KFI document until March 2019 but may need to make "top-up" disclosures to meet the new requirements

Staff training:

Lenders will be under a duty to act fairly and professionally and must ensure that staff have the appropriate level of knowledge and competence.

There will be a new requirement to provide a borrower with a "binding offer", which will prompt an entitlement to a seven-day period of reflection. Current practice is usually to make a conditional offer subject to further checks. The making of a "draft" or "indicative" offer will still be permissible provided that a binding offer is issued at a later stage.

Binding offers may still contain conditions, for example, a material change in circumstances or fraud.

Consequences for conveyancers

There will be a need to check the offer of mortgage carefully to check the lender requirements for acceptance and also the length of the reflection period.  Many lenders are either allowing a 10 day reflection period (to account for postage time) or aligning the reflection period with the existing offer expiry date (which can be up to 6 months).  It is clear that the offer can be accepted by the borrower within the reflection period. This will essentially bring the reflection period to an end.

If the lender requires the offer to be accepted this will need to be done before the advance can be relied upon.

An important amendment was made to clause 10 of the CML Lenders’ Handbook on 1st February 2016 which clarifies that , in cases where the mortgage lender does not already require a formal acceptance from the borrower, that the current practice of the conduct of borrower in drawing down the loan, acts as acceptance of the mortgage offer, and creates the contract; this in turn, in cases where the draw-down happens before the end of the reflection period, confirms that the customer has brought the reflection period to an end by their conduct.

This seems to suggest that where there is no formal requirement for acceptance of the offer then the submission of the COT will be viewed as an acceptance of the offer and the automatic termination of the reflection period.

Under the changes though it is not clear is seems the mortgage offer once issued will not be capable of being extended.  This means a fresh offer will be required and this could cause delay.

This means conveyancers are when submitting the COT saying to the Lender that the client accepts the offer and has no longer to think about it.  For this reason conveyancers should look to amend terms and conditions along the following lines.

‘If you are a buyer and using a mortgage to purchase you should be advised by your mortgage broker of changes to the law which relate to your mortgage offer.   If you have not  then please refer back to your broker and ask for information on how the Mortgage Credit Directive may affect the issue and acceptance of your mortgage offer.

Under these changes your lender is required to provide you with at least 7 days to reflect on the offer before deciding whether you wish to accept it.  Your lender or broker are required to advise you on how long this period is and whether they require you to formally accept the offer before it will become a live offer.  It is therefore very important to consider this information carefully.

It is also important for you to keep in mind that when we apply to your lender for the release of mortgage funds you will be providing us with your authority to accept the mortgage offer on your behalf and to dispense with the reflection period if this is still  active. In other words by singing these terms and conditions you will be providing us with authority to bind you to the offer of the mortgage.  IF THEREFORE YOU DO NOT WISH FOR THIS TO HAPPEN IT IS IMPORTANT TO LET US KNOW IN WRITING STRAIGHT AWAY.

Please also keep in mind that if you offer of mortgage is allowed to expire you will be required to apply for a new mortgage.  Extensions to your existing offer may not be allowed.  Responsibility for checking and monitoring the expiry date rests with you and we will not accept any liability for loss which may arise from the expiry of the offer’ .

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 david@mjpconveyancing.com

How does my lender affect my leasehold purchase?

Article by Katie Easter -  Trainee Solicitor with MJP Conveyancing 

Conveyancers acting for mortgage advisers are under the same obligations to the lender as they are to their purchasing clients. 

These obligations include adhering in the main to the CML Handbook, a set of rules written by the Council of Mortgage Lenders which must be followed when acting for mortgage providers.

How does the CML Handbook affect Leasehold property?

The nature of leasehold property means that there are more factors that can lead to it diminishing in value compared to freehold property.  Mortgage providers therefore seek to protect themselves should they need to repossess a leasehold property by imposing strict requirements. Solicitors are obliged to ensure that leasehold property meets these requirements.

One of the biggest factors affecting the value of leasehold property is the term of years remaining on the lease following completion. Each mortgage provider that subscribes to the CML has their own minimum term of years requirements. If the term of years remaining is predicted by the valuer incorrectly, it is important for solicitors to notify their mortgage provider clients accordingly. This is one of the reasons that we must have sight of the Mortgage Valuation Report prior to exchange.

There are also requirements for particular terms to be included in leases. These include the need for other leasehold properties in the block to provide support and shelter to the flats around them. When we review leases we are ensuring that they contain rights to support and shelter from the neighbouring properties. Without these rights, purchasers of leasehold property could face expensive repairs should neighbouring properties fail to support and shelter their own. This could affect a borrower’s ability to pay their mortgage and is therefore a concern of mortgage providers.

Ground rent should also be checked to ensure that there will not be any sharp increases which could affect a borrower financially. We will check the lease and may raise further enquiries with the Vendor’s solicitors regarding this point.

It is also important to gather information about any management companies. The following items must be obtained and checked by solicitors:

1.       The lease or another agreement with the management company must give the company a right to enter the property to carry out repairs or other works.

2.       The last three years accounts of the management company should be obtained.

3.       Any details of major works that will be paid for with service charge should be obtained. It will be necessary to notify a mortgage provider if these cannot be satisfactorily obtained.

The obligations that MJP Conveyancing owe to their clients’ mortgage providers therefore govern some of the leasehold enquiries that we raise with Vendor’s solicitors. Regrettably, this can lead to some delays when purchasing leasehold property but it is important to retrieve these answers for both our clients and their mortgage providers. 

This is also why we always ensure that leasehold packs are ordered from management companies as early as possible when we are acting for clients that are selling their leasehold properties. 

New duty to warn other conveyancers of client's suspected fraud?

Scotland’s supreme civil court’s decision in Frank Houlgate Investment Company Ltd v Biggart Baillie LLP [2014] CSIH 79 has raised some interesting questions about transactional fraud and could have an important impact on conveyancer’s liability when they act for a dishonest client. 

The facts involve an investment company, the plaintiff, which lent money to the client of  the solicitor, the defendant.  The security for the loan was not owned by the client  and was in fact worthless.  During the course of the transaction the solicitor became aware of he client’s attempt to defraud but nonetheless continued to act and as a consequence of the fraud the investment company suffered a loss. Acting on the instruction of the client the solicitor did not warn the representative of the investment company of the fraud.

The three judges of the CSIH all agreed that the client’s solicitor was liable to the investment company for the losses , although they were not unanimous regarding the basis for that liability.

Lord Menzies held that the solicitor was under an obligation immediately to disclose to the investment company’s representative,  the that the client had admitted fraud and that the security was worthless. That obligation flowed from a continuing implied representation to the other party to the transaction that they are not aware of any fundamental dishonesty or fraud which might make the security for the transaction worthless. Notwithstanding the duty of confidentiality the solicitor was incumbent on a solicitor to act honestly at all times.  Not surprisingly Lord Menzies further held on the facts that he would have found the solicitor liable as an accessory to fraud in any event.

Lord Malcolm  relying  instead on Donoghue v Stevenson held that the solicitor was liable in negligence. He held that it was ‘preferable simply to rely upon the broad concept of culpa [fault], in the sense of failure by a professional to use the care and skill required in the circumstances’. He added: ‘In the present case the actionable negligence arises because [the defendant] came to learn of the fraud and knew, or should have foreseen, that further harm to the pursuers could ensue if he did not take care to protect them.’

There remains a question mark about the soundness of Lord Malcolm’s reasoning since there appears to  little authority around to support the existence of a duty of care by a solicitor to a third party, though the more interesting aspect to this decision is the obligation  to override the duty of confidentiality once a solicitor becomes aware of fraud. 

The bearing of a Scottish decision on practice in England may not be direct, but the case does give rise to some interesting questions.  If these circumstances were to happen in England it is clear the  solicitor  once knowing of the fraud should have immediately desisted from undertaking any further work ( without doing anything to ‘tip’ the client off ) and to then report the incident to the Solicitor Regulation Authority and the National Crime Agency   If there was then no intervention by the SRA/NCA the solicitor should have then terminated the retainer.  The question is whether in the light of the case of Frank Houlgate there would also be a duty once the retainer came to an end to bring the matter to the attention of the other parties in the transaction remains unclear.  How far would that duty extend?  Would the solicitor need to alert another solicitor appointed by the client when approached for the release of the file following the termination of the retainer?

The other question of interest which emerges from this case is that if a solicitor comes across  information, if considered properly and in line with SRA and Law Society obligations,  would show that the client could be acting dishonestly, but the solicitor fails to read or to appreciate the importance of that evidence, would that be sufficient for a lender of other third party to rely on the decision of Houlgate and seek redress for loss. Could this now present a lender with an alternative route to the solicitor’s insurers when loss is sustained due to fraud?

Only time will tell though one thing is for certain it is an argument which I am sure a lender will look to run sometime in the very near future. 

Article by David Pett Director/Solicitor - MJP Conveyancing

Lender's Certificate of Title

When a client is reliant on a mortgage to fund their purchase of a property, there are certain requirements which a Solicitor must meet before they are able to request the mortgage advance from the lender in anticipation of completion. Solicitors request mortgage monies from the lender by submitting a form known as the Certificate of Title – COT for short; this article provides a guide of the process leading up to, and including, completion.

Before your Solicitor is able to submit the Certificate of Title, the Solicitor must ensure that all outstanding matters have been resolved, as, by submitting this request, the Solicitors is providing their confirmation to the lender that they have complied with, and satisfied, their requirements as outlined in the Council of Mortgage Lenders Handbook – the CML. A Solicitor must be able confirm the property has a good marketable title.  Such matters include, but are not limited to, the following:

Ø  ID checks have been carried out

Ø  Any potential gift elements connected to the transaction have been considered and acted on appropriately

Ø  All enquiries with the seller’s solicitors have been resolved to a satisfactory standard

Ø  All search results have been returned, reviewed and are clear of issues.

Ø  The valuation report has been considered and is clear

Ø  Client’s details, the purchase price and property details concord with the mortgage offer. Also, any special conditions attached to the mortgage offer have been considered.

Ø  Any prejudicial issues affecting the valuation of the property must have also been reported to the lender during the course of the transaction and resolved.

Ø  Confirmation that there are no onerous covenants or lack of rights of access or services to the property.

Once the above conditions have been satisfied, a transaction is able to proceed to exchange and completion, for which, a Solicitor will require a signed Contract and Transfer Form (though the latter is needed for completion more than at the point of exchange), confirmation that the client has approved the completion statement, an agreed completion date, deposit funds and confirmation that buildings insurance is in place.

It is important to note that standard practice usually dictates that 10% of the purchase price of the property acts as a deposit on exchange; furthermore, a Solicitor will require buildings insurance to be in place before they are able to proceed to exchange of Contracts – your insurance cover note should have your lender noted as an interested party.

Each lender will require a period of notice from receiving the certificate of title to releasing the funds which can be up to 10 working days (although usually 5 working days). This can sometimes lead to a delay in the exchange process as if a Solicitor is giving the lender less than their required period of notice they will need to obtain written confirmation from the lender that the mortgage advance will be released on the date of completion before committing you to exchange Contracts.

It is important to note that your Solicitor is only able to release the mortgage funds on the completion date if they hold sufficient funds to complete the purchase of the property, pay all stamp duty land tax and registration fees. This will mean that although after completion your Solicitor has 30 days to submit to the Inland Revenue the duty payable they will require you prior to completion to ensure they would sufficient cleared funds to enable them to do so. 

Article written by Charlotte Ribbons Trainee Solicitor 

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide residential conveyancing 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

Mortgage Valuation Report

Your solicitor may ask to have sight of the valuation report used by your lender to assess your eligibility for a mortgage. In this article I look to explain why your solicitor needs to see a copy of the valuation. 

The CML handbook ( which governs your solicitors relationship with your lender )  requires  your solicitor to check the property valuation report. 

Your lender may not have  provided your solicitor with a copy of this document and because of this your solicitor will seek from you a copy of the valuation report which should have been sent to you direct.

Why does  your solicitor need to see this particular document?

Your solicitor must check that the correct property has been valued (by checking the address on the valuation against that on the contract or title) and that any assumptions made by the valuer, such as tenure, restrictions on use, availability of parking etc are correct.

Your solicitor must report any errors or omissions to the lender so that they can ask the valuer whether the valuation needs to be revised as a result of them. 

Even if you have provided your solicitor with a survey/homebuyers report  your solicitor will not be able to discharge his duty to the lender without sight of the valuation report. 

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

Why moving home with a mortgage will cost more and take longer

Why do some mortgage companies insist you go to one solicitor for your mortgage and a different one for your purchase?

For many years one solicitor would act for both you and the lender because in the main your respective interests would be the similar.    You both wish to purchase a property without any adverse legal consequences.   This is known as a “joint representation” transaction.

The benefit of this is that providing your solicitor was on the lender’s general panel one overall fee would be charged.

However, some mortgage lenders in response to increasing concerns with levels of mortgage fraud and poor conveyancing practice have decided to limit the number of firms that can act on their behalf.

This “separate representation” approach means the lender will appoint a solicitor to act on their behalf and you are able to instruct your own solicitor.   Generally there is no restriction on which firm you choose providing they are on the lender’s general conveyancing panel.  

However there is one lender namely HSBC which has through charging extra legal fees made it very difficult for you to exercise a free choice.  

If you are involved in a transaction where you have two firms of solicitors acting this can often cause delay because your solicitor will not be able to exchange contracts on your behalf until the lender’s solicitor has confirmed approval.

The likelihood is that separate representation is likely to figure more in the future with the consequence of  adding extra expense and time to the  already slow and stressful process of moving home.  

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

What is a Home Buyers Report?

This is a survey of a property you may be looking to buy that’s much more detailed than the basic valuation. It’s for your benefit, rather than the mortgage lender.

It will highlight potential problems with a property, such as subsidence, damp or woodworm. This can help you decide whether to go ahead or not with the purchase, or whether to look to renegotiate the price.

It is always a sensible (and we would say essential) precaution to have a survey of your purchase property especially if the property is an older build. 

A recent Which? Survey disclosed:

‘Those who missed problems spent an average of £2,500 putting them right. One in ten spent more than £10,000. Mark Morris from Newbury told us: ‘Since moving in, I’ve found the rot and damp was much worse than I thought. I’ve also spent several hundred pounds making the electrics safe.’ A quarter said that if they’d known in advance, they would have tried to renegotiate the price, and more than one in ten said they wouldn’t have bought at all'.

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

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

New approach to the offer of mortgages

Changes put forward by the Financial Services Authority will introduce some of most significant changes to the mortgage market this country has seen in recent times.

The FSA new rules for banks  to follow on approving mortgages are designed to make sure customers are not able to borrow more than they can afford. They include a ban on self-certification mortgages, new rules for those seeking to remortgage, stricter rules on interest-only mortgages, improved affordability checks, and a change in the rules on how advice is given by mortgage brokers.

These changes have come about prevent another boom in mortgage lending and in house prices. This is what happened in the middle of the last decade and why some right wing commentators say we are now facing one of the worst financial disasters ever witnessed.

So how does the affordability test, as proposed, work?

A lender will consider how much you spend on essential household expenditure such as heating and council tax plus basic living costs and other debt commitments. If these changes are implemented a lender will no longer have to consider how much you spend on discretionary spending such as on leisure activities and holidays as it will expect a borrower to change spending habits if the borrower wishes to succeed with the loan application.

Lenders will also apply a “stress test” on your finances so as to assess your ability to afford your mortgage repayments if interest rates rise in the future.

What about interest only loans?

Borrowers will only receive an interest-only mortgage if it can be proved there is a robust strategy to repay the capital, such as from the sale of a second home or have an Isa (Individual Savings Account) or from regular bonuses.

Replacing existing mortgages will also prove difficult under these new rules though the FSA have introduced “transitional arrangements” to help existing creditworthy borrowers that might not be able to move home or refinance as a result. Lenders will be allowed to waive the new affordability rules for existing borrowers if the borrower has met repayments for at least the last 12 months and have not fallen into arrears. Existing borrowers who need to borrow more will however be subject to the new affordability rules.

These new rules are unlikely to change the current attitude of borrowers and in the short term are likely to keep property prices stagnant.  Whether this will assist first time buyers remains to be seen, though our view is that they will only serve to make it more difficult for those looking to get onto the property ladder and force more people into looking to the rental market.   These rules could very well begin to turn our property market into those markets commonly found on the continent where home ownership is not a priority and indeed a goal of those looking for a home.

The rules will create a more stable housing market but one which will be seeing a reduced number of transactions and one where only those who have financial stability and a track record of proving it will be able to become home owners.  Whether this is good for the country as a whole and will lead to a more stable and balanced society will remain to be seen.

As conveyancers, there will be fewer transactions around and as those borrowing will face higher lender fees and perhaps spend more money to prove their track record and credit worthiness, there may be a temptation to make economies elsewhere, and perhaps look to find the conveyancer advertising the lowest price.

At MJP we understand this, and this is why we offer a competitive price for our moving service, but with the commitment to ensure we also provide a personalised service and one in which we take pride.   We are able to offer a quality service at a discounted price because we operate a unique case management system and have quality checks built into every stage of our process.  All out clients can access the system and receive regular updates straight to their phones.

Each client is also assigned his or her very own case handler who will oversee the transaction throughout its course.

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

"David Pett and his team have been excellent - regular updates and speedy responses to queries. Something that has been problematic with other solicitors in the past" 

Louise Stone - December 2011

Do you lease your flat? Why is it important to consider extending your lease?

If your Flat was built in the 60s 70s or 80s the Lease is probably only for 99 or at most 125 years. A Lease with less than 80 years left to run is always more difficult to sell as mortgage companies will not be keen to lend against them particularly in todays lending climate. What was once a good investment could now developing into a financial burden.

We at MJP have the expertise to advise on Lease Extension or Enfranchisement. For further information and a FREE consultation contact Andrew Skuse on 01603 877000 or email andrewskuse@m-j-p.co.uk

Property Ladder - Tips for moving up

Today saw an interesting article published on Money Supermarket’s website focusing on tips for those moving up the property ladder.  

It reports that recent research by Lloyds TSB has revealed that those looking to buy their first home are not the only ones struggling.  The bank found that 19% of people already living in their first home and looking to move on simply do not have enough equity to do so.

The average second home is priced at £48,216 more than the average first home, which is a hefty 32% increase.

The TIPs for those looking however to make that next step include:

Get an idea of your home's value:

Websites such as www.propertypriceadvice.co.uk provide a lower, higher and average valuation depending on confidence and activity in the market. Make sure you keep a realistic view on the value.

Be prepared to take a price cut:

If your home isn't budging, be prepared to reduce the price as this might be your only option. According to the Lloyds TSB research just 13% of people will reduce the asking price if they can't sell their home at the current price

Try to keep the value to under £250,000:

The duty  jumps from 1% to 3% as soon as you break through the £250,000 mark on your new home, so try to keep under the threshold by shopping around and, of course, negotiating. Keep in mind that the average expenditure on other moving expenses is around £5,500.

Stamp Duty Tax planning may be option for those buying above £250,000.

Remember only first-time buyers who have never owned a property before are exempt from paying Stamp Duty on properties costing up to £250,000, and this exemption only applies until March 2012. If you are buying with someone else, they must never have owned property before either for the tax perk to apply.

Morgan Jones and Pett Solicitors - 01603877000

Conveyancing with prices starting at £250

Click HERE for a FREE Quote

Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Claims

FREE Initial Advice - Click HERE to begin your Claim