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

A call for more transparency over mortgage fees

A campaign designed to put pressure on lenders to provide greater transparency when quoting financial fees and charges has had a degree of success with the Chancellor George Osborne announcing in the delivery of his Autumn Statement plans to make mortgage fees clear. 

Spearheaded by the consumer champion Which the move by the Chancellor came after 45,000 people supported the campaign and a further 3,000 contacting their local MP. 

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has been asked by the Government to investigate and come up with some practical solutions  as well as guidelines to make it easier to compare mortgage fees and the cost of mortgages generally. 

Selecting a mortgage can be quite costly and Which report that a couple with a new £100,000 mortgage could find themselves paying £1503 more over two years because of mortgage fees. 

Which also found that only 3 % of consumers could correctly compare five mortgage deals from cheapest to the most expensive from information currently presented by the lenders. 

For more details of the campaign and to provide support visit :http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/insurance-bank-card-fees/ 

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

Fixed rate mortgage compared with Tracker/Variable rate mortgages

The choice between a fixed rate and tracker mortgage is often a difficult one which is made more problematic by the number of different products currently on offer.

According to Which Compare service fixed rate mortgage deals are proving most popular.  In an article published at the end of 2014 Which reported:

‘A huge 76% of people who filtered mortgage results on the website from the start of September 2014 to the end of November 2014 asked to see fixed rate mortgage deals. This compared to 11% for tracker mortgages and just 2% for discount variable rate mortgage deals’.

So what are these options?

Fixed rate mortgages options

As the name suggests, a fixed rate mortgage has an interest rate that is fixed for an initial term - say 2, 5 or even 10 years. This means your monthly mortgage payment will remain the same over the period, giving you certainty and allowing you to budget for a major item of expenditure. At the end of the fixed rate period, the mortgage usually transfers to the lender's variable rate.

Although many economists are not expecting a Bank of England base rate increase until at least late this year, this particular option clearly has some appeal.

According to Which:

‘There were 976 five-year fixed rate mortgage deals on the market in mid-December and 1,505 two year deals. The lowest rate on the market was a two-year fixed rate deal on offer from The Post Office at 1.37% on a 60% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgage. A five-year fixed rate deal is available from HSBC at 2.48%. Over the past three months a number of mortgage lenders have also launched competitively priced 10-year fixed rate deals. For those with a 40% deposit Santander has a 10-year fixed rate deal of 3.44% and Woolwich has a 3.45% offer. People with a 30% deposit would be able to apply for a 10-year fix from Nationwide at a rate of 3.49%’

Tracker/Variable mortgages

Tracker mortgages usually track the Bank of England base rate, and, as a result, your mortgage repayments will change when the base rate moves up or down. Before applying for a tracker mortgage, you should therefore assess whether you would be able to afford for your repayments to increase – if you wouldn't be able to, a tracker mortgage is not the best option for you

According to Which tracker mortgages are on the decline:

‘Over the past nine months the number of tracker mortgages on the market has been steadily falling. There were a total of 482 on the market in April 2014, this had dropped to 330 by August.

In mid-December the figure stood at just 299, with 210 two-year tracker mortgages on offer and no five-year deals. The best rate on offer comes from TSB with a two-year tracker mortgage at 1.09%, tracking 0.59% above base rate’.

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 01603877067 or via email at davidpett@mjpconveyancing.com

Lender and client relationship and the potential for conflict

Article by Georgie Harrington - Trainee Lawyer 

Where a client seeks the aid of a mortgage, they are no longer the only party legally represented. Where the same firm of solicitors represents the client and lender, there are many scenarios in which a conflict of interest may arise.

This article will focus on the unusual, yet extremely important scenario whereby the client creates a charge in the property in favour of the lender for the purpose of providing financial support and benefit to another party. This scenario is known to the conveyancing industry as “third party security”.

What is third party security?

A modern example is that of a second mortgage against a property to create a source of capital to finance the start-up of a new business. It is obvious to assume this arrangement may be between a married couple or partnership, but this is not always the case.

The potential for conflict

(1) The danger within such an arrangement is largely associated with the right the lender has to reclaim possession of the property from the third party for default in payment.

(2) Furthermore, a “client conflict” may arise if a solicitor opts to act for the third part, borrower and the lender.  Chapter 3 of the SRA handbook describes client conflict as: “any situation where you owe separate duties to act in the best interests of two or more clients in relation to the same or related matters, and those duties conflict, or there is a significant risk that those duties may conflict”.

Case Law

The topic of third party security cannot be discussed further without reference to the leading judgment of Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No.2). The House of Lords declared how lenders are to operate under these circumstances as well as steps to be satisfied by the acting legal representative.

The case involved a wife acting as the third party, who sought her property for security to account for her husband’s debts. The loan was not repaid to the lender and repossession was claimed on the property. The wife attempted to sue the solicitors for professional negligence on the grounds that they had not acted within their duty to advise accordingly. The question considered by the Court of Appeal was: Had the wife been properly advised, would she have signed the necessary documents to enter into such a transaction? The Court of Appeal held that the solicitors firm were in breach of their duty as they has failed to evaluate and advise the wife of the risks.

Judgment requirements

Lender responsibility	Solicitor responsibility
Write to the third party informing that for their own protection, the lender will require written confirmation from the solicitors that the nature of the charge will be explained.	Explain to the client that the lender may rely on the written confirmation from them that the nature of the transaction and charge has been sufficiently explained.
Ask that the third party instruct a solicitor. It is for the solicitor to decide whether there is a potential conflict of interest in taking on the instruction for the third party, borrower and lender and whether this is in the best interests of the client.	Seek confirmation that the third party is happy for legal representation under the circumstances and advise accordingly thereafter of the legal and practical implications.
Provide the third party with the financial information necessary for advice to be provided accordingly.	Check that no earlier lending is secured under the third party’s guarantee.
Provide the solicitors with any information that is reasonably considered may evidence the fact that the third party has been mislead in coming to such a decision.	Explain the nature of the documents to be executed by the client and the consequences of entering into the transaction. The solicitor must obtain consent from the client to write to the lender confirming this has been explained to the client.
Do not proceed on the transaction without written confirmation from the solicitor.	Discuss the client’s financial means and whether any other assets may be the subject of repayment in place of third party security. The solicitor can at this point offer to negotiate the terms of the transaction with the lender under instruction of the client.
	Meet with the client face to face without the borrower present. An attendance note of the meeting is necessary.

Decision in Etridge

The consideration of Lord Neuberger M.R. was that the length of the client meeting in relation to third party security did not necessary satisfy the duty the solicitor has in advising the client. Mere advice to proceed was simply not sufficient: “…she should have been told in clear terms that a hurried short meeting was simply inappropriate, bearing in mind the importance, riskiness and probable pointlessness of the transaction she was about to enter into…”. The solicitor acting on behalf of the wife did not recall the meeting with her and therefore was not able to give any real evidence that the advice provided was satisfactory for the purposes of his duty to the client. All the solicitor was able to offer was that of what his usual practice with clients would be. The court founds that, had the wife been properly advised, the wife would not have signed the documents to the transaction.

Conclusion

The requirements listed within the table above were considered to bet he core minimum to be obliged by the lender and solicitor in their relationship and capacity to the third party, to ensure they enter into the transaction with realistic understanding of the implications and risks involved. Equally allowing the lender the comfort to make the necessary loan without fear that the transaction will be set-aside in the future. The solicitor must exercise their due skill and judgment in every individual case of such a nature and whether to act on the matter. It is a modern day requirement of a solicitors firm, acting in this capacity, to check their insurer’s conditions that they may even be covered to proceed in doing so.

MJP Conveyancing 

Beware of the Help to Buy Scheme

The Help to Buy shared equity scheme designed to get people onto the housing ladder has its benefits but those who may be enticed by developers to make use of the ‘leg up’ must exercise some caution.

There are clearly signs that the property market is recovering, with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reporting that demand rose to its highest level for more than three years after the April launch of Help to Buy. New buyer inquiries were at their highest level for more than three years, and the scheme was starting to make an impact, the institute said.

However some of the methods developers are using to market their properties to first-time buyers who might be eligible for the Help to Buy shared-equity programme are being called into question.

What is the Scheme?

Under the scheme, which is expected to trigger 74,000 sales, the taxpayer provides an interest-free loan of 20pc of the purchase price for five years, to enable a borrower to buy a newly built property. Home buyers still need a 5pc deposit, but this additional loan should enable them to buy a property they couldn't otherwise afford. Help to Buy mortgages can be used on properties valued up to £600,000.

Participating mortgage companies will then grant an advance of the remaining 75pc of the value. After five years, the homeowner has to pay interest on the outstanding 20pc at a rate of 1.75pc, although this will rise by inflation plus 1pc annually thereafter.

However, it has been reported that developers are marketing their properties at prices 20pc below the correct asking price, implying that the equity loan is a discount or free gift.

A property for sale by a certain large developer, for example, priced at £439,500, was also advertised separately at £351,600 – indicating that the property was cheaper than it actually was.

Slicing money off the price implies it is a gift from the Government. It is not. An equity loan is precisely what it says it is. It is a loan that has to be repaid. This may encourage people to take on debt, which is not understood, or to overstretch themselves and buy properties bigger than they can afford.

New homes tend to be more expensive. According to the latest report from Halifax, the average cost of a newbuild home is £233,822. This compares with the average property price of £166,000 in April.

Indeed, a large section of the mortgage market has turned its back on the new shared-equity scheme. Only Halifax and NatWest, both part-owned by the Government, have embraced the scheme enthusiastically, although Woolwich is also offering Help to Buy loans.

So what are the pitfalls of this scheme?

·    You can participate only if you do not own any other property.

·   If you want to buy the Government out, you can do so, but there will be costs. You can increase your equity, but only in 5pc slices. Each time the property must have an independent valuation, which you will have to pay for.

·    You may also face problems if you want to extend or alter the building, as you have to seek approval, which may not be forthcoming. Increasing the value of the property through a large extension can make subsequent equity valuations problematic.

Advice

·     Buying a new property means you will be invariably be paying more for the property than the equivalent second hand property so make sure you look to negotiate the price down.

·    Look to work out how much you will paying under the scheme and the mortgage in 5 years time – will you be able to afford it.

·     Don’t be drawn in by misleading sales talk.

·     Remember it will  be expensive to increase your equity in the property.

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

Government to support buyers of new build homes

The Government has today announced it will in March launch a scheme which is aimed at those looking to purchase new-build homes.  

The ‘NewBuy Guarantee scheme’, will allow lenders to offer large mortgages on new-build homes without running the risk of losing money if the property falls into negative equity and is repossessed. Essentially the loan will be guaranteed by the developers and government (taxpayers).

It is hoped this will enable would be movers looking to buy a new-build property up to the value of £500,000 to overcome the problem of finding  large sums of money to put down as a deposit.  The scheme is looking at underwriting 95% mortgages.

It is reported, Nationwide building Society, one of the lenders which will take part, is currently working with the government to work out exactly how the scheme will operate.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders said discussions are on-going, and when the final details are announced the £500,000 cap could vary around the country.

MJP Conveyancing welcomes this move but as similar schemes have in the past operated  with little impact, we will wait and see what affect this will have on lifting the deposit affordability barrier which continues to dampen the growth within the property market.

Morgan Jones and Pett solicitors offer a fast, low cost and professional home moving service with prices starting at £230 plus VAT. Call now ion 01603877001 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk for a FREE quote

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

Free Conveyancing

The concept of FREE conveyancing can be a reality and is likely to become one in the very near future. 

As with most things in life nothing is ever completely FREE, there is always a catch or a set of conditions.    This is no different in the case of a FREE conveyancing service.  For this to happen the insular approach to conveyancing and the distrust in referral fees has to change.

The profession can no longer continue to believe that a competitive service can be built and developed solely on the back of diminishing conveyancing fees.

From October there will be increased competition and this can lead only to even lower pricing and possibly a falling in the quality of service to the end user. If those providing a conveyancing service believe they will still be able to compete I am afraid they are in for a big surprise.

The time to think outside the box is here and now. 

There are many solicitors who have steered away from referral fees because of the horror stories that have over the years emerged on failed partnerships with non-lawyer entities. I have sympathy for this line of thinking. However we live in a very competitive world where marketing costs remain high and profitability is becoming more and more difficult to sustain.  For businesses to survive and flourish business relationships within and outside the legal sector are essential.

We should not feel ashamed about charging a fee for an introduction providing of course all the necessary conduct rules are followed.  We have spent money and time in securing the client; the client has developed confidence in our service and if at the client’s behest the client is looking for other services why not charge a fee.

At MJP we have gone a stage further and as part of the transparent approach we take to referral fees we offer the client a share of the fee if they make use of one of the services offered by an external supplier.   This helps to get around the uneasiness there often is with referral fee accountability and also serves as a means for the client to receive money back that is often well in excess of the modest fee we charge for conveyancing (www.mjpconveyancing.co.uk).

We also operate a FREE web based system for other legal firms to make inter-firm referrals of cases such as clinical negligence in return for a share of the end profit earned on that case.  It has proved very popular. Further details can be found at www.mjpconnect.com

The creation of local networks of local professionals is nothing new, however with the Legal Services Act just around the corner it has, at least for us, taken on a new and essential meaning.  

If you wish to become part of our network or find out how you reduce the cost of your home move please e-mail: davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603877004

David Pett who is a partner with Morgan Jones and Pett wrote this Blog Entry.  His role involves the supervision of the firm’s Residential Conveyancing Team.  He also runs the Business Development and IT Team.

Your feedback would be appreciated – davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Free, conveyancing, solicitors, property, homes. Moving home, clinical negligence, housing, legal services act, referral fees, mortgages