Fire and Asbestos within Conveyancing

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty within the conveyancing community as to when and in which circumstances Fire and Asbestos Assessments should be sought.

In this article I attempt to demystify and offer some clarity.  

Fire

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 became law in October 2006 and introduced significant change to workplace fire safety responsibilities. It also  simplified the legislative regime by bringing all fire safety legislation together into one Order. Essentially it introduced the need for employers, building owners and occupiers as 'responsible persons' to carry out, implement and maintain a fire safety risk assessment. That is someone who has been trained to do so!

A 5-step fire safety risk assessment checklist is available to help 'responsible persons' carry out and implement a risk assessment in their premises.

All non-domestic premises including the common or shared parts of blocks of flats or houses in multiple occupation are covered by the Order, and may be inspected by their local Fire and Rescue Authority. Under the Order, Fire and Rescue Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure compliance and enforce the requirements where necessary.

As well as the check-list setting out what is required within an adequate risk assessment, an on-line form is available to help check the extent to which the assessment will comply with legislation.Fire risk assessment guidance: 

http://www.sure-firesolutions.co.uk/documents/PAS-79.pdf

What does this mean for conveyancers?

It is clear that when acting on the purchase of a leasehold property or a freehold property where there is shared land or facilities a copy of the fire assessment should always be sought. If the seller is not able to supply it the seller should be asked to obtain an assurance from the Freeholder/Management Company one will be sought and made available within a reasonable period of time.  

Health and Safety  legislation has the allowance of 'reasonable steps' being taken to comply. If there is a plan in place to assess at some stage in the future  this may help to avoid immediate enforcement action and it might therefore be wise to ask the seller to provide confirmation from the Freeholder/Management Company that there is at least a plan in place to undertake the assessment.

If the client is to acquire an interest in the Freehold/Management company then there is a need to warn the client of the risk of enforcement for so long as it takes to supply the assessment.  

Asbestos

As like the above the common areas of domestic buildings e.g. halls, stairwells, lift shafts, roof spaces give rise to a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

The duty requires you to manage the risk from asbestos by:

■ finding out if there is asbestos in the premises (or assessing if ACMs are liable to be present and making a presumption that materials contain asbestos, unless you have strong evidence that they do not), its location and what condition it is in;

■ making and keeping an up-to-date record of the location and condition of the ACMs or presumed ACMs in your premises;

■ assessing the risk from the material;

■ preparing a plan that sets out in detail how you are going to manage the risk from this material;

■ taking the steps needed to put your plan into action;

■ reviewing and monitoring your plan and the arrangements made to put it in place; and

■ setting up a system for providing information on the location and condition of the material to anyone who is liable to work on or disturb it.

Essentially this means the Freeholder s legally bound to identify the presence of suspected asbestos containing materials.

What does this mean for conveyancers?

It is clear that when acting on the purchase of a leasehold property or a freehold property where there is shared land or facilities a copy of the assessment and records should be sought. If the seller is not able to supply the assessment the seller should be asked to obtain an assurance from the Freeholder/Management Company one will be sought and made available within a reasonable period of time.  The client should be warned that there is no assessment and to make the client’s surveyor aware of this and to seek advice.

If the client is to acquire an interest in the Freehold/Management company then there is a need to warn the client of the risk of enforcement for so long as it takes to supply the assessment.

Remember as a Freeholder the assessment once prepared need to be made available to all contractors (particularly electricians, gas-fitters and plumbers) carrying out work on the premises and if the assessment proves to be incorrect  the client as a Freeholder could end up in Court.  The client should be advised to get a competent gas fitter or electrician round (or even asbestos surveyor) and see if there are  suspect materials. If found the client should either get them analysed or get a full survey carried out.

Further guidance can be found here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/INDG223.pdf

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at davidp@mjpconveyancing.com

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

Help to Buy ISAs - Destined to fail the first time buyer

There is  a great deal of buzz surrounding the Government backed Help to Buy ISA Scheme ( available since the 1^st December 2015)  and in this article I look to explore the 'ins and outs' of the scheme as well as assessing whether it is likely to be successful.

How does it work?

You open an ISA account and the Government will top up your savings by 25% according to how much you add to the account.

You can add in the first month £1200 but there after you can only add a maximum of £200 per month.  You will only be entitled to the Government bonus once you have accumulated £1600.

The maximum amount you can save in a Help to Buy ISA is £12,000.

So the minimum Government bonus is £400 ( once you have reached the minimum amount ) and £3,000 if you accumulate the full 12,000 ( which will take around four and half years).

Help to Buy ISAs are available to each first-time buyer, not each house, so if you’re buying a property with your partner, for example, you’ll be able to get up to £6,000 towards your deposit.

Your Government bonus will go straight to the mortgage lender. It doesn’t sit in your account, it earns no interest, and you only get it if you buy a home. If you don’t decide to buy a home nothing apart from the bonus is lost since you can still subject to notice requirements of the supplier of the ISA, withdraw the savings.

Who qualifies ?

You need to be a first-time buyer and must be aged 16 or over.

It can be used to buy any home worth under £250,000 (or under £450,000 in London). It will not be available to those who wish to buy a property to let or an overseas property.

You can use a Help to Buy ISA with any mortgage.

The scheme is limited to one Help to Buy ISA and you can’t open a Help to Buy ISA and a normal Cash ISA in the same tax year.

The ISA will only be available to open until 30^th November, 2019 but if f you opened your Help to Buy ISA before then you can keep saving into your account. You must claim your bonus by 1 December 2030.

Does the Help to Buyer ISA represent a good deal?

According to The Money Advice Scheme it is:

 ‘…………..a no-brainer if you’re a first-time buyer saving for a mortgage deposit. You can earn up to 4% interest tax-free and then the state will add 25% free cash, and it could be £1,000s, on top of what you save’

So what are the drawbacks?

In truth there are not many.

If you are looking to purchase now or within the immediate future before house prices begin to accelerate further Help to Buy ISA  is not really going to make a big difference. If you were to start an account now and run with the £1200 initial deposit you could be eligible for the tax free bonus of £400 within 3 months of opening the account.

The bonus cannot be used to pay other costs, such as legal fees. It can only be used towards the purchase price.

You may find it difficult to find a conveyancer who is prepared to handle the conveyancing of a property which is funded in part by your ISA savings and the government bonus.  This is because the government as you will see below has limited the fee a conveyancer can charge for the extra work to £50 plus VAT.   Some conveyancers may take the view that the fee is unlikely to cover the actual work involved and decide not to take this work on.

What is the role of the conveyancer?

The solicitor or conveyancer will make the application for the bonus on behalf of the client, confirm that the client has declared their eligibility to receive the bonus and confirm that the property being purchased meets the eligibility criteria. This involves submitting the relevant documentation, including a payment request, and, once received, applying the bonus funds towards the purchase of the property.

Solicitors and conveyancers may charge the client up to £50 plus VAT to fulfil their role as part of the scheme.

To be able to act for clients the conveyancer must register with the Scheme.  This involves an application and vetting process which is to be handled by a third party – Lender Exchange.

Once registered the conveyancer for his or her £50 will be required to do the following.

Firstly to make the bonus application on behalf of the client, and confirm that the client  has declared their eligibility and the property being purchased meets the eligibility criteria.

This involves sending an application for the bonus to the Administrator, submitting the relevant documentation to the Administrator, submitting a payment request following approval, and holding the bonus to apply to the purchase of the property.

The conveyancer is also required to verify that the client is acquiring an eligible interest in land, that the acquisition is funded by a non-buy-to-let mortgage (unless exceptions apply) and that the value of the property is up to £250,000 or £450,000 depending on the location of that property. 

If the conveyancer has reason to believe that the client  is not eligible for a bonus, he or she should not proceed with the bonus application.

It is said the process will be simple and straightforward. Only time will tell.

Some questions

A cash free bonus can only, on the surface, represent a good deal for a first time buyer,though limiting the amount of the monthly contribution and delaying for four and half years the opportunity to purchase a property with the full bonus, must beg the question whether the benefit  of the bonus will be lost given the current rate of house inflation.

On the same note and given the figures are not house price index linked how many properties with a property tag of £250,000 and less will be available in four and half years’ time?

Applying an arbitrary cap to the extra-legal fee a conveyancer can charge, without any apparent engagement with the industry and regard to the amount of extra work involved, is unlikely to win favours and could lead to clients finding it difficult to find a conveyancer willing to assist with a purchase.

Conclusion

This may appeal in main to parents who are keen to find a tax free vehicle for assisting their children with their savings to be used towards the purchase of a property in the future.

I question however whether it will have wider appeal and indeed value unless the bonus is linked to the  House Price Index and the Government does something soon about making more affordable homes available for first time buyers.

As for what can only be described as a token payment to the conveyancer, it is clear once again  the conveyancer has been chosen as easy prey to subside the administration of the scheme, especially when you consider how much £50 plus VAT will be ‘worth’  in 2019/20 when, if successful, the system will kick in.

At present this represents nothing other than a political murmur falling well short of what is actually required to provide real help to the first time buyer.

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

Conveyancers Duped by Million Pound Property Fraud - Was it Avoidable?

The news of a property fraud reported in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356929/The-thieves-stole-wife-s-house-sold-1-3million.html ) at the weekend should send a chill down the back of all conveyancers across the land. 

A young woman — who paid the full amount with no mortgage — had been duped into handing over £1.35 million to the a person purporting to be the legal owner of the property. 

The money was last seen on its way to a bank in Dubai.

The real owner was totally oblivious to the fraud until the Land Registry smelling a rat declined to register the property in the name of the young woman. 

There were two primary fraudsters.  One who took out a rental agreement on the property before the property was placed on the market, and the other who stole the identity of the real owner.  Between them they were able to fool the letting agent, the selling agent and both the selling and buying conveyancers. 

This was a fraud perpetrated at the highest level.  

So what could have been done to prevent it?  Probably not very much given the sophistication of the perpetrators. 

The question of whether negligence lies with either the seller or the buyer’s conveyancers must also be a vexed issue. 

So what lessons as conveyancers can we learn from these circumstances?

From a sale perspective there was nothing on the surface which would have alerted the seller’s conveyancer.  The ID supplied for the registered owner, that is the seller, was fake but unless it was obviously fake there was not much more one could expect the seller to do to identify the fraudulent  activity. 

Interestingly, had the seller made use of the Land Registry Alert procedure there is a possibility that the true owner would have been alerted about the proposed sale when the purchaser  undertook the OS1 search before exchange. Clearly conveyancers should all be advising buyer clients, especially the Buy To Let clients, to register for this type of alert. Failure to do so may in the future be viewed as a negligent omission. 

So what additional checks or alert factors should conveyancers as result of this incident consider?

Property of high value with no mortgage are at highest risk especially if they are rental properties. Conveyancers dealing with this type of property should perhaps check on the internet to see whether the property has been advertised for let recently.  In this case the fraudster tenant had only just taken out a rental agreement and had, which is unusual, paid the rent in cash. 

If instructed on this type property perhaps conveyancers should also look at the ID documents more closely and always arrange for the file to be referred to a senior member of staff for a second review. 

Suspicion should be heightened if the registered proprietor is abroad and there is a third party purporting to act for the owner. In this case the property had been put on the market purportedly on behalf of the owner by the person who had taken out the rental agreement.  Its unknown whether this was known to the seller’s conveyancer. 

Another alert factor is the instruction for the sale proceeds to be transferred to an account based outside of the Country.  If a conveyancer is instructed to transfer any funds abroad following a sale, there is now, I would suggest a strong, good argument  to pause and to take a more detailed look at the circumstances.  At the very least, the transfer should be referred to a Partner or other senior colleague for checking. 

So in short conveyancers acting in transactions of this type should keep a close eye on transactions involving:

• Property with high value with no mortgage of other charge 

• Property where the seller is shown as living at an address which is different from that of the property

• A seller looking to sell through an intermediary

• The transfer of funds to an account held abroad.

From a buyer's perspective perhaps there is now a case to consider raising some extra enquiries when it can be seen from the Land Registry Document that the property to be purchased is held by a registered  proprietor who is not in occupation and or which is occupied by a tenant.

Questions of this type which conveyancers may wish to  consider include:

1 Please produce from the letting agent references for the tenant and confirmation on how the rent has been paid i.e whether in cash or by cheque as well as confirmation that all standard money laundering and identity checks have been carried out on the tenant.

2 Please confirm the date on which the tenant took up occupation.

3 Please confirm that the funds to be transferred on completion are to be paid into a bank account held in the UK.  If the funds are to be paid into an account abroad please confirm that these will be held by you for 48 hours before the funds are remitted ( the reasoning here is that if the buyer turns up on completion to find the property occupied without vacant possession ) there may be some time available to prevent the funds from being remitted.  In the present case this would not have helped as the property was vacant at the time of completion.  If the buyer’s conveyancer  had known that the tenancy agreement was only granted prior to the marketing of the property and was now being sold with vacant possession then this may have rung some alarm bells. 

I am not sure whether these questions will find favour with the sellers solicitors but at the very least they may put the sellers solicitors on notice that the transaction is a high risk one and as a consequence raise the level of vigilance.

At the end of the day detection of fraud to a large extent is based on instinct and more often luck.   All practitioners can do is to ensure all the standard checks are carried out and that staff are trained on what to look out for and to remain vigilant throughout the transaction. 

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

Are you prepared for the Stamp Duty changes?

In his Autumn Statement this week, the Chancellor announced a 3 percentage point surcharge on stamp duty land tax (SDLT) for people buying a buy-to-let or second home from April 2016.  For example, on a home worth £275,000, SDLT would rise to £12,000 from £3,750. A significant jump. 

Below are some of the common questions raised along with some guidance though please do note that the legislation has yet to be implemented, and that there could be changes made to the proposals during the consultation process.  It is therefore important not to rely on this guidance without first checking with your conveyancer. 

Are there any exemptions?

The change will not apply to buyers of caravans, mobile homes or houseboats, nor, subject to a consultation, to companies or institutions owning more than fifteen residential properties.

When will this all happen?

1st April 2016

On what value of purchase will it apply?

Treasury documents released immediately after the speech suggested  that the first £40,000 would be tax free. It was however later confirmed that while purchasers who buy a property below £40,000 won’t have to pay the additional 3%, for all purchases above that, the 3% extra tax applies on the entire price. Currently, the rate for stamp duty is 0% on properties up to £125,000, then 2% on any sums over and above £125,000 to £250,000. Properties sold at £250,000 to £925,000 pay 5%, then it is 10% above that. These rates remain the same for standard residential buyers though 3% extra will be added if the property is to be used as a buy-to-let or second home.

If I have already exchanged contracts before the changes were announced will I be affected ?

If you have exchanged contracts on a property caught by these changes before the announcement was made,  but completion is on notice and there is a possibility you will complete after 1st April 2016, my view, having regard to how previous changes have been introduced, that  the increased surcharge is unlikely to apply. 

If I have exchanged contacts after the announcement but are due to complete the transaction after 1st April 2916 will I be required to pay the extra tax?

Probably yes, though there may be ways of avoiding this if you are able to gain possession of the property under license before completion, though do remember that if you are looking to do this there is a requirement to pay the Stamp duty within 30 days.  

There are other options  including the payment of 90% of the purchase price before the deadline or making the consideration partly rent and partly premium, and paying some rent before April.   The best advice is to speak with your conveyancer and seek advice. 

If I am thinking of purchasing a buy to let or second home what do I need to do to ensure that I do not have to pay the extra tax?

Putting it simply make sure you complete the transaction before the 1st April 2016. 

Think also about setting up a corporate vehicle to purchase the property.   Your solicitor or accountant will be able to advise you on what this involves.   Do keep in mind that if you have a property portfolio in your own name and are looking to transfer the ownership of existing properties into a limited company do ensure this is done before the 1st April 2016 otherwise the surcharge will apply to those transactions.  There could also be capital gain tax implications on which advice should be sought. 

Can I purchase the second home or buy to let in my husband or partners name?

I would not advise this as an option as I am sure the Revenue will be alert to this and make sure there is no gap in the legislation to allow this to happen.  There already exists legislation around 'connected persons' and I anticipate this will  be expanded upon to make sure this glaring and obvious situation does not become a loophole.  

What effect is this likely to have on the market?

This together with the recently announced changes to tax relief will make buy to let to the amateur landlord less attractive.  This could cause a shortage of rental properties and may lead to existing landlords pushing up rent.  Developers may also reign back on new builds if the demand for buy to let is no longer high. 

It could also lead to landlords offering to pay less for buy to rent properties and have the effect of making investment property cheaper. This my have been one of the intentions behind the change. 

It is likely that we will see a surge of purchases of this type of property before the deadline and this could in the interim force prices up if there is a mad rush

What should I expect from my conveyancer?

If there is a rush your conveyancer may find it difficult to cope with the large number of cases and may decide in an effort to control the large flow of work to increase fees for this type of work. I read recently that it is estimated as many as  50,000 buy to let transactions could be rushed through before the deadline. 

Clearly it is important to make sure your conveyancer is aware of the purpose of the transaction  and the need to complete before 1st April next. Your conveyancer may be reluctant to give a guarantee and require you to pay the fee irrespective of whether it completes in time. 

Where are the grey areas?

What is the position when a spouse or cohabiter breaks up with a partner and still has an interest in the jointly owned property.  Does the purchase of alternative accommodation count as a second home. Likewise where a property is purchased due to short term relocation for work where the existing property has yet to be sold. 

Hopefully the details will be ironed out once the consultation process is concluded and the legislation is passed.  Until then all you do is to work with what is known and to keep the deadline of the 1st April firmly in mind. 

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

When is a bogus legal firm not a bogus legal firm?

We operate in a world in which we are constantly exposed to criminal activity undertaken by sophisticated crime syndicates, normally based outside the country.   There are several different types of crime and the type of scam is constantly evolving.  There is a need for both professionals and consumers to be on guard and to be educated to spot the true scam attempts and to know what to do when one is identified. 

A scam is a type of fraud that criminals use to trick both professionals and the consumer  into giving up money and personal details. Sometimes criminals will use the names of law firms, solicitors or other individuals regulated by us to make their scam seem genuine, either with or without their knowledge.

Scams can take the form of unsolicited emails, text messages, telephone calls or direct mail. Emails sent can also contain viruses some of which are designed to allow the criminal to gain access to your computer with a view to obtaining personal details of clients, bank details and other confidential information. Alternatively the criminal take control only agreeing to release the captured data in return for a ransom payment. 

One type of email is an email sent from an address which is not specific to the purported sending individual or firm but which purports to be from a member of a legitimate legal firm.  Its this particular email which seems prevalent and which is now proving to be a daily occurrence.  All one needs to do is to look at the Solicitor Regulation Authority Scam Alert Register to see how many of these are happening each week.  

My question is that should this type of email, which is not by any means a sophisticated scam, be viewed as one which is reportable and allowed by some independent third party holders of this data, to suggest or imply that the ‘victim’ business may have in some way brought about the scam or is associated with it. 

I say this is not a sophisticated 'scam' because to create an email address and to then add a simple signature strip to pretend the email has come from a particular legal practice does not involve very much ingenuity. It takes no longer than a a couple of minutes and to be able to send this out to other lawyers involves nothing other than a perusal of Find a Solicitor website.  As I say not rocket science. 

I have first hand knowledge of this since my business was reported to the SRA and has also as a result of the incident, had a “notice’ added alongside our name on a data base held by a well known commercial solicitor checking service. 

The email had an attachment  and was sent to a number of legal firms and was sent not from a clone of our business email address but rather from a personal email address.  This was very clear and all that the email had which related to our business was the name of our business in a typed signature strip.   The email was clearly a fake and unless the professional person receiving it has lived on a different planet  for the past year or so, it should have been abundantly clear that the email was ‘spam’ at the very least, and should be deleted. 

Our only connection to the email was the use of our name within the body of the email. 

Notwithstanding this we were required to report it the SRA and as mentioned anyone searching our name on the SRA website and the third party database will see that we are associated with what should have been labelled 'spam' rather than 'scam'. 

Not happy with this, we lodged a complaint with the SRA and wrote to the third party verifier.  Despite these efforts we still have the 'scam' associated with our business and this has meant that from time to time we are required to defend ourselves when other businesses  contact us enquiring about what happened and making sure we were in no way involved in the 'scam'. 

My question is that should all types of spam be regarded as reportable, or is it reasonable to expect most lawyers, using both common sense and a degree of intelligence, to differentiate between a poor and pitiful effort to 'scam', as was the case here, and the more serious type of scam.   Is there not a fear that by reporting everything that might look to be a scam ( whether it is or not ) the real and more damaging scam will become less visible to detect?

The argument advanced from the third party verifier is that ‘sadly not everyone spots the obvious and people are conned by emails purporting to be from legitimate firms when they are not’.

It also claims that the credibility of those businesses who appear to have been held ‘guilty’ for no reason other than association has not been affected by this type of scam.  Its also argued that if someone purports to be you then you have a moral if not professional duty to warn your clients and other firms to ensure that they are not misled by criminals.

Fair points.  However, the email in question was not directed at the consumer, it was an email which was being sent purportedly on behalf of our business from an email address which did not even feature our business name within it.   The ‘red flag’ points within the email were clear and obvious. If the email address was a clone of our email address then yes we would have had a moral and professional duty to warn, but this was not the case. 

Surely after all of the publicity and professional guidance issued over the past year or two,  has the time not come for the SRA and commercial scam data base holders and publishers to be more discerning in the reporting and labelling of scam attempts.   On this note, the third party company has refused to remove the notice registered against our name or to put an explanatory note against it. 

By having this blot on our copy book through no fault of our own we do face the prospect of suffering damage to our reputation due to risk of other businesses dealing with us taking the view that we have been the subject of a genuine ‘bogus solicitor' attack when clearly we have not.  I raised this with the third party data collector and publisher and was told this was nonsense.  I have not take this any further but it would be interesting to take an opinion on whether the publisher of data which is capable of giving a misleading image of a business can be held accountable for any loss arising. 

Hopefully those reading this will not consider that I am looking to undermine the fight against fraud.  On the contrary  I am saying that unless we can when receiving data be able to filter and correctly categorise the incidents there is a real danger that the profession will start to switch off to the threat due to the the overwhelming number of reports and warnings issued. 

David Pett   

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at davidp@mjpconveyancing.com

Japanese Knotweed - A Case for Revising the Property Information Form

By Ben Pett - Trainee Solicitor

In recent years the subject of Japanese Knotweed has received a relatively significant amount of media attention. Far removed from the common garden weed, its rapid rate of growth has helped earn it the label as ‘the UK’s most aggressive, destructive and invasive plant’ (Environment Agency).

Failure to control it can land you with a fine and an ASBO, while in March 2014 an individual’s ‘paranoia’ surrounding the presence of the plant on his property, was widely reported as a motivating factor behind both the tragic murder of his wife and his eventual suicide.

The plant has certainly acquired quite the reputation for itself, but just how much of it is media hyperbole?

While it is estimated that only 1% of UK properties have been affected, the impact of it on a Conveyancing transaction can be extremely detrimental to sellers, purchasers and lenders alike.

Property Information Form: Third Edition

When the Property Information Form (TA6) was revised in 2013, it was drafted to include a question about the plant. Now, as sellers and their conveyancers will know, at question 7.8 it states the following:

“Japanese knotweed is an invasive plant that can cause damage to property.  It can take several years to eradicate.”

It then asks sellers: “Is the property affected by Japanese knotweed?”

The choice of answers a seller can select are ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not known’. It is at this point, the actual worth of raising this specific question can be debated.

‘No’

For the vast majority of sellers, the selected response will be ‘no’. But, there is a very marked different between a categoric ‘no’ based on a certain level of understanding, and merely stating ‘no’ because it has not yet been encountered by the vendor.

Any representation about a property can of course have legal repercussions if the information is intentionally misguiding. If representing a seller there is very little you can do if this is the case, but

what can be done to ensure that clients are not making firm assertions without sufficient knowledge?

To avoid such uncertainty it could be advised that seller should add a caveat along the lines of: ‘as far as I am aware’ to a response of ‘no’. This stems from how the plant can be hard to spot in its early stages. After all, most property owners are not horticultural experts.

‘Not known’

This response can serve to trigger alarm bells when reviewed by the purchaser’s solicitors. A request, via an enquiry, is likely to be made for further information and perhaps a specialist survey .

Indeed, this emphasises the issue with the current structuring of the question on the form currently. The ‘not known’ answer is arguably the most honest for the majority of sellers, but in reality it serves only to prompt the buyer’s solicitors to probe for further information.

From a sales perspective, it may be advisable to seek clarification from the client when reviewing the Protocol Documents if this response is selected. Again, a caveat along the lines of ‘buyer should rely on their own survey’ is to be recommended.

If this is the case, however, it is difficult to see just how the form has helped clarify matters at all from the perspective of clients or solicitors at the onset of a transaction. 

‘Yes’

From a conveyancing perspective this is clearly the most straightforward response. If representing the vendor, it is imperative to ensure the client has taken action. A specialist contractor will be required to treat the affected areas, with the form requesting a copy of the management plan detailing the record of works carried out.

Sellers should provide this to the purchaser’s solicitors, who in turn should enquire to see if it can be transferred to their client and whether or not it is backed by insurance.

Of course, if representing a purchaser the lender cannot be ignored. The presence of Knotweed does not automatically prevent a mortgage from being obtained, with a case by case basis approach often adopted. Evidence of treatment is once again key, as is ensuring remediation works have an insurance backed guarantee.

The presence of the plant at neighbouring properties has also deterred certain lenders, but note this is not something the seller is required to disclose on the Property Information Form. This again limits the value of the form in this particular area, with once again buyers directed towards ‘their own searches’.

A case for change?

By including Japanese Knotweed in the TA6, its potentially devastating impact is at least being acknowledged. As things stand, it is perhaps not addressing the issue from the right angle.

A simple amendment to create a choice of ‘yes’ or ‘not as far as I’m aware’ would reduce ambiguity. Property owners who are aware of it affecting their property would benefit from transparency, which is a clear strong point of the form. But those who are not aware, would not have to make assertions about the presence of a plant that they perhaps are not qualified to make.

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