S10 (10) of the Party Wall Act 1996 and the Exploitation of the Building Owner

Dispute 

No where in the Party Wall Act 1996 ( ‘Act’) is a ‘dispute’ defined.   

The Collins Dictionary defines a ‘dispute’ as ‘an argument or disagreement between people’.   

If on serving a party wall notice the adjoining owner assents to the proposed  notifiable works, there is not of course a dispute, whereas if there is no response within 14 days of  service a dispute is ‘deemed’ to exist.  A disagreement will also arise of course, if the adjoining owner expressly objects to the proposed works. 

The existence of a ‘dispute’ is important for two reasons.  Firstly, without one there is no jurisdiction for a surveyor to be appointed, and secondly a deemed or existing dispute is a prerequisite for the making of a party wall award.  

As for appointment, RICS issued Guidance Notes on the Party Wall Act states:

'The full extent of the dispute should be given upon which subsequently appointed or selected surveyors can determine’ 

Even where the adjoining owner has assented at the outset,  the Act can still be engaged if during or following the completion of works a ‘dispute’ arises.   The relevant provision is S10 (10) of the Act  and provides the surveyors' tribunal is competent to make awards on matters which are in dispute between the parties and which are also connected with work to which the Act relates. 

The surveyors also have the power to determine any other matter that may arise out of the dispute which has been referred to them or which is in some way incidental to it

Their appointment is fundamental to achieving the purposes of the legislation and is widely credited with avoiding disputes between neighbouring owners that might otherwise result in litigation. The surveyors’ authority and power to make awards is not derived from their contractual appointment, but from the the provisions of the Act.  Failure therefore to follow the requirements of the Act can render an award invalid. 

What happens when a dispute or deemed dispute arises following service of the Notice?

The usual course when a dispute arises, or is deemed to have arisen, following service of the Notice, is for surveyors to be appointed, and for there to be an award, or party wall agreement put in place to regulate the works before they commence.   Usually, this will also provide a mechanism for the resolution of further disputes should they arise.  

The s10 (10 ) appointment 

The position becomes a little less clear when the adjoining owner having assented at the outset   subsequently decides to look to challenge the continuation of the works. On the face of it this triggers a dispute and the opportunity to engage the s10 (10) dispute resolution process emerges. 

However, it does not necessarily follow that just because the adjoining owner has decided for whatever reason to raise a concern a party wall dispute arises. 

There may be a number of reasons for the development. For example, the adjoining owner may have suffered some damage to their property during the course of the notifiable works, and becomes nervous about the prospect of the building owner making the work good, or offering compensation.  The adjoining owner may, by way of a further example, have become fed up with the building owner’s builder taking advantage of previously agreed access rights.   

On the face of it these examples suggest a disagreement, and per se would justify the establishment of the s10(10) process.  However, in both cases the situations could have easily arisen through nothing other than a misunderstanding, and or, without the building owner’s prior knowledge, especially if a contractor is involved.   

Furthermore, for there to be a disagreement there needs to be a difference in views, and if on enquiry the building owner accepts the view of the adjoining owner can it really be said that a dispute exists.  Clearly if one party accepts the position of the other there is no need or justification for the party wall dispute resolution provisions to be invoked.  

It is the uncertainty surrounding the adjoining owners change of heart that often exposes a building owner to the risk of financial exploitation by the ‘cowboy’ party surveyor who often circles looking for opportunities of this type. 

More often or not a building owner is forced due to pure ignorance of the workings of the Act to accept the appointment of the adjoining owner’s  surveyor, even though there is no actual dispute present.  It is only once the surveyor has bedded him or herself in that a dispute is then created to justify the appointment, and the massive fee accumulation that will inevitably follow. Its not too long before the building owner finds him or herself caught up in a protracted, very  expensive and, more to the point, totally unnecessary process, and one from which there is no escape. 

So what can be done if this imprisonment occurs?  

For there to be an award there needs to be an existing dispute.  This is clear from the present tense of the language used in s10 (10). 

This was made clear by HH Judge Bailey in the judgment he delivered in Mohamed and Lahrie and Antino and Stevens (2017) when dismissing the notion that the making of an award is always a necessary feature of the s10(10) process:

‘The argument that the 1996 Act requires the surveyors to proceed to an award even where the parties have reached agreement would be wholly against the general principle that parties who are sui juris are free to make such agreements as they wish to make, provided that they are not illegal in nature. It is also against the clear policy of the CPR for the court either to restrain two parties from reaching an agreement on any subject matter which has been referred to party wall surveyors under the 1996 Act, or to hold unlawful and therefore unenforceable any agreement they do happen to make, simply on the basis that a reference has been made to the surveyors. Very clear statutory words would be required before the court would act in this way, and there are no such words in the 1996 Act’.

If therefore the building owner agrees with the views/demands of the adjoining owner no dispute can be said to exist, and the need for an award ceases.  

In so far as the fees of the adjoining owners surveyor is concerned, even though there would be a strong argument to justify refusal to accept liability ( on the basis there was no dispute available in the first place to justify the s10 (10) appointment), this could ironically be viewed as a dispute,  and result in the making of an award. The best advise would be to offer and pay a small, but reasonable fee, and to then leave the adjoining owner to decide whether or not to run the cost risk of a third surveyor referral. 

Practical Advice 

If notifiable works are to be undertaken always serve a valid party wall notice. 

If the neighbour objects, or does not respond, look to find out why, and wherever possible establish a party wall agreement to regulate the proposed work, and to provide a mechanism for resolution to cover the possibility of a dispute arising in the future.  This will due to the decision in Mohamed ( above)  reduce the risk of exposure to the cowboy surveyor, and also the probability of facing a huge fee liability. 

This advice should equally be followed even if your neighbour consents to the works.  It is not uncommon for long standing neighbours to fall out, often for reasons unconnected with the build,  such as pure jealously.  By having in place an agreement to provide for the resolution of any dispute that might arise later will make it very difficult for s10(10) to be invoked. 

If there is no agreement in place, and a prima facie dispute follows assent, then find out what has gone wrong, and fix it quickly.  Don’t let a dispute develop, and make sure that if the adjoining owner surveyor decides to unilaterally appoint him or herself, that you make it clear there is no disagreement.  Follow this up with a written agreement, and ensure this has provision built into it to resolve any future disagreement that may arise.  This may mean swallowing your pride, and making concessions beyond normal expectation, however do bear in mind that entering the party wall arena can often be  akin to handing the adjoining owner’s surveyor a winning lottery ticket. 

David Pett - Solicitor 

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 Insurance Distribution Directive and Conveyancing - Are you ready ?

The Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD) will introduce  as from the 1st October, 2018 a new regime for those involved in insurance sales, even if selling insurance is not your primary business.

The IDD is designed to strengthen insurance customer protection, and will also apply to all businesses involved in the insurance supply chain, including where insurance is sold alongside other products.

So this will cover, for instance, the proposal and supply of defective title indemnity insurance. In this article I will look at the role adopted by most conveyancers when it comes to acting as a facilitator of indemnity insurance products. 

The SRA advised: “All firms should therefore assess their own individual practices and make sure they are… able to comply with the revised rules.”  The SRA has yet to issue confirmation of final rule change, though this is expected to be published shortly. 

Suppliers of indemnity insurance have also been slow off the mark to provide guidance and revised documentation even though these changes were due to be introduced back in February of this year. 

What is meant by insurance distribution activities?  

This will cover advising on and proposing contracts of insurance as well as carrying out work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance.  Most conveyancers who facilitate  indemnity insurance will fall within the category of “Ancillary Insurance Intermediary’. That is service providers and distributors of goods who distribute insurance products on an ancillary basis.

What are the requirements for engaging in insurance distribution activities as an ancillary insurance intermediate?

There needs to be evidence of registration with the your regulator to undertake such activities. 

Those involved need to be of good repute and possess  appropriate knowledge and ability to advise on and propose insurance products.   

This will entail training on products and on what formalities need to be addressed when engaging with clients.  The specific requirements for individuals to undertake 15 hours CPD relating to the provision of Insurance Intermediary Activities do not apply.

A  manager must be appointed to ensure compliance and records must also be kept to demonstrate  compliance. 

What are the rules on remuneration?

The IDD is keen to avoid conflict of interests when it comes to advising and supplying insurance products.    

This will therefore prevent a conveyancer from making  any arrangement by way of remuneration, sales targets or otherwise that could provide an incentive to the conveyancer or their employees to recommend a particular insurance product to a client when the solicitor could offer a different insurance product which would better meet the client's needs.

This will also mean a conveyancer will to be able to be paid a commission  or other advantage  for the supply of indemnity insurance without full accountability to the client. 

What information needs to be given to the client at the point of the retainer?

The client care agreement will need to be reviewed. Precise and clear information on the what what the conveyancer can do and not do under the IDD needs to be given.  The conveyancer’s regulator must be stated and the complaints procedure for dealing with complaints about the provision of and advise on insurance products must  be made clear. 

What information must be given before the indemnity insurance cover is put into force?

The requirement for a demand and needs statement remains and is extended. 

(a) sets out the client's demands and needs on the basis of the information provided by the client;

{b) where a recommendation has been made, explains the reason for recommending that contract of insurance;

(c) reflects the complexity of the insurance contract being proposed;

There is an obligation  to also provide the client with objective and relevant information about the insurance product in a comprehensible form to allow that client to make an informed decision while taking into account the complexity of the insurance product and the type of client. This shall be provided by way of a standardised insurance product information document ("IPID") on paper

The IPID 

This will be supplied by the  indemnity insurance supplier and shall include:

(a) information about the type of insurance;

(b) a summary of the insurance cover, including the main risks insured, the insured sum and, where applicable, the geographical scope and a summary of the excluded risks;

(c) the means of payment of premiums and the duration of payments;

(d) main exclusions where claims cannot be made;

(e) obligations at the start of the contract;

(f) obligations in the event that a claim is made;

(g) the terms of the contract including the start and end dates of the contract; and

(h) the means of terminating the contract.

What obligations are there when recommending to a client which insurance cover to run with?

Where a conveyancer recommends a contract of insurance, the client must be informed this is made on the basis of a fair analysis of the products available within the market.  This will involve looking at a  sufficiently large number of insurance contracts to enable a recommendation of a product which would be adequate to meet the clients' needs.   This will for example involve looking at the extent of the cover, whether the cover has an escalation clause, the rating of the insurer within the market and the conditions of the cover.  In other words making sure the client can make an informed decision about the product. 

If you are only using one provider of indemnity insurance the time may have come to look to other providers for comparable products or to a provider that can supply you with a list of  number of similar products for selection. 

Conclusion 

In practice if an indemnity policy is required it is often requested by the buyers conveyancer. If this is the case and you are acting for the seller given the above you should be saying it is for the buyers conveyancer to look for the policy and to determine which policy would be suitable for their client.  It would not be appropriate nor advisable for the buyer’s conveyancer to allow the buyer to accept a policy put forward by the seller without checking its suitability and carrying out an analysis of the market. 

If a policy is required the key is to ensure the client is presented with all of the information required under the IDD and is left to make the decision on which policy  designed to address the relevant defect he or she wishes to take out.   Providing  the appropriate policy required to address the defect is correctly identified  one should be  looking to only provide general advice to clients on the difference in insurer ratings and   the benefits of escalation clauses  when proposing insurance options. It should be made clear that cheaper cover may not always be the best option. 

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

‘Buyer Beware’ - Tips to avoiding post completion issues.

We all like to imagine our dream homes being exactly the way we envisaged upon completion.

Being able to move in with no issues and taking our time to replace items such as the boiler and improve rooms such as the kitchen and bathroom. Unfortunately our dreams are not always a reality on completion.

The unfortunate reality of purchasing a property in England and Wales is that the risk is  entirely with the buyer. It is for the buyer to inspect everything in as much detail as possible and for the buyers Conveyancers to raise adequate enquiries to eliminate as much of the risk as possible. This is really where your detection skills are put to the test.

We cannot stress enough the importance of inspecting the property as thoroughly as possible. Ensuring you not only view the property but test the items within it. Asking the seller to switch on the heating in the middle of summer can seem a bit excessive however it will reduce any doubt over the state of the boiler - a costly post completion situation we all too commonly see. Ask the seller, when was the boiler last serviced, if this was not within the last 2 years or if they do not have the report it may be worthwhile asking for it to be serviced prior to exchange of contracts.

Another equally important factor is to ensure that you commission a home buyer survey prior to exchange. It may seem daunting looking at the results but as your conveyancers we can view the home buyers survey and advise on any specific issues to be concerned with. If  necessary we can then raise further enquiries with the sellers solicitors. Our recommended  surveyors can assist and details can be found on our website : www.mjpconveyancing.com 

Finally if there is anything that is of particular concern to you but you do not feel this has been dealt with during the course of the enquiries do let us know. Once exchange has taken  place the seller is not obligated to respond to any further enquiries and it is therefore  important anything you wish to raise is dealt with pre exchange.

Post completion issues really can hinder your enjoyment of purchasing a new property, do  not be caught out inspection is the important key.

 

For further advice on post completion issues please do not hesitate to contact our dedicated  team - completions@mjpconveyancing.com or sophie.goodman@mjpconveyaning.com

Sophie Goodman

Trainee Solicitor

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 Dreamvar Appeal- Strict Liability for identity imposter fraud cases?

The long and much awaited Court of Appeal decision in Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya and the linked claim in P & P Property Ltd v Owen White and Catlin LLP, has now landed, and for the conveyancing industry, landed with a big bump.

In both cases a fraudster posed as the legal owner of the property.  Each buyer instructed solicitors to act in the purchase and each transaction completed.  The sale proceeds were unwittingly released to the fraudsters and the fraud was only discovered after the money was completely out of reach.  The buyers were left high and dry and took action against their advisers.

In Dreamvar, the purchaser sued the solicitors acting on the purchase as well as the selling solicitors and selling agent. Even though the judge at first instance had no issues with the purchaser’s solicitors conduct of the transaction they were found liable.

On appeal the Court of Appeal has attempted (and in many areas failed) to provide clarity on the following issues, and unfortunately the news for conveyancers and their insurers is not good.

Breach of warranty

The Court of Appeal found that as the selling conveyancers signed the contract in P&P there was a warranty that the selling solicitor’s client, that is the imposter, possessed the authority to transfer the title, and that as the buyer placed reliance on that warranty the selling solicitors remain liable for the losses.

It’s not clear what the position would be had the imposter signed the contract and not the seller’s solicitors. What is clear is that if the seller had included in the special conditions within the contract a clause to the effect no warranty as to the true identity of the seller is given, and that any reliance on any a warranty to this effect is unjustified, the decision might have been different. 

In practice this could give rise to a stand off between the seller and the buyer and it is clear urgent guidance from insurers, the Law Society and the CLC is required. The late intervention of the Law Society in this appeal represented a lost opportunity to make a marked impact on the decision and as always it is the practitioner which has been left with uncertainty and unnecessary risk.

Breach of Duty

Some good news! As anticipated the Court held a seller’s conveyancer does not owe a duty of care to a buyer.

Breach of Undertaking

The Court held that the undertaking that forms part of the Code for Completion covers the situation where the funds are received from a buyer in a situation where as in these cases the seller is not the legal owner of the property. Therefore, by releasing the funds to the imposter, the seller’s conveyancer had breached the undertaking.  This gives rise to not only professional difficulties, but a sellers conveyancer could also find themselves on the end of enforcement action under summary jurisdiction.

I would suggest there is a need for seller’s conveyancers to look to modify the Code and make it clear that the authority to receive is on the understanding that all reasonable efforts to identify the seller as the owner have been made, and that as no warranty to that effect can be given, the undertaking should be viewed as amended in these terms. 

Again, guidance from the insurance industry and the professional bodies is needed sooner rather than later.

Breach of Trust

Further bad news for the conveyancer.

The questions addressed were:

Should the buying conveyancer be excused from their liability for breach of trust under section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 when they had acted properly, and whether the seller’s conveyancer is liable for breach of trust at all when they innocently release the money to the fraudster.

As for the seller’s conveyancer it was held there was a breach of trust as there was not a genuine completion – it goes without saying that completing the transaction on behalf of the fraudster and not the true owner is not a true completion.

Unfortunately, little if any guidance on what would constitute grounds for establishing a successful s61 defence was given. If these cases go onto the Supreme Court, which is probable, then hopefully some useful guidance for the industry may be given.

Clearly, carrying out good AML checks and having regard to what are now well-established red flags (vacant property, no charge, large sale price) would be a good start.  Making sure in these cases that there is evidence tying the client to the property should now be a routine check. However, given the exemplary conduct of the buyer’s solicitors was not found to be sufficient to justify a S61 defence, it is questionable whether a S61 will still be an option, irrespective of the steps a conveyancer takes.  This is bad news on all fronts as it could lead to a sizable increase in PII premiums.

It also gives rise to the possibility of the seller’s conveyancers saying to the buyer’s conveyancer that they may wish to perform their own checks on the seller before proceeding. The buyer’s conveyancer may in turn advise their client whether they wish to proceed with a transaction where there is no warranty given as to the identity of the seller. In other words, putting the risk at the door of the buyer. In Dreamvar the first purchaser pulled out for this very reason. 

Conclusion

It seems we are close to seeing a strict liability era for conveyancers who unwittingly find themselves on the wrong end of imposter fraud of this type. How the insurance industry reacts to this remains to be seen.

David Pett – Property Law Solicitor

15/5/18

The Dreamvar Appeal and the game of 'ping pong' it has created

The decision of the Court of Appeal in  Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya and the linked claim in P & P Property Ltd v Owen White and Catlin LLP has created more uncertainty and will without doubt lead to conveyancers playing ‘ping pong’ with each other as I hope this article looking at the practical implications will demonstrate. 

So a buyer solicitor will be asking the seller for a warranty that the conveyancer’s client is the legal owner of the property. In return the seller conveyancer will or should say that all money laundering checks required by statute have been undertaken but that no warranty should be implied into the response as to the true identity of the seller.  

The ball now firmly back in the buyer’s conveyancer’s court, the competent buyer’s conveyancer should challenge this, and say this is not good enough, and to specifically enquire as to whether the seller’s conveyancer has seen evidence to link the client to the ownership of the property. For example, evidence of building insurance or recent payment of council tax. This I submit is a reasonable request and one which the seller’s conveyancer should be required to answer.  If the seller’s conveyancer refuses then the buyer should be made aware that there is a refusal to provide the evidence, and be advised that he or she should not proceed without it. Make sure the seller’s conveyancer is made aware of the consequence of failing to answer this question. 

If confirmation is given I am not sure the buyer’s conveyancer can do more. I consider it would in the absence of any other red flags be sufficient to take the reply as read.  If there are however red flags present then the buyer’s conveyancer may decide to ask for the sight of the evidence. The risk here is by asking for this and then receiving it, the buyer’s conveyancer is then taking on responsibility for checking the authenticity of the documents supplied. 

This line of enquiry should be undertaken in each and every transaction. 

If the buyer’s conveyancer following this enquiry has on going doubts then as I say this should be made aware to the buyer, and it may be that the advice is not to proceed, and if the buyer wishes to do so then a disclaimer should be signed. 

The buyer in these circumstances should check the adequacy of the seller’s conveyancers PPI cover to make sure that off an issue arises the buyer is not exposed if a claim needs to be made. 

The buyer’s conveyancer should also insist that the Law Society’s Code of Completion should be adhered too, which is of particular importance if the seller conveyancer is a licensed conveyancer or a conveyancer which operates outside the Law Society Protocol ( if the Protocol applies the Code is implied).  If the Code does not apply then the buyer’s conveyancer should insist on the seller’s conveyancer undertaking that they have the legal owner’s authority to receive the purchase monies. This should be sought before exchange.

If this is not forthcoming my view is that the buyer should be advised not to proceed without it and if the buyer says he or she still wishes to proceed make sure a disclaimer is sought. 

There is no outright winner in this game - its all about compromise and making the client aware of the risks where these exist. 

David Pett - Property Law Solicitor 

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

GDPR- What, How When, Where, Who?

In an increasingly digital world, it is arguably harder to keep track of what we have bought, who we have spoken to, what we have signed up to and more importantly, where our data is held. When we receive the telephone calls about accidents that we never had or emails from a friend who is supposedly stuck in Thailand after being involved in a tuk tuk collision, it often worries us how our details ended up in the hands of these rather ominous places. 

Organisations have become wise to the trends in consumer behaviour; namely, we want things done quickly and efficiently with as little bureaucracy as possible. A trend that has been exploited by firms using pre-ticked boxes and electronic receipts as consent to marketing as a way of increasing their customer base and decreasing consumer knowledge.

Well, four letters have the potential to shift the power back to the consumer and those four letters are G.D.P.R. You may have only just started to hear the acronym being used or might not be aware of what it even means but organisations all over Europe are currently working on becoming compliant with what is being dubbed the biggest change to data protection law in the last 20 years. 

This article will give you a brief understanding on the EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and what MJP Conveyancing has been doing to ensure compliance for our clients.

What?

1998; the era of chunky Nokia flip phones and dial up computers. 1998 was also the year that the Data Protection Act was introduced setting out 8 principles governing the use of personal information. Since 1998 we have witnessed technological growth on a scale far greater than we can process resulting in inadvertent cultural trends and an increasing imbalance of power in favour of the producer rather than the consumer.

 Let’s take the Tesco Clubcard as an example. Introduced in 1995, the Club Card was arguably introduced to gain a competitive advantage against its rivals by offering perks to returning customers. Since 1995 however, the growth in technology and types of data collected through the Club Card has enabled Tesco to gain a better understanding of their customers’ shopping habits such as what meals people like to eat, whether people like to cook from scratch or how many people are in the household based on the number of toilet rolls a customer purchases. My point? It is clear to see how data collection and analytics are changing at a rapid pace and there has been a growing need to modernise data protection legislation in order to protect how our data is shared and utilised by organisations.

The General Data Protection Regulation (amongst many other functions) seeks to bring data protection legislation into the 21^st Century by protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data.  

How?

How does GDPR seek to modernise data protection regulation? There are various ways in which GDPR seeks to modernise data protection laws such as appointing a Data Protection Officer, Free Subject Access Requests and the relationship between data processors and controllers.

One particular modernisation of the GDPR under Chapter 3 lays out 8 rights for individuals, namely:

1. The right to be informed
2. The right of access
3. The right to rectification
4. The right to erasure
5. The right to restrict processing
6. The right to data portability 
7. The right to object 
8. Rights in relation to automated decision making and profiling.

These 8 rights amongst other things aim to provide individuals with a higher degree of access to their data as well as more transparency around how it is processed. What’s more, the GDPR explains how companies must provide a ‘reasonable’ level of protection which in itself provides the Information Commissioner’s Office with a lot of scope to fine companies who are in breach of these rights under the regulations.  

Another modernisation to the data protection act through GDPR is the mandatory requirement to report Data Breaches within 72 hours to the ICO which was not under the Data Protection Act. Companies such as Carphone Warehouse, Facebook, Under Armour and My Fitness Pal have been in the press recently for Data Protection breaches, but it is not just the big guys that face liability. Small and large companies are under an obligation through Article 33 of the GDPR. With fines as large as €20 Million or 4% of total global turnover as versus maximum fines of £500,000 under the Data Protection Act, not only is GDPR enabling regulatory bodies to clamp down on bad practice, but are also providing clients with a satisfying remedy knowing that their data has not financially benefited business.

Overall, these regulations reflect a changing technological landscape which in turn has required our legislation to impose a greater degree of responsibility for those who control and process as part of their business.

When?

GDPR comes into force on the 25^th of May 2018. MJP Conveyancing have been working since December 2017 to ensure full compliance with the regulations. A dedicated team of inhouse staff have worked through a project list and we are now confident that we are compliant with the regulations.

Where?

You may be thinking why I have taken then time to write this article given that the GDPR regulations are a piece of EU legislation and doesn’t apply to us because of Brexit. This is in fact wrong and the UK will have to prepare for GDPR as with all the other organisations within the EU in line with Article 3 of the GDPR .  

To end…

MJP Conveyancing has been working tirelessly to comply with the GDPR regulations having successfully run a re-permissioning campaign, risk assessments and audits, staff training and various policy changes. We feel ready for the regulations and hope to provide our clients with a safe, transparent and reliable service which is really the ultimate aim of these regulations. 

See you on the other side of May 25^th!

Written by Emily Chawawa.

MJP Compliance Officer