Building Regulations: Cottingham v Attey Bower & Jones Re-Visited

Time and time again I am asked by buyer’s solicitors for indemnity insurance to address the absence of building regulation approval for home improvements such as an extension.  In the majority of these cases there is no justification for the cost of establishing an indemnity policy and though I do my best to argue my case I am frequently met with misconceived responses. The truth is that many conveyancers do not have the time to consider the law and the easy route is to ask for insurance. 

I am sure I am not alone when I say I did not become a lawyer to ignore the law and to follow blindly practices which have through laziness become  the norm.  I recognise conveyancing is very much rooted in practice but there is applicable case law and statutory provision which ought at times to be considered. 

So when asked for indemnity insurance to address the absence of building regulation approval and or a completion certificate a competent conveyancer should look at the facts and apply the law accordingly.  The offer of indemnity insurance look be looked upon as a last resort option. 

The first question to consider is when was the work carried out.  If it was completed within the last 12 months then my view would be to insist on the seller seeking retrospective  building regulation approval/completion certificate.   The Law Society's Conveyancing Handbook, makes it clear that only where work had been done in the preceding 12 months should the purchaser's solicitor enquire whether building regulations consent was obtained and complied with. Don’t even consider indemnity insurance in these cases.  This is a sticking plaster and in the words of Taylor Swift ‘Band-aids don't fix bullet holes’!  Most lenders would also require  retrospective consent remembering of course that the lack of approval and or a completion certificate should be reported. 

If it was carried out over 12 months then the seller should be asked whether it was work undertaken under concealment which would not of course be the case if planning permission was sought.  The seller should also be asked if building regulation approval has ever been refused.  It should also be ascertained with reference to your clients survey whether the work is likely to give rise to serious threat to life and safety. If for example the work was undertaken 20 years ago and the works are viewed by the surveyor as sound it would be difficult to see how a local authority could even contemplate injunctive action under section 36(6) of the Buildings Act.  

Keep in mind when asked for that costly and often unnecessary indemnity policy that it is there to protect the client from enforcement action under s36(6) not to provide protection if the works subsequently prove defective.   So one has to weigh up the risk of enforcement and in doing this it well worth keeping in mind that in 1998 an enforcement concordat was signed and adopted by almost all local government organisations with an enforcement function. This requires building control departments when carrying out enforcement to take a consistent approach and treat matters with proportionality, effectively making it unthinkable that injunction proceedings would now be utilised in relation to a minor item of domestic building work that took place years before.

Birmingham building control unit, the largest in the country, only had to resort to court action in five cases in 2003.

In cases where I argue indemnity insurance is not necessary or indeed required those competent conveyancers acting for the buyer often trot out the argument that following  the decision in Cottingham v Attey Bower & Jones [2000] PNLR 557 there is no longer any time limit on enforcement and therefore indemnity insurance should be sought in every instance where there is no building regulation approval.

This is an interesting authority and one which is not really based on the risk of enforcement but has more to do with the defectiveness of works carried out.  In Cottingham the buyer's claim related to the cost of rectification of the defective works and not loss arising out of enforcement action. In fact there was no enforcement action taken or indeed threatened.  The claim would have been brought against the buyer’s surveyor and the seller had it not been for doubt as to their financial standing. 

Its is also based on the the failure of the buyer’s solicitor to make adequate inquiry about building regulation approval.   This would suggest that if a buyer asks about building approval and discovers this has not been sought then if in the judgment of the buyer’s solicitor there is no or little risk of enforcement ( relying for instance on the survey) it could be argued with justification that the buyer’s solicitor in not  pursuing the issue has acted in the best interests of his or her client.  The only proviso to this is that the buyer client should be warned there is a risk of enforcement albeit a minimal one. Providing this advice is given it would be difficult to see a Cottingham situation arising particular in the light of the 1998 Concordat. 

In short there is a need to look at each individual case on its own merits and to be bold enough to make a judgement call based on both case law, statute and the practice  direction of the enforcement agencies. 

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Is there a need to order a plan search in all purchase transactions? Orientfield Holdings Ltd v Bird & Bird LLP [2015] EWHC 1963 (Ch) (26 June 2015)

The decision in  Orientfield Holdings Ltd v Bird & Bird LLP [2015] EWHC 1963 (Ch) (26 June 2015) should serve as a warning to all conveyancers of the serious financial consequences that can flow from mistakes made when carrying our due diligence on the purchase of a property.   

In Orientfield the buyer’s claim against the conveyances acting on its behalf was for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract and/or negligence relating to the purchase of a property in London. Contracts had been exchanged, a deposit paid by the buyers of £2.575 million and completion fixed for the 4th April 2011.

The  buyer sought damages contending  that its former conveyancers were in breach of duty as they had not informed the buyer of the impending development of a school, which the conveyancers had been aware of from a planning search carried out by them.

The trial took place during June 2015. The conveyancers argued that the buyer had bought the property solely as an investment in central London whereas the buyer said it was bought as a residence in retirement for the owner of the its Company.

The conveyancing transaction included a Property Information Form completed and signed by the Sellers. In the question headed Notices and Proposals they had marked ‘no’ in respect of any notices or letters received which would affect the property and in answer to whether the sellers were aware of any proposals for development nearby, they had written that the buyers should make their own enquiries, which the conveyancers had queried with the sellers solicitors as being an unsatisfactory answer.

In email correspondence the sellers solicitors told the conveyancers to carry out a Plan search which they did and which revealed all the planning proposals for the area including the school. The conveyancers sent their report on title of 9th November 2010 to the buyer without revealing the results of the Plan search and confirming to the buyer  the local authority search result “which does not reveal anything adverse”.

After receiving the report on title the buyer gave instructions to the conveyancers to proceed to exchange of contracts with the deposit of £2.575 million paid.

The buyer’s friend in this Country discovered through talking to neighbours, the proposal to redevelop the school.

The buyer then contacted the conveyancers via emails who sent her a copy of the Plan search result with a comment that as they had not seen the search result, they may wish to take independent legal advice.

Email correspondence followed between the Claimant and conveyancers asking for the purchase to be rescinded on the basis that the sellers had not disclosed the school development. The conveyancers did not follow up on this or advise the Claimant to obtain a valuation of the property before rescission. The conveyancers appointed Counsel to advise on whether the sale should be rescinded. Counsels advice identified three reasons why rescission would prove difficult and also risky, one being that there was no evidence the notice of development had been sent to the property.

A property litigation lawyer was subsequently engaged by the buyer and notice of rescission was served on the basis that  “the answer to question 3.1 in the PIF was untrue because (i) the Plants had received notice of application for both outline planning permission in 2008 and detailed planning permission in 2010, (ii) the Plants had commissioned Knight Frank to submit a detailed objection on their behalf at outline application stage and (iii) with others, had objected via Boisot Waters Cohen at detailed planning stage”.

Negotiations took place and the proceedings were settled before trial on the basis of a 50/50 split of the deposit. 

The buyer then brought proceedings against the conveyancers for breach of contract or duty and their failure to let the Claimants know about the Plans search results and the Defendants failure to investigate the results in an effort to recover the other half of the deposit and unrecovered costs.  The conveyancers denied breach of duty using and argued that even if there was a breach there was no causal link between the alleged failure to advise and the consequential loss. Essentially arguing that the buyers would have still proceeded with the purchase in any event. 

His Honour Judge Pelling on considering Breach of Duty found in his judgment that the conveyancer  “was in breach of his duty by failing to include in the ROT a summary of the effect of the Plan search report, the further investigations that could be undertaken with the LPA without undue difficulty, cost or delay, and to invite instructions in the light of that summary. By doing so, he would have given Ms Chow the opportunity to decide whether she wished to proceed, withdraw or obtain further information before deciding”.

In considering Causation, His Honour Judge Pelling ruled that the final point to prove this issue was the email to conveyancers acting on the property purchase where the Claimant had said

“I am sure I would not have entered into the purchase agreement if I had known that there was going to be a school for 1250 pupils and 250 staffs in the same block as my property.”

He continued that even though the buyer had become aware of the conveyancers failure to reveal the results of the Plan search and had taken other legal advice, he did not believe that the email was anything other than it was “reflective of her honest belief at that time”, which she had expressed long before the start of the proceedings. He was satisfied that the Claimants had “established the causal link necessary to maintain its claim in damages for breach of duty against the defendants”.

The decision is to be appealed. 

Lessons to learn

There are a number of unanswered questions arising from the above which makes it difficult to carry out a complete and fully informed evaluation of the decision and its practical consequences. 

To begin with its unclear why the buyer agreed to compromise on the financial consequences of rescission when it seems the seller had not acted in good faith when failing to disclose the fact that notice of the development has been received by the seller but the seller had failed to disclose this in the Property Information Form. It seems to be that there had been a deliberate concealment which should have provided a more than sufficient basis to justify a clean and complete rescission of the contract.  Perhaps the buyer was not too concerned about not making a full recovery given the fall back of a claim against the conveyancers.  

It would have been interesting to know whether there would have been a different outcome to  the rescission discussions had the conveyancer not sought a plan search and had proceeded to report to the buyer solely on the basis of the Protocol documents. 

The decision clearly reinforces a message which seems to have become lost in the age of the Protocol that when acting for a buyer greater energy and scrutiny needs to be given to the replies to the answers given by a seller in the Property Information Form and related communication.  Its unclear why the conveyancers did not press the sellers solicitors for an answer to question 3.1 of the property information form  and not accept what is fast becoming a standard reply of ‘rely on your own searches’.  The seller should be required to answer 3.1 with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’.  A search will not reveal whether  a  seller has received a planning notice.  Only the seller would know and this is why the question is raised in the Form. 

This was  the first error made by the conveyancers and one which is reflective of a more growing and widespread practice.  

It is clear a failure to disclose a search report having received one is not advisable especially when it should have been obvious having read through it that it contained information highly relevant to the transaction. The unanswered question is whether this decision would have been the same had the report been sent to the buyer but without comment and advice on its content.  Looking at the judgment it would on the face of it appear that the mere disclosure of the report would not have been sufficient, though this is far from clear, particularly when there must be a reasonable expectation that a client having received the report would have read through it. 

The other unclear aspect is whether there is in fact an obligation on a conveyancer to always commission a plan search or at the very least advise that one should be obtained.  My view is that the latter should at the very least form part and parcel of the practice of a comment conveyancer. By advising the client of the insufficiency of the local authority search when it comes to pending planning applications the client should be advised in clear terms that a plan search should be sought or at the very least the client should make their own enquiries with the local authority. 

At the end of the day the conveyancers in this case really do not have any excuse for the failures and I doubt any appeal will be based  on the breach of duty issue.  I suspect what has happened here is that the report has come in and was overlooked.  In a bust conveyancing practice this can happen.  The more avoidable error was the  failure to push the sellers solicitors on providing further information on the reply provided to question 3.1 of the Property Information Form.  The readiness to accept an unacceptable reply to that question was the beginning of a very bad day for those conveyancers. 

MJP Conveyancers 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@mjpconveyancing.com

Are you allowing your clients to be ripped off by indemnity insurers?

The cost of moving could in some transactions be reduced if more lawyers took time to consider planning and building regulation requirements more closely. 

The knee jerk reaction by some to jump to the tune of indemnity indemnity insurers and take out unnecessary insurance is inexcusable. Often clients are asked to pay several hundred pounds for insurance which if the lawyer took more time to consider the case would not be required. 

In this article I try and set out my thoughts on what lawyers should be thinking and doing when considering the planning and building regulations requirements of changes and additions to a property being purchased or sold by a client. 

If you know about an alteration or addition to a property that has happened in the last four years or a change in use within the past 10 years the yes insist on seeing the planning.  It's important to check the conditions if any to ensure there has been full compliance. If consent doesn't exist then indemnity insurance can be considered.  Check with the lender if the client is purchasing with a mortgage since the lender may not depending on the circumstances be willing to lend. 

However if changes have taken outside these periods ( 4 years where there is planning consent without conditions and 10 when there are conditions or change of use ) is it really necessary to push for sight of the planning consent. If you know the work was not concealed and the local search result shows no breach of condition is it really necessary to call for and par for indemnity insurance? 

The Planning Act 1990 states that lack of consent for work completed over 4 years ago is unenforceable and there is immunity for breach of condition or change of use after 10 years. You should if acting for the buyer ask the seller to confirm that the work was not concealed as in the case of Welwyn Hatfield Council v. SSCLG [2010] EWCA Civ 26 & R. (Fidler) v. SSCLG - [2011] EWCA Civ 1159

Why waste money on indemnity insurance which is wholly unnecessary and only serves to put easy money into the pockets of indemnity insurers. 

Turning now to building regulation approval. If the works were pre 1985 there is no need to worry if no approval or completion certificate exists. Local  Authorities were not compelled to keep records until the advent of the Building Act 1984. So dont be tempted to take out insurance. 

The Buildings Act 1984 was the first time that the Authority was required to keep records of Buildings Regulations. 

If the works were carried out post 1985 and a Building Regulations Completion Certificate is revealed by your search there is no need to seek a copy unless you are unsure about what it covers. 

If work was carried out in the past 12 months and there is no reference to it in the local search report then report to lender if purchasing with a mortgage and  check with Valuer/Surveyor as to structural integrity of the alteration and the issues that arise if the client were to undertake additional works.  In this situation always seek subject to the lender’s approval indemnity insurance because  the Local Authority has rights to serve a Stop or Enforcement notice within 12 months under the Buildings Act 1984. Consider whether a retrospective certificate should be sought. 

If work undertaken more than 12 months ago and there is no evidence of a completion certificate then  advise the client of lack of  availability of a Completion Certificate and to check with Valuer/Surveyor as to structural integrity of the alteration and the issues that arise if they wish to undertake additional works.    

If the surveyor has concerns then if there is a lender involved advise straight away and consider seeking a retrospective certificate or indemnity insurance. Advise the client on the exposure to enforcement action. These situations are the exception rather than the rule. 

If there are no concerns its unlikely the client would be exposed to enforcement action because  there would be nothing in the public interest to support an application for an injunction under s.36(6) of the Buildings Act 1984 to seek demolition of the works unless the works has been concealed and or present a health and safety issue to the public.  In my opinion don't waste money on indemnity insurance. 

So what about installation certificates?

The same applies as above and to help I have put together a draft reply to deal with those countless requests for charitable donations to the indemnity insurers coffers. 

This is the reply I suggest when a seller is asked for indemnity insurance for the absence of a FENSA or other installation certificate where these are shown to exist in the buyers local authority search:

It is clear from the result of the local authority search that the installation was undertaken according to requisite building regulations and therefore there is no scope to argue your client will be exposed to enforcement action.  Indemnity insurance is therefore unnecessary and will not be offered.  If you disagree then we would ask you to cite legal authority to support your argument that indemnity cover is necessary and indeed essential in terms of protecting your client’s interests. 

The reply of a seller when asked for indemnity insurance for the absence of a FENSA or other installation certificate where this is not disclosed in the result of the local authority search would I suggest be as follows: 

The time for enforcement action ended some time ago and unless the Local Authority can show that the installation presents a danger to the public then there is no scope to argue your client will be exposed to enforcement action. Indemnity insurance is therefore unnecessary and will not be offered.  If you disagree then we would ask you to cite legal authority to support your argument that indemnity cover is necessary and indeed essential in terms of protecting your client’s interests. 

As mentioned above if there is no evidence of building regulation compliance your client is better off paying for a competent contractor to inspect and report on the installation than wasting money on indemnity insurance. The risk of enforcement action is very low compared with the cost of replacement if the work was carried out haphazardly. 

Do keep in mind every transaction is different and the above general observations and guidance may not always apply. If you are a homebuyer or seller you should always take advice from an experienced conveyancer. The above is offered as guidance rather than advice that can be relied upon. 

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

We need to do more to protect our clients money

The recent report of a significant loss suffered by a client following the interception of an email by a gang of fraudsters has sparked a debate about the suitability or otherwise of communicating with a client via email especially as regards the exchange of financial information. 

Mr and Mrs  Lupton sold a fla for £340,000. Two days before the set completion date of February 27, Mr Lupton’s solicitor, Perry Hay & Co in Richmond, Surrey, emailed him requesting his bank account details for the sale proceeds to be paid into.

Mr Luton replies and unfortunately for all concerned the email was intercepted by fraudsters.

Posing as Mr Lupton, the fraudsters emailed Perry Hay & Co again instructing them to disregard the previous details and send the money to a different account instead.

The sale completed and following the discovery of the fraud the account was frozen and £271,000 was returned to the Luptons but the balance of £62,000 had already  been withdrawn by the fraudsters. 

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Robert Loughlin, executive director at the SRA, said: “We are very concerned about this continuing activity. The fraudsters are highly sophisticated in their approach. All firms should ensure that their own, internal systems for guarding against scams are up-to-date and that staff know how to implement them.”

Unfortunately the SRA dis not seize the opportunity to provide guidance.    There is an element of common sense involved  but this is easy to say in the cold light of the day but less simple to implement faced with the intensity and pressures of a busy day of completions. 

So what can be done to reduce the risk of falling victim to fraud?

Some commentators speak about the need of encrypted email but I question whether this is a practical solution and more to the point one that is really necessary. 

The first and most important step is to make sure there is a very clear and coherent policy prepared on how to deal with the transfer of client funds and to make sure every single member of your business knows the policy and knows it by heart. 

The policy should make sure that any bank details supplied to you by a client should always be verified by calling the client and taking the client through some security questions.  That is questions to which only the client would know the answers.  You should avoid questions such as date of birth, file references and any other information which a determined fraudster may have gleaned. 

I also recommend that you should always ask the client to send through a copy of the bank statement relating to the account into which the money is to be paid.   This can then also be used to verify the bank details.   I know a bank statement can be replicated but if you have asked the client to forward this to when speaking with the client over the phone the chance of a fake statement being sent through is remote. 

I also suggest that significant sums of money should only be retuned to clients after it has been authorised by a director or partner of the firm.  This will add a second layer of security since the director or partner can then check that the policy has been followed. 

We operate in an uncertain world full of people who operate tirelessly to defraud others - we must be more vigilant and careful with  our clients money. 

Interestingly, following the crime, Perry Hay & Co said it did not believe it was at fault and that the Luptons would have to suffer the loss.  I am not sure about that! 

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

How will the outcome of the 2015 General Election affect the new build market?

The question of whether we will be living under a red or blue, or a mixture of both, Government will soon be known.  How this will affect the new build market is also unknown and has created some uncertainty.

So what is likely to happen going forward, depending of course, on who lands up as the governing force.

The Conservative Party has committed to build 200,000 starter homes (built for first time buyers aged under 40 with a 20% discount) and 275,000 affordable homes by 2020.  Relatively small numbers and it is no clear whether the latter is in addition to the 200,000 starter homes.  The Labour Party is also looking to build a similar number of starter homes by 2020 and has committed to the establishment of a Future Homes Fund for investment in increasing housing supply.

It has similarities with the Liberal Democrats idea of a Government backed Housing Investment Bank to provide long term capital for major new settlements and to help attract finance. The new home start figure for the Liberal Democrats is set higher at 300,000 each year. They also commit to set in motion at least ten new Garden Cities.

Looking to make it easier for those looking for a home in the area in which they live is high on the priority list for Labour and they have promised to give priority to local first-time buyers in new housing areas.

In an effort to encourage owners of empty properties to sell Labour will be looking to allow local authorities to charge higher council tax on empty house.  The Conservatives have outlined plans to unlock and allow development on certain brownfield sites to enable 400,000 new homes to be built. Again it’s unclear whether this is an addition to the 200,000 new starter homes and 275,000 affordable homes.

This is all well and good and shows a broad acceptance across the parties of the need to build more new houses and to make these affordable to those looking to get on the property ladder.  The numbers proposed are however relatively small and do not meet ( apart from the Liberal Democrats) the 250,000 new homes each year that some commentators consider to the correct number to keep up with demand.  The truth is that we have never come close to this figure and as long as we fall behind with development economic recovery will remain volatile, rents will continue to rise and the cost of buying a property and keeping hold of it will remain an issue for many. People on ordinary incomes should be able to buy or rent a high quality home at a price they can afford today, and have confidence they will be able to afford tomorrow.

The major problem which none of the main political parties have so far fully addressed is the lack of competition in the new build market.  By 2012 70% of new homes were built by large house building concerns.  This is not surprising when land is so expensive and only the larger developers can afford to purchase.  The issue is that they all approach development in the same way, that is to minimise build cost and maximise sale prices by releasing homes slowly.   If there is a downturn in the market they reduce output and this contributes to a deepening of the problem.  So what happens is that output only increases when there is an acceptable level of house price inflation.

So in short land needs to be made available at a price which will enable smaller and less resourced builders to compete and or those smaller builders and developers need access to affordable finance to allow them to build good quality homes at affordable prices.  I will not hold my breath!

MJP Conveyancers are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Veyo has the momentum but will it prove to be a winner?

Much of the negative press generated by Veyo has emerged in my view from what can only be described as an identity crisis.    An issue which has caused some analysts and potential clients confusion about Veyo’s objectives and long term aims.   This lack of a clear and consistent message is a little difficult to understand when one acknowledges the success of Veyo’s branding and its PR machine.  Indeed it has within the last five days picked up five prestigious marketing awards.  So what has gone wrong?

I recently met with Stefanie van den Haak Veyo’s Commercial Director to put this and other questions to her.  My first impressions was this is a lady with a mission and one which she is determined to make a success. Stefanie is a lawyer and has much experience, as well as a good track record in bringing to the legal market intuitive and much advanced technical based products. She has held senior sales and business development roles at Lawtel (Centaur Media) and Thomson Reuters where she was instrumental in bringing Westlaw, the primary online research services for lawyers, to market. She was also EMEA Sales Director at Cambridge University Press.   She clearly knows her market and the difficulty of overcoming the inevitable hurdles of introducing technology to a very traditionalist legal community.

She struck me as someone who is passionate about her work and is relishing the challenge which she acknowledges she will face.

So what has gone wrong?   Stephanie says she inherited when joining Veyo a team which lacked direction and which struggled to understand the correct message to convey.    She has now understood the need to be more transparent and to acknowledge that Veyo is a case management system and one which will compete with existing case management systems.   The time has come according to Stefanie to declare that Veyo is in business to compete with the other case management systems and to deliver a system which will revolutionise the tools currently available to manage and advance conveyancing transactions.

Hooray – at last we now know Veyo is a case management system which has features which will distinguish it from existing case management systems and which if successful will bring conveyancing into the 21sts century.   So what distinguishs it?  Unlike other systems Veyo will allow solicitors to collaborate online and to move away from traditionalist practices. Bye-bye to pigeon post and the delays associated with it.  Good bye to the restraints and delays caused with antiquated means of communication and hello to an age when the consumer’s interests are put first.  Solicitors speaking with each other and collaborating on documents in real time and thereby making the conveyancing system far quicker and efficient.

As I have said before Veyo heralds a radical change in approach to conveyancing and one which is well overdue. With Stefanie leading the way and with the strength of belief in the product there is a glimmer of hope that a revolution is about to be born. 

Despite the drive and optimism evident in the positive language Stefanie uses I still have reservations about the future of Veyo.   The product will undoubtedly be good and reliable – it comes from a very good stable and one which has an excellent track record.  It will clearly deliver what is says on the tin and will give conveyancers the tools to communicate with each other electronically and to make the conveyancing a more enjoyable experience for everyone.  I have no doubts about this.  My reservations centre around take up of the product and the need to recognise the importance of a change in philosophy towards the approach to conveyancing.  

According to Stephanie Veyo is looking to achieve a 90% share of the CMS market within six years.  Clearly if this can be achieved Veyo will become a roaring success and investors in Veyo will see a good return on their investment. The question is can such a target be reached within what is a relatively short time frame?   Everything is possible but there are hurdles some bigger than others. 

There are firms out there are technology savvy and which will embrace the values of Veyo and its objectives. However will these firms be sufficient in number to provide Veyo with the critical mass it requires to make the collaboration and chain view tools the success they deserve to be? 

I continue to have my doubts that the conveyancing community as a whole will prove to be receptive to such fundamental changes.  How many conveyancer are out there who are ready to move to electronic files, to begin communicating with each other electronically and to collaborate online with other firms?  Some may say they are ready but have not thought through the consequences of making such a radical change.  As I pointed out to Stefanie there are a number of firms who don’t wish to change.  They like the client contract and the traditional practices of managing a transaction with a dictation machine in one hand and a pile of files in the other.  They have always worked this way and probably see no reason for changing.

So for Veyo to be the success which Stefanie and her team (and shareholders) hope it will be there is a need for those who have good case management systems to abandon those systems and convert to Veyo, for those who do not have a case management system to adopt Veyo in preference to other systems, and for those adopters to embrace a huge leap in technology and the way in which conveyancing is processed.

Do I think Veyo will succeed?  Meeting with Stefanie has change my view slightly.   Her belief in the product and ability to sell in a market which is in desperate need for change and for a product of this type is compelling.  I am just not sure however it’s enough.  I know how difficult it is to persuade lawyers particularly the traditionalists to change processes and to adopt and embrace technology. Looking to bring about a change in philosophy may prove to be a more difficult challenge than might first appear. 

On top of this is the cost factor. £20 per transaction is not a lot of money and given the benefits which are included represents good value.  The problem is are firms with existing case management systems willing to pay for two systems at a time when profit margins are very tight.  Despite the low cost of the system one cannot ignore the economics.   Perhaps we will see some firms abandoning existing systems and moving to Veyo.

Another hurdle to overcome is the fear of might happen in the future.   If Veyo achieves a monopoly can we sleep safely knowing there will not be a sharp price increase in the future?  What if the Law Society connection is severed and Veyo moves into the conveyancing market as a provider of conveyancing services?  What will happen if Veyo uses if position in the market to begin dictating to users the choice of search and other third party suppliers?  In short would it be good for the conveyancing market and indeed the consumer for Veyo to have such a large share of the market.

I am sure now Veyo has come out of the closet and announced its arrival as a case management system that those already in this market will not sit back and allow market share to be eroded but will fight back and introduce innovative technology which will compete.  Those who do not take this as a wakeup call will surely not survive particularly when one has regards to the determination and drive which I witnessed when speaking with Stefanie.  She is not a loser and will clearly do all she can to make Veyo a big success.

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