Can HSBC restrict freedom of choice of solicitor?

The HSBC’s decision to make it less attractive for its mortgage customers to instruct their own solicitor has caused much anxiety within conveyancing practices , with many firms facing the loss of potential work from existing and potential clients.

The question is whether anything can be done to prevent this from happening.  Can a customer of HSBC insist on using his or her own solicitor without having to face a financial penalty?

Why freedom of choice is important?

One of the main concerns is conflict.   Solicitors have in the past acted for both buyer and lender and though the principles laid down in the recently introduced customer focused regulations ( Core Duties) would suggest ( if strictly applied ) that such a conflict should not be allowed to occur, it seems the Law Society has taken the view that its ‘business as normal’.    A decision which we as Conveyancers are of course happy to accept.

However when as in the present case HSBC has entered into a contract with one firm of solicitors and is providing its customers with a financial incentive to use those solicitors the dynamics of the relationship change and the scope for conflict is heightened.  How can the panel firm guarantee that it will not put the interests of HSBC before those of its clients? Surely it will not wish to lose what must be quite a lucrative contract with HSBC and therefore the commercial interests must clearly become influential.

What does the law say?

"It has always been the fundamental right of every citizen to be represented by solicitors of his or her choice" (Maltez v.Lewis (1999)). 

HSBC may argue that the client has a choice and is not so restricted. This may on the surface be correct, however when as is the case the client has received an offer of mortgage and is not looking to lose this, particularly in the present climate, and knows that if they decide to instruct their local solicitor they may be paying more, surely this all adds up to a rather tight and unreasonable constraint?

The Core Duties 3 & 4 of the Solicitors Practice Code 2007 say a solicitor's agreement with a third party's restriction on client choice could compromise the solicitor's independence and/or amount to a breach of Core Duty 4 where such a restriction may not be in the best interests of a client. As mentioned above one must question whether the solicitors acting under a high value commercial arrangement with the Bank is able, despite its best efforts, to provide unfettered advice to its clients.  Surely the very fact it is paid by the Bank and not the client makes this very different from the situation with other lenders where the client pays the fees.  The existence of a commercial arrangement between the bank and the solicitors must clearly compromise the solicitors in their dealing with the client.

Parallels with the insurance market

This issue is one which is often encountered in the insurance field when providers of legal indemnity insurance seek to limit the choice of solicitor, when a claim arises, to a member of the insurer’s panel of solicitors.  A conflict in these circumstances often occurs if the provider of the indemnity insurance also happens to be the insurer of the defendant against whom the claim is to be brought.  In this case the position is clear - the insurer must provide the freedom for the policyholder to choose its own lawyer.

Interestingly The Financial Ombudsman Service has confirmed the above points and also recommended that it is appropriate to use the policyholder's own solicitor in any cases where there is a suggestion of a conflict of interest, or in large and complex matters.   In this case if therefore an insurer insists on a panel lawyer, the policyholder may be able to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

It will be interesting to see whether clients with the help of their choice of solicitor look to what has happened in the insurance industry and begin to challenge through the Ombudsman Service the financial disincentives imposed by HSBC on freedom of choice.

Conclusion

HSBC must be taken to task on this policy decision.   The scope for conflict is wider and different from the relationship between other lenders and their panel of solicitors who are sanctioned to act on their behalf but with whom there is no commercial arrangement under which money is paid to the solicitor direct.

Solicitors affected by this decision may consider making a complaint relying on Core Duties 3 and 4. 

Clients affected may decide to refer the latter to the Ombudsman for investigation though in practice and with the fear of losing a mortgage offer this may not happen.

Alternatively clients could vote with their feet and choose mortgage products where there is no such constraint.    For those solicitors affected and who bank with HSBC may I be bold enough to suggest that it might be a time for a change!


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

More news of housing doom and gloom

Rightmove, the property portal, reports that since the beginning of the year new homes for sale has slumped to its lowest point in more than a decade.  Only 34,433 properties have come on to the market equating to around half of pre-credit crunch levels.

This comes at a time when emerged borrowing costs have fallen to a 14-year low with the average mortgage payments for new borrowers standing at 27 per cent of disposable earnings. Good news for those with existing mortgages but still no hope for those people trapped in rental properties without the money for the deposit.

Those who do have the cash to put down on a deposit have their own problems given the shortage of new homes. This has in turn created in certain areas a high demand for property and perhaps explains why property prices have remained more or less unchanged.

It has also led to those looking to buy to be more selective in their hunt for a suitable property and one that fits their budgetary constraints.  

The situation is likely to get worse when the stamp duty holiday for first-time buyers ends this spring.

So why is there a shortage?  We seem to building less new homes than before and this combined with the economic uncertainty and owners worried about  replacing their existing mortgage, there appears little hope for any immediate change.

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

New Survey shows withdrawal of HIPs has led to a return of problems with aborted property transactions

Home Information Packs were introduced by the Labour Government in response to a high volume of feedback from the public about concern over property transactions falling through and consequential losses.

The Coalition Government decided in May 2010 to abolish Home Information packs claiming that this would instantly lead to an increase in property activity and put more money back in the hands of the homeowners.  

The likes of Kirstie Allsopp, Grant Shapps and Eric Pickles lead what became a very personal and high profile campaign to bring Home Information Packs to an end, and were often photographed unwrapping ‘red tape’ wrapped around houses.

Twenty months on the question is what has this decision achieved – are homeowners any better off and has it led to any change in the very situation that led to the introduction of HIPs?

Recent research suggests it has not. A new survey has shown that over 500,000 house sales fell through at the end of 2011, a jump of 33% from the beginning of the year.

The study also showed that property deals in the second half of 2011 were less likely to succeed than they were to collapse.

This led to homeowners incurring unrecoverable costs, running into thousands in most cases and averaging well over £5,000.

So rather than saving money as we were all told it would, this data shows that what most conveyancers knew, that without the financial commitment shown by those selling in purchasing a HIP, together with buyers not knowing anything about the legal aspects of the property before instructing a solicitor, transactions remain at a higher risk of collapsing than they did at the time Home Information Packs were in place. 

The absence of the HIP or a suitable replacement for it ,has also slowed down the sale and purchase process, which in turn has increased scope for sellers and buyers to change their mind and pull out.

HIPs may not have been the ideal answer but at least the reform was one step in the right direction and had at its time of demise begun to make an impact on resolving the problem for which it was designed.

It’s a shame that senseless political football got in the way. Equally it’s a travesty that the main proponents of its withdrawal have just left homeowners far worse off than they have ever been without not even a hint of finding a different solution to what is proving to be a major problem. Grant, Kirstie and Eric we need answers please. 

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

Beat the 24th March Deadline for Stamp Duty

The time to act is now if you are thinking of buying a new home as the concession on Stamp Duty for first time buyers ends on 24^th March. 

Until that date first time buyers do not have to pay Stamp Duty on property purchased for £250,000 and under.

Instruct us now to make sure you exchange and complete before this deadline and save up to £2500 – our prices start at £240 Plus VAT.  We offer a fast and professional service and are open Monday to Thursday 9 am to 8 pm, Friday 9 am to 5 pm, Saturday 10 am to 1 pm.

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

Building Regulations and moving home

Do I have supply evidence of Building Regulation Approval in respect of works carried out to my property when I look to sell my property?

If you have the approval then of course supply it – it will help to ensure your sale moves quickly.

If you have carried out works and approval was required and sought and you no longer have a certificate then call the issuing council and ask for a duplicate.

If you have carried out work, and the work required building regulation approval, but this was not sought then you need to consider with your solicitor when the work was carried out and what to do in response to your buyer’s request for sight of the approval.

The following may help.

Check that work carried out actually required building regulation approval as not all work attracts the requirement.

If the building work was carried out before November 1985 it would not require building regulation approval. There is no need therefore to supply it or offer indemnity insurance.

If work was carried out after November 1985 you can apply to the council for a regularisation certificate. A fee will be payable.  Remember however that once you apply the option of offering indemnity insurance for the defect will be removed.

Depending on when the work was carried out you may also be asked for a completion certificate.

The Building Regulations 2000 provide for the issue, by local authorities, of completion certificates where work has been carried out and completed under the building regulations, and the local authority are satisfied, after taking all reasonable steps, that the relevant requirements of the building regulations have been complied with.

If the work was carried out within the last two years (time limits vary but in the main proceedings must be brought within 2 years of the completion of the offending works) before the sale you will most certainly be asked for the approval, completion certificate or a regularisation certificate if these are not available.  This is because the time for taking enforcement action exists during this period.

However by reason of a decision in the case Cottingham v Attey Bower & Jones it seems an enforcing council may be able to enforce a breach outside this time limit. Due to this when selling solicitors for the buyers normally seek confirmation of compliance of building regulations since the property was built.

The problem is that most council offices don’t keep records of building regulations more than four or five years back. They will often conduct searches of their archived records for £150 or so but what if they don’t turn up an approval? The chance to get an indemnity policy for lack of building regulations has passed so your only option is to pay for the council to come out and inspect the works and issue a regularisation certificate.

Is it always necessary to offer indemnity or a regularisation certificate? 

It is most unlikely that a council will be concerned about a wall being knocked through some 20 years ago particularly given budgetary constraints.  It would only take action if it considered the works were dangerous.  The fact is if they were dangerous this would be revealed in the buyer’s survey.  So if not revealed as dangerous I question whether the risk of injunction proceedings is as high as some buyer’s solicitors would have us believe.

The use of indemnity policy by the seller to address this defect if you are the buyer is one which should be avoided as the policy offered will not provide protection if the work was carried out and structural alterations arise by reason of it.  For this reason a full survey should always be commissioned.

If commissioned and you are the buyer then providing all is well the need for chasing the seller for building regulation approval on works carried out in the deep past must be questionable.

A lack of building regulations indemnity policy could be useful in the case of recent works where a survey reveals no defects and the buyer is in a hurry.

Remember any window or door installation since the 1^st April 2002 (contract for work was entered into after this date) requires a certificate issued by the Local Authority Building Control of FENSA.  

As for certain building work involving electrical work or electrical work to existing installations all such work requires Building Regulation Consent if carried out after 1^st January 2005.

A Building Regulation Compliance Certificate is also required for the installation of central heating systems after 1^st April 2005. Since the 1^st April 2009 the scheme changed from CORGI to Gas Safety Register.

Before accepting advice to take our indemnity insurance please read this article by the same author : Overuse of Indemnity Insurance  

.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

Breast Implant Rupture

Around 40,000 women in the UK have had breast implants produced by Poly Implant Prostheses (PIP).  

The announcement from the French authorities calling for the implants to be removed has caused an international health scare.  The French authorities believe there is an increased chance of the implants rupturing and leading to complications.

On the 23rd December 2011 the French authorities advised all its citizens who have had PIP implant to have them removed and the French Government would pay for the full cost of the procedure. 

ABOUT PIP BREAST IMPLANTS

The supplier of the implant, Poly Implant Prostheses is based in the south of France, and had been using to secure financial saving, industrial grade silicone, normally used for filling mattresses and computer parts, instead of medical grade silicone. 

The cheap implants rupture rate runs at 5%, although it is estimated that this could rise to as high as 10%. This is much higher than other implant rupture figures.

The company went into administration in 2010 and the use of its products has since been banned.  

THE SITUATION IN THE UK

In the UK it was announced yesterday that those who have had the implants through the NHS would be permitted to return and to the NHS for removal.  The Government has called on private providers to do likewise.

HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THE IMPLANT HAS RUPTURED

Often you may notice deflation of the implant by a change in the shape or size of the breast. This can happen slowly over a few days, but can often happen very suddenly.

In many cases a rupture may not be noticed without the need of an MRI scan, as many silicone based implants will not leak in the same way as saline based implants, due mainly to the gel inside the implant.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

If you have had these implants you should consult with your GP immediately.

HOW CAN OUR TEAM OF EXPERTS HELP?

The MJP Clinical Negligence Team has many years' experience of successfully winning harmful product claims.

Our expert advice has helped us our team to be mentioned in The Legal 500.

Our lawyers have successfully recovered compensation for victims of other pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

For a FREE private consultation call Sara Westwood on 01603877000 or email sarawestwood@m-j-p.co.uk

New approach to the offer of mortgages

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about interest only loans?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louise Stone - December 2011

Merry Christmas

We would like to take the opportunity to wish all of the followers of our Blog a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year and to invite you all to take some time out to read our Christmas Newsletter which you can find HERE

All the best from the team at MJP Solicitors in Norwich - have a good one!

Letter to the Justice Secretary

Dear Mr Clarke,

I wanted to write to you and express my dismay at your comments in the press this week:-

“What we have marching towards us is an army of lawyers advancing behind a line of women and children saying, of course, they're not concerned about the income of the profession, they're only concern is these vulnerable clients who would be adversely affected if they're not paid at the rate they currently are".

I was deeply offended by what you said.

I am one of your “lawyers advancing…………..” and am against your proposals for removal of legal aid for clinical negligence claimants and even more so against the idea of taking up to 25% of a Claimants damages for a success fee. I have never been in this game for money.  I have always carried out this job so that I can help accident victims. That is my first priority and always has been. I have a real passion for helping accident victims.

Only this morning I spent 2 hours with an 18 year old and her mother talking about her child abuse possible claim which will be “free time” for which I will recover nothing. This is not unusual  as it happens most weeks, providing free advice to potential clients. I help at the CAB too. Last week I was in the High Court with John Foy QC settling a £9m plus RTA claim for a young lady who was knocked down by a car in 1996. Liability was only resolved in the Court of Appeal and the Defendants only came up with an offer acceptable (approximately £500,000 more than their previous offer) 2 days before trial (we were listed for 7 days about which see below). This was one of the last legal aid cases for personal injury, possibly in the country I would imagine.  We needed to provide the Claimant with enough by way of income from her lump sum (and Periodical Payments Order) for her care regime for the rest of her life. How could I ever have taken away any of  her damages for a success fee? How could my practice (or indeed any other) run that case (with a legal bill of over £1m) now?

Whilst talking about this case you may be interested to know 2 other points of interest. Firstly the discount rate currently set at 2.5% is going to mean that it will be a real struggle to bring in sufficient funds to pay for all her outgoings let alone taking some of her damages for losses. If it were not for her loving parents putting their lives on hold to care for her then she would really struggle. All because of someone else’s negligence and you want to deny people like her access to justice, Justice Secretary!

Finally the same case had leading counsel for both sides (plus a junior) and 4 leading experts in their field yet the court would not provide a fixture for the hearing, notwithstanding a joint application from the parties to do so. Hence we had experts (and counsel/clients/witnesses) all waiting on the whim of a court listing, which had still not come through 2 days before. I would estimate that this will have cost at least an extra £20,000, payable by the Defendant, onto the costs which would not have been incurred if the experts could have been given a fixture and booked other work in when they knew they would not be required.

I am not alone in these sentiments.

On my wall is a commitment to accident victims which tells them I will put their interests first and I do, with pride.

I thought you should know that there are in fact a great many people with similar sentiments to me. I would hazard to guess the wider public, if properly informed would actually be horrified at your plans.

If you would like to respond or discuss matters with me then please feel free to.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Bransby F Inst L Ex

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

Are Banks lending to the legal sector?

I have attended many conferences over the past month or so and have had to listen to one bank representative after another making claims of how wonderful they are when it comes to helping the legal profession.   Often presenting with a smile and twinkle in their eye I have had to sit and listen to how lending to the legal sector is up on the previous year and how they have extended overdrafts and provided loans for practices to develop.

Listening and drifting off to another world it is easy to get lost in the fluffy words and  believe how lucky we are to have banks who despite the deepening recession and meltdown in Europe, are still there to help when help is needed.

Unfortunately the reality bears no relationship to this fairyland rhetoric. Yes, banks are lending to the sector, and perhaps lending is up, but the fact is that a solicitor business is viewed no different from any other business, and unless you meet the credit criteria fixed by some faceless person stuck somewhere is a skyscraper in London, you will not be helped.  It’s as simple as that.

The truth is that banks will only lend when the exposure to bad debt is minimized with security and capital reserve requirements.  Ask yourself how many practices fit this criterion.  Moreover, the very reason for turning to the bank in the first place is that there is nothing in reserve and short term assistance is required. 

In fact banks look at solicitor practices differently, and in a way which  when compared with other businesses makes it even more difficult to satisfy the faceless men who make these decisions.  Most firms are profitable, but face cash flow problems. Apart from those who own the premises they occupy, there is normally no other assets of value in the business other than work in progress.  The problem is that banks when looking at the balance sheet refuse to attach any weight to it, even though the Inland Revenue is quick to value and tax it!  I am not sure why this is so when its no different to stock in a stock room.

So what can be done?  Very little I am afraid to say as the banks hold all of the cards and will clearly dictate the fate of many of those legal practices who are struggling to keep their heads above water.  All I can say is to forget loyalty and shop around.  Although most banks are the same, there are some that are worse than others.  The days of receiving a more favorable hearing if you have been with a bank for some time are long gone.  Loyalty is only a one way street for many of these banks.

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

New low cost case and risk management portal for conveyancers

Norwich based Property IT Company, Move and Log, has recently launched an online portal aimed at suppliers of conveyancing services, and which is designed to assist busy practitioners in managing multiple transactions and the risks associated with conveyancing

David Pett, lawyer and designer, of the system explains the background to the idea:

‘We have in the past spent a small fortune on purchasing case management systems many of which promised the world but in the event fell miserably short of our expectation. 

Designing our own system was relatively straightforward and with an in-house IT team we have produced a highly practicable and low cost on line portal for managing the common risks associated with conveyancing transactions.

It doesn’t make the tea or coffee, nor does it do the work for you. It is however a system that delivers in full on everything it says it can do on the ‘tin lid’.   It has revolutionized the way in which conveyancing is processed in our office and the way in which partners can monitor the level of work and the performance of those working in the department’.

The portal that can be accessed by clients and agents 24/7 has according to Mr. Pett helped to cut down on calls coming into the office and has also helped to significantly improve the line of communication to both client and agent.

In designing the system the focus was fixed on risk management and what could be done to reduce the risks surrounding the conveyancing process.   This objective, explains Mr. Pett:

‘is achieved with features built in to address concerns over money laundering, mortgage fraud, complaints, undertakings and the recording of key dates.   By adding these processes my firm was able to secure a 5% discount when it came to renewing this year our professional indemnity insurance’.

Looking ahead, Mr. Pett adds:

‘We are now looking to share this technology with other practices that might be looking to introduce case and risk management systems and to offer the portal with no set up costs or ongoing support charges.    At the same time we are busy integrating the system with third party suppliers such as search and indemnity insurance providers in the hope that in time with commission payments funding the maintenance and future development of the system we will be able to offer the portal as a free service’.

For further information David Pett can be contacted at david.pett@moveandlong.co.uk

Is the client always right?

It was once said that as a nation we are very reserved in our ways and are reluctant to complain when something goes wrong. This may be down to a sense of reasonableness, a desire to give people the benefit of doubt and to realise that in life mistakes do from time to time occur.

I have in recent times however noticed a major shift in attitude, people in general I find are less tolerant when it comes to mistakes and are less likely to be forgiving when things do not go their way.  This may be to do with the lack of money; the scramble to make savings and even the hope that by complaining a financial gain may follow.

Working in the service industry I work hard putting into place procedures and training sessions for staff to ensure that customer relations is given the priority it deserves.  I work tirelessly to do all I can to ensure mistakes do not happen but as with most aspects of life it is inevitable that there will be times when oversights or mistakes are made.  

I always like to think that if you admit the mistake as soon as it happens and do not fall into the trap of trying to defend the indefensible that the client will understand and a swift resolution should then follow.  

In the majority of cases this is often the outcome, though speaking to others it seems there is of late an increasing trend for complainants to seize the opportunity to make life difficult for the person or company responsible for the mistake.  More often than not this particular stance in money motivated  - the hope is that by taking the offensive it will result in a financial reward.

The difficulty this causes is that however hard one works to find a satisfactory resolution if the agenda of the complainant is different the chances of preserving a congenial relationship with the client/customer is almost bound to be lost.  You find yourself in a ‘no win’ situation and one that leaves even the most conscientious practitioner feeling extremely deflated. 

Much emphasis is given to the use of complaints procedures and of the need to follow these at all times.    There is no doubt that a process of this type is essential but I do question the effectiveness of such procedures in dealing with the hard nosed complainant who is determined to get his or her ounce of flesh irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the complaint.

The problem service providers face is that with increased access to consumer redress schemes, and the fear of adverse publicity on Google and other sites where the client/customer can rate the supplier, the complainant will always have the upper hand.    How many of us would risk finding ourselves on the end of a negative rating and one that could be set in stone even where there is no justification. 

So what can one do to avoid this?  Well in short very little as even with the best will in the world one can not avoid the serial complainer or the complainant who complains for no reason other than to seek a reduction in your fee or some other financial gain.  All one can do is to operate a robust complaints procedure and to be firm and fair in its application. 

Undertaking high volume of work particularly as low cost increases the risk of complaint not only statistically but in terms of clients/customers seem to expect more for their money and are more likely to complain if the service does not live up to their expectation.

The upshot of all of this is that complaints are an occupational hazard and one that in addition to operating a complaints procedure we should make provision for both financially and in the setting aside of management time.

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

What is equity release?

Equity release is a term that refers to various ways in which mainly older homeowners can use their homes to generate income or lump sums, either with a mortgage repayable on death, or by selling the property (or part of the property) but continue to live in it during their lifetime.

If anybody thinking about entering into a scheme of this type it is most important to seek advice from a solicitor who has experience in dealing with these transactions.

A good solicitor will warn you about certain aspects of these arrangements which are as follows:

Maintenance and repair

You will continue to be responsible for maintaining and repairing the property and therefore you should ensure that you have sufficient reserves to meet your obligations.

Some arrangements place an obligation on you to seek the consent of the lender before carrying out any alterations or making any additions.

All adult owners and occupiers in these arrangements have to be part of the loan agreement. If they are not and you were for example to die then the other adults in the property would have to move out.

Moving home

Most of these arrangements will allow you to move home providing the new home that you are moving into will act as sufficient security for the loan. If you were to move to a property which didn’t act as sufficient security you may have to repay all or part of the existing loan before you could move.

Welfare benefits

Receiving a large amount of money from an equity release could affect your entitlement to means tested welfare benefits and services both now and in the future. One area is of particular importance and that concerns possible financial support towards the cost of the care services.

Tax

There could be tax implications and it is important that you should seek advice from an accountant or tax specialist about these. Some arrangements can be structured in such a way as to reduce or eliminate liability to inheritance tax.

Beneficiaries

Releasing equity from the property will of course diminish the value of your estate and the amount your beneficiaries will inherit upon your death. It is always important therefore to discuss the issues with your beneficiaries to ensure that they fully understand the implications to avoid any misunderstanding in the future.

There are a lot of credible schemes out there that operate in this field but equally there are a number of less desirable schemes and it is for this reason as I say at the beginning it is important to seek expert advice from a solicitor on these arrangements before making a final decision.

Any questions please feel free to email me.

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

Dont let romance blind you when buying a home!

I have acted for many first time homebuyers and as you would expect many of these clients have had to make significant financial sacrifices to save money for a deposit.  For many of these clients their heads are very much in the clouds. The romance of living and owning a home together for the very first time makes it difficult to discuss and provide advice on the financial implications of what is clearly a major life changing decision.

In a number of these cases advice has to be given because one partner may be putting more money into the transaction than the other. It is not uncommon for the deposit to be as much as 30% of the purchase price and for this to be funded by savings accumulated before the couple met. This is not of course an arrangement confined to the first time buyers.  There are also clients who are for example looking to buy a property with a new partner following death, separation or divorce.

The common thread is that at this point in time the relationship may be at an early stage and the buyers are only really concerned about the immediate future, and not what might lie ahead.

In general, couples purchasing a home instruct me that they wish to purchase the property as “joint tenants”. The significance of this is that if one of the partners were to die then the share of the profit in the property would automatically pass to the other partner, even if the deceased partner makes a different provision in his or her will.  A Court would not be able to interfere in that arrangement even if the deceased partner had contributed more towards the purchase of the property when it was originally purchased.

Even though it is often an unpalatable exercise I always advise my clients that they should think about whether it would still be their wish for their share to pass to the other in the event of death or separation.  More than often they shrug their shoulders and I am greeted with a perplexed look.

There are times however when I am instructed to set up the way in which the property is bought so as to provide for the equity (money left over after the mortgage and fees are paid) in the property once it is sold, to be divided on an unequal and predetermined basis.

If one party for example put 2/3 of the money forward for the deposit and the other the remaining 1/3 then they might instruct me to ensure that the property is held in such a way so as to provide that 70% of the equity/profit in the property goes to one, and 30% of it goes towards the other.

There are also three or four other different ways in which unequal contributions can be recorded and it is therefore important that if you are in this situation and seeking advice that you ask your solicitor to explain these options to you. The way in which the division of the proceeds is expressed at the outset can have quite a substantial bearing on the financial outcome in the event of a future sale.

Even though your solicitor may try and persuade you to look beyond the romance of owning your first home together you may still decide even though unequal contributions are made, for the property to be held jointly. This is understandable. There is however a half way house in that you can instruct your solicitor to record that you are holding the property as joint tenants but that if anything happens in the future, and one of you decides that you want to serve notice to say to the other to say this arrangement should no longer apply, that the net process should then be divided in accordance with shares predetermined at the point of purchase.

I am happy as ever to answer any questions you might have about this or any aspect of property transactions. Please feel free to email me at my email address shown below.

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