Veyo - A Trojan Horse?

The Veyo PR train continues to gain momentum with the bold announcement the week of attracting ‘orders’ in its yet to be released on line case management system from ’47 %’ of the conveyancing fraternity. 

Talking in the Law Society publication - Law Society Gazette - Stefanie van den Haak, commercial director of Veyo, said: ’The number of enquiries since the pricing was announced has been phenomenal but we are not complacent. We know we are offering something that is unique and we need to continue to promote our USPs. We are keen that conveyancers see for themselves that there is nothing comparable in the market.’

Going on record, and claiming such a significant number of potential customers is a bold step, and one which will either herald the onset of a conveyancing revolution or the start of a slippery slope for those investors behind the product, which includes of course the Law Society.   Ten million of pounds is a large sum of money to gamble, and on top of this also lies the professional reputation o a body which has been representing  and governing the interests of solicitors since 1875. 

So where does the truth lie?  Are conveyancers flocking to offer support for the product or is it the consequence of a well managed and orchestrated PR machine?  There is no doubt that Veyo has succeeded in the promotion of its brand as well as making Veyo a hot topic for discussion.   Hats off to Miss Vanden Haak and her team.  Even though much of the discussion has focused on negative features of the product, the fact is that any publicity whether it be good or bad must be a welcome outcome for Veyo.   

So in answer to the question, I very much doubt that half of the conveyancing businesses in the Country have ‘signed up’ or even at the very least registered an interest with Veyo.  I suggest the  claim is nothing other than ‘sales talk’ designed to appeal to our inherent sheep  gene.   If there is any truth in the figure it must represent a measure of the level of curiosity that  clearly  exists. Its out there in abundance. Curiosity however is one thing, from an investors point view hard cash is all that counts.  

One must also question the perimeters of the basis on which the claim is made.  The Land Registry has over 7000 firms registered with conveyancing interest.  So does this mean Veyo has received firm orders from over 3000 businesses?  I say ‘orders’ because this is how it was stated in the press release. Sounds fanciful, but clearly would if true, represent an epic achievement on the part of Veyo’s sales team.  

One should also ask how many completions do these 47% of conveyancing businesses produce each year, and what percentage of the overall completions number for all firms does this represent.  Keep in mind that the top 200 conveyancing business have around a 36% to 40% share of the market. 

I can understand why there is a need  for the statement to be made when the commercial success of Veyo hinges precariously on the products purported unique selling point.  Indeed Miss Vanden Haak makes specific reference to the importance of this in her statement.   So what is the USP?  Difficult to tell at this stage but it seems to centre around a ‘chain matrix’ and a ‘deal room’.   These features may explain why Veyo needs to convince us all that it already has accumulated critical mass since without this the product losses its USP.  It is as simple as that.  What is the point of singing up and parting with you hard earned cash if all you  are left with is an incomplete picture of a transactional chain?   The Land Registry spent  millions of pounds on a similar project which it then had to abandon in 2009 because of lack of interest. I am not sure why Veyo believes the market will take a different view now, especially when it will involve having to hand over money for the privilege. 

Only time will tell if the statement is true or not.  One thing is for sure that even with 47% of conveyancers as users this still means there are 53% who are currently not interested and unless these firms can be won over the platform and its USP will become meaningless.   

Just a thought.  If you were an investor in Veyo I am sure you would be thinking of Plan B to cover the prospect of the product nose diving.   It seems obvious to me that one plan B must be for Veyo to enter the market as a business offering a conveyancing service of its own. It already has the profile and brand awareness as well as, if you believe the hype, cut throat technology.  A trojan horse in the making.   The only thing that would prevent this from happening is its commercial tie with the Law Society.  Now that would be a story! 

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

Ten Reasons for the likely failure of Veyo

1.       Lack of Identity

I have made this point before, but despite the sea of negativity it has received, Veyo continues to be promoted without a clear and recognisable identity.  On one hand it says it is a case management system, but on the other, depending on the audience it is addressing, it says it is not. Despite recent announcements nobody, as far as I can see, is any the wiser as to what role Veyo will play in the conveyancing market when it is released. 

2.       Lack of USP

On the back of a lack of indemnity is the absence of a USP.  There is talk of a ‘Deal Room’ and of how this will promote collaboration between parties as well as a ‘Chain View’ allowing those involved in a chain to keep updated on progress of all of those involved in the chain of transactions.  A valid and brave objective, but how can it be sure that this will remain unique even if it proves practicable?  I know there are a number of well-established case management suppliers working hard at the moment to introduce similar features.  Once these become universal where will this leave the Veyo business model? Moreover, for this to prove to be a commercially successful USP, Veyo will need to see the vast majority of the 4,500 firms who undertake conveyancing to sign up to their promise of their conveyancing revolution.  Is that really going to happen? It will only take one party in the chain not to ‘buy in’ into the USP for the whole stack of cards to come crumbling down.

3.       Pricing

Why announce pricing before the product is available for viewing?   A £20 per transaction price tag seems on the face of it to be reasonable, but until we know what we will be getting for it, how can this be objectively judged. Furthermore, if this is going to be the price for both small and large providers, do Veyo really believe that the main players in the market are going to pay for a service over and above their existing services, which is unlikely in reality to add anything of real benefit?  The top five national conveyancers completed in January on around 7284 purchase/re-mortgage transactions (Land Registry Data). On top of this they would have also completed on around 3500 sale transactions.     So take as a monthly figure of transactions of 10,000, and apply to this the £20 transaction fee this would give a yearly financial commitment to Veyo if there were all to sign up, of a staggering £2400000.00!  How can this make commercial sense when for this money they could quite easily invest in similar enhancements to their existing systems!  The reality is that it will perhaps only be those who are doing a moderate amount of conveyancing work that may be persuaded to pay the fee.  The question is whether this type of take up would be enough to satisfy Veyo’s shareholders. Only the accumulation of critical mass will be its saviour.

4.       Not making the system free of charge

This ties in with three above, but represents a massive commercial mistake on the part of Veyo.  By making the system free, at least for a trial period, would have given practitioners the opportunity to evaluate the benefits of the system, and to be persuaded or otherwise by its features.  This would at least encourage those with curiosity to take a look.   Veyo could by making it free to join look to make money on the resale within the platform of third party services, by allowing for example search providers to offer the platform as an added value product. 

5.       Lack of reality on the  success of engagement with existing case management providers

Reality will dictate that existing case management suppliers will not sit back and allow Veyo to step in and eat into their market shares without a fight.  Why should they?  Until Veyo announces and clarifies the benefits of integration and offers to underwrite the cost of this, so that the practitioner has to pay for it, why would a CMS wish to hook up with the system of a competitor?  Unless I am missing something fundamental I just do not see how and why Veyo believes practitioners will be knocking the door down of their CMS providers to integrate.

6.       Underestimating the level of desire for practitioners to engage with forward looking technology.

If Veyo delivers what it says it will, is there a critical mass of conveyancers out there who will be prepared to change the way in which they work to encompass the vision of online collaboration and online engagement with clients and estate agents?  I doubt it.  Conveyancers are in the main traditionalists who, even if there was no charge for accessing the system, would still hesitate to sign up to a method of work which remains for a vast number, alien.   There needs to be major shift in outlook of use of technology,  which I do not consider currently exists within the profession. 

7.       Focusing too much on the consumer and not the practitioner

Much of the PR surround Veyo has focused on a campaign aimed at the consumer.  Veyo appear to be of the view that if they can present a picture to the consumer that Veyo will provide the answer to the dissatisfaction many consumers have about delay when selling and buying a property, this will force the consumer only to use a conveyancer who uses Veyo.  The logic behind this vision is that consumer demand will then leave conveyancers with no option but to buy into Veyo.  I believe this to be a misplaced vision because it is clear that although consumers would like to see transactions moving more quickly most home movers are more interested in factors like price, locality of the conveyancer and reputation.  I really can’t see a home mover turning down a quote from a competent conveyancer just because that conveyancer is not a customer of Veyo.  The Law Society should know from past campaigns involving its beloved CQS that there still remains an overwhelming proportion of home movers who have no idea what CQS stands for, let alone the benefits of engaging a firm who has the credential.

8.       Lack of clarity about mandating

Veyo continues to play its cards close to its chest on mandating and on the role it will adopt in the future in the delivery of the CQS accreditation.   There is one thing in life which has the effect of turning practitioners off and that is the thought of having to be forced to do something which they do not believe to be is in their best interests, or that of their clients.  Look at what happened to the mandating of home information packs and how the conveyancing industry rebelled against it.  No professional body should allow itself to make decisions about the affairs of their members which are commercially motivated.  Veyo has already said there will be no mandating but there remains scepticism and for as long as this remains there will clearly be a number of firms who will be holding back at this stage.

9.        Underestimating the future viability of Lender Exchange

Some may forget that we already have an established system used by the main lenders as a means of verifying panel members and for facilitating communication.   Veyo has said it is likely lenders will mandate Veyo.   By saying this they are blatantly ignoring the presence and success of the Lender Exchange and the fact that the lenders using it are probably tied into the system for a number of years in any event.   Unless Veyo can acquire critical mass in a very short time frame I really cannot see lenders contemplating the mandating of the system.  

10.     Arrogance  

    Practitioners need engagement to feel that they are part of something and have helped develop it.   Despite claims to the contrary Veyo has developed a product without meaningful recourse to the profession and the suppliers of CMS.   This has created a huge amount of resentment and negativity, and even though Veyo has started to open up and engage it may be the case that this has happened far too late in the day for the damage to be repaired.   Nobody likes arrogance and it will take some time this perception of Veyo’s approach to fade.  The golden question is that does Veyo have enough money in the bank to ride out the storm of negativity which continues to brew and blow strong.   

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

Tips for parents helping their child onto the property ladder

Helping your child onto the property ladder has become a natural and common thing to do these days. 

There is however more to this than simply handing over the cash.  In this article  we look to highlight some pointers which every parent should keep in mind when planning to provide financial assistance. 

The first point, and one which is pretty fundamental, is to consider whether you can purchase the property outright.  If this is not possible then you will need to do some research to find the best mortgage product available.  Lenders are more vigilant than ever during the mortgage application process  and it is therefore essential to be honest about your financial circumstances. Don't exaggerate your income to secure a larger mortgage. If you are helping with a gift and your child is applying for a mortgage make sure they disclose your gift to the lender.  

You may be  advised to make sure you put your names on the title deeds.  You will need to ensure the property is registered at the Land Registry  with you and your children holding as tenants in common.  This means  in the event of the death of one of the owners the deceased’s owners stake in the property will pass in accordance with his or her will.  So make sure you also update your will. Also keep in mind what will happen to the property and your child’s home if you were to die. 

There will if you are named on the title deeds be tax implications so make sure you talk through your plans with a tax expert before you commit. 

If you don't wish to be named on  the deeds then make sure your intention when making the money available is clear.  Is it a gift or a loan? If its a loan will you be charging interest?  

Even though they are your children you will need to seek independent legal advice. See a solicitor and get a legally binding agreement drawn up. To safeguard a loan or investment, make sure it stipulates the nature of any arrangement and steps are taken to ensure the property can not be sold without your consent.  Keep in mind that if you are making a gift and not taking a stake in the property your child’s solicitors will require you to provide evidence of identification and the source of funds which you will be using. 

There are other options available.  You could offer to be a guarantor for your child to get a mortgage.  You could look to remortgage your property.  Its best to explore all options with an independent financial advisor. 

Finally  take care - don’t put yourself in a financially risky predicament by overextending yourself and don't assume that mortgage interest rates will remain at the same level. You shouldn't rely on your current good relationship with your child – things can go wrong. 

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 davidp@mjpconveyancing.com

Understanding Leasehold title plans

In October 2014 the Land Registry changed its policy on how it creates Leasehold Plans.

Before the 20^th October the Land Registry looked to replicate the intricate details from the large leasehold plans showing the precise layout of property at a large scale.

The problem with this was that this was often potentially misleading when considering the smaller scale Ordnance Survey maps used by the Registry.  

A review of this practice revealed a variance in approach and for this reason a change in policy was needed to make sure that the focus on the mapping of leasehold floor levels was put back on the lease plan.

The new policy still requires the Registry to show the extent of the land in a lease but when it comes to dealing with larger developments this is more likely to be recorded on the landlord’s title with the tenant’s title plan showing only the outline of the building as shown on the Ordnance Survey Plan

By adopting this new approach the Registry hope it will be easier to understand the position of all the leases granted out of a registered title in relation to each other on one title plan.

Completion of a leasehold floor lever registration, according to the Registry, without any limitation in the extent of other rights, interests demised, guarantees the title granted to the tenant notwithstanding how the red edging on the title plan is drawn.

However these changes in policy will no impact on the results issued on searches of the index map, 0S2 applications and a Map Search.

In practice we will be seeing a change in the note attached to the tenant’s title plan.  This is now likely to record that the land will lie within the area edged red but which is more particularly described in the lease or leases.

None of these changes impact on the need to submit a Registry compliant plan when registering a title for the first time - that is making sure the following requirements are met:

• a site plan showing detail in relation to the Ordnance Survey map

• plans of each floor level

• a recognised scale for both the site plan and the floor level plans

• a North point

• clear edging showing the land demised by the lease. The location plan and the      detailed floor level plan can be separate plans.

The Veyo revolution is a non-starter

I read recently that the Law Society joint venture Veyo intends to bring residential conveyancing into the 21^st century.    A revolution is on its way?  Well, this is what the Law Society would like us to believe.

So much so Veyo has and continues to spend a vast amount of money on its attempt to convince professionals and the homeowner that despite working within the tight constraints of an archaic conveyancing system, which has more or less remained untouched since the average weekly wage was about £5, its online portal with functions to allow a client to communicate with his or her solicitor without picking a phone up, will magically speed up the conveyancing process.

I am not sure whether its naivety or sheer arrogance on the part of those behind Veyo, but one thing is for sure, the product which has yet to materialise, is not, despite the claims to the contrary, a magic bullet to cure what are and continue to be a fundamental flaws with the home selling and buying process as well as the approach adopted by some conveyancers operating within it.

To be fair to Veyo there is a lot to be said for highlighting to some conveyancers that the time is now to ditch the pigeon post, to question whether there really is a need to operate with secretarial staff, and to provide a service which allows online collaboration between conveyancers and online interaction with the client.   

Not only are these changes essential to be able to compete with volume conveyancers they should also, per se, shout out as making complete financial sense.   Conveyancers who are looking to survive the constant onset of challenges must make these changes soon or face extinction.

The claims made by Veyo to the consumer that is holds the answer to the long delays and frustrations some home sellers and buyers experience are disingenuous in the extreme.     Yes, I accept there is a need for an improved and more transparent line of communication between those involved in the process especially with the client, but unless the philosophy and approach towards conveyancing changes no online portal on its own bring about the changes which are desperately needed to ensure both professionals and homebuyers/sellers are able to enjoy a less stressful conveyancing process.

There is no sign that with an election looming of any of any move by the main political parties to bring in changes to the conveyancing process.   The shambles surrounding the introduction and withdrawal of the Home Information Pack debacle has clearly taught politicians that changes to land law and processes is a total ‘no go’ area. There is no political appetite for change and we are therefore resigned to the fact that the system which we have is unlikely to be reformed probably for a further 100 years!

So where does this leave the homebuyer/seller? Is Veyo going to turn out to be the saviour, the consumer champion?   This is their idea though I suspect at best history will show it was the catalyst which the conveyancing industry needed to spark the fuse for long overdue enlightenment.

Veyo and other IT providers can provide the tools to assist the conveyancer to make changes, but what they cannot do is force some conveyancers into adopting the changes in their own processes and approach to work which are required before significant improvement will be seen.

So what is needed to start the revolution?

The starting point is the need to lose the legacy which holds a number of conveyancers back.   Just because it is the tradition do certain tasks in a particular way does not mean that way is the only way or is indeed financially efficient.  For example, we use our own in-house developed software to engage collaboratively with the client and the buyers solicitors when going through the additional enquiry process.  We invite clients and the solicitors to engage in the process.  Significantly we have no trouble with the client but looking to engage the buyers’ solicitors has proved far more problematic.  ‘Can we please ask you to send to us your replies on paper’, is often the response. Others say ‘we are unable to access the replies’, which is often code for ‘ We can’t be bothered to go on line to see the replies!’.

Another legacy is the long flowery letters which the dutiful secretary has painstakingly typed.  Why?  Lawyers should all be capable of writing in succinct and concise terms and what is the point of dictating and having typed information which can be standardised and communicated in template electronic notes? 

How may conveyancers scan their post and other written communication?  The cost of the scanner is reasonable and by operating with an electronic file is not as alien as some may believe. The problem is there is no mind set or ambition to change to explore innovation of this type.

Veyo at the end of the day has the right ambition and reflects the objectives and outlook of my business and many other ‘21^st century’ conveyancing operations, but unless there is a major sea change in the way in which the majority of other conveyancing business are run, the revolution it is promising is unlikely to materialise.   The reality is that Veyo and other innovative conveyancing portals are currently ahead of their 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

Clients Guide on what to check with their conveyancer when purchasing a leasehold property

You instruct a conveyancer to act and look after your interests when purchasing a leasehold property.   You go to that conveyancer to ensure he exercises the skill and care required to ensure that the property you are purchasing can become a home free of legal issues.  

As part of that due diligence process your conveyancer will send to you information about the lease as well as a copy of the lease for you to read through.   He will if he does his job correctly identify what might be wrong with the lease and what he suggests should be done to sort any problems.

This may all be very daunting and in effort to help you understand what to look for and what to query if your conveyancer fails to cover an aspect I have set out below some ( and it’s not intended to be an exhaustive and comprehensive list )  common points to keep in mind:

Have you been provided with a completed copy of the lease?

Has your copy been signed?

How many years does the Lease have to run?  If the remaining term is under 80 years you should seriously consider pulling out unless the seller is prepared to arrange for the lease to be extended before you purchase.

Does the property description in the lease mirror the property you are looking to purchase.  Check the lease plan against the floor layout shown in the sale particulars.  Take the plan and carry out a physical inspection of the property to check for discrepancies.

If you are told there is a garden and or car parking space then make sure this is included as part of the description of the property you are purchasing.

What parts of the property and the amenities are you required to share with other tenants?

Is there a right to pass to and from the property from the closest public highway? If not you may find that someone else could legally prevent you from accessing the property.

How much is the annual ground rent and service charge – can you afford these remembering they can increase depending on the clauses in the lease and the expenditure incurred by the landlord in the upkeep of the building and communal areas.

Check the rent review clause - the ground rent might only be £250 per annum at the time of purchase but this could by the end of the term be as much as a million pounds per annum!

Is there a management company and if so is it properly run and has accounts to show that it takes its responsibilities seriously.

Is the property adequately insured? 

What are the restrictions on use of the property?  Can you sub-let for instance and if so what conditions have to be met?

Even though the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the property you should always get a survey undertaken since if there is major work required you and the other tenants will be required to contribute to that cost however much the expenditure might be.

Finally do consider carefully whether a leasehold property is for you  - many conveyancers including myself advise clients not to purchase this type of property unless there are very compelling reasons so to do. 

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 the Lender Exchange and how does to provide benefit to conveyancing clients?

The Lender Exchange is a service designed by Decision First to aid communication between solicitors and lenders. It is intended, writes Katie Easter, Trainee Solicitor with MJP Conveyancing, to reduce the risk of fraud by providing a secure portal for exchanging information. 

The lenders currently working with lender Exchange are Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Santander and HSBC Bank.

What are the benefits for clients?

The benefits of Lender Exchange include reduced administration which is designed to prevent delays for clients. The system enables lenders to send mortgage offers to solicitors electronically which is much quicker than more traditional post or Document Exchange. At MJP Conveyancing we are well equipped for receiving documents electronically which means that we can deal with documents received through Lender Exchange efficiently.

Mortgage offers are usually accompanied by forms such as Mortgage Deeds which we provide to our clients for their signature. Prior to Lender Exchange it was not uncommon for offers to be sent without these documents which led to delays for clients when solicitors had to request the forms separately. A function of Lender Exchange is to make standard documents such as Mortgage Deeds and Consent to Mortgage forms always available to be downloaded. By downloading forms manually, solicitors can help to prevent delays.

Although clients may be unaware of Lender Exchange, they are benefitting from the system. Waiting for lenders to produce mortgage documents can cause unnecessary stress and delays for clients. Lender Exchange represents a new means of communication which is likely to prevent these delays.  

                

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

What to look for when purchasing a property sold through a power of attorney?

Buying a property from a person acting under a Power of Attorney should, according to Michael Riches, Trainee with MJP Conveyancing, pose no issue if all the relevant checks are made by your conveyancer. 

Some people may be concerned that the attorney does not have the right to sell the property; however, an explanation of what an attorney is and what powers they have should calm those concerns.

What is a Power of Attorney

A Power of Attorney is a legal document which allows someone (the Donor) to appoint someone to act on their behalf (the Attorney or Donee) and make decisions for them. These decisions can be in relation to Property and Financial matters or Health and Welfare matters.

There are two types of powers, a General Power of Attorney and a Lasting Power of Attorney (previously known as an Enduring Power of Attorney).

A General Power only lasts while the Donor has mental capacity and may cease to have effect after a set period and will cease to have effect if the Donor loses mental capacity. In a property transaction any person can appoint an attorney under this general power to act on their behalf and sign all necessary documents.

A Lasting Power is only effective when registered at the Office of the Public Guardian. These are effective even when the Donor loses mental capacity, indeed these are often entered into in anticipation of the Donor becoming ill and losing capacity. The key to this Power though is that the Power must be granted and entered into when the Donor still has capacity and is fully aware of the arrangement and implications of the document.

As a Buyer you should be aware of who you are purchasing from and in what capacity they are acting. If you are aware you are Purchasing from someone acting under a Power of Attorney and the Power is still valid then your right to a good title is protected. However, if it is proved that you knew the Power was invalid or had expired or had previous knowledge about the circumstances in which the attorney’s power would be terminated then this right is not protected and you will not be able to register the property in your name.

When instructing your conveyancer you should make them aware at the outset, if you yourself are aware, that the property is being sold by someone acting under a Power of Attorney.  If this is not immediately apparent then it will be revealed within the contract documentation sent by the Seller’s conveyancer. The checks your conveyance should make, and you should ensure are made, are: 

Has a fully certified copy of the Power been supplied?

Is the Donor still alive – if the Donor is deceased then the Power automatically ceases to have effect and the attorney cannot act in that capacity

What type of Power is it – in a conveyancing transaction the Power must allow for the attorney to act in property and financial matters.

How many Donees are acting – this is important as both attorneys must agree to the sale and sign the documentation.

If all of the above is provided and correct then your right as a Buyer to a good title is protected.

Further guidance can be found on the www.gov.uk website. This provides a lot of information on the Power of Attorney. Furthermore, if you would like to sell a property under a Power of Attorney it details the process to appoint an Attorney.

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

Norwich - A fine City to buy a property in

The news of Radio One choosing  Norwich as its venue for its Big Weekend in May will undoubtedly help to remind people of the popularity of Norwich as a place to live. 

Based in East Anglia and situated about 20 miles away from some of the very best coastlines in the UK, Norwich continues to grow not only as a top tourist destination but also as an ideal location to establish a home.

So what does Norwich offer?

There is much more to Norwich than Delia Smith and Stephen Fry and a former Premiership football team.  

Norwich bustles with good and varied shops, restaurants and pubs and offers a unique quality of life. 

There is an excellent theatre hosting some of the top shows in the country.

Norwich is also the gateway to the Norfolk Broads. There are  Nature Reserves  and it is also situated close to a number of the top Natural Trust Land/Properties 

Though there is a large selection of restaurants and public houses it would be remiss not to make specific reference to the Last Wine Bar  and The Georgian Town House  There are lively eateries and ones which offer good quality food. 

Norwich Property Market

Finding a property in Norwich may however prove difficult. 

The opening of the Eleveden by pass has increased the drive time to and from London and with a good train service running from Nowich to London with Trains every hour transport routes into the capital are better than have ever been.  This has led to an increase in demand and prices in Norfolk have been rising and will continue to rise this year. 

There is a distinct shortage of stock in Norwich at all price points which is a situation that has been in play since 2009 and it just keeps getting worse.

According to Rightmove the majority of sales in Norfolk during the last year were detached properties, selling for an average price of £259,940. Terraced properties sold for an average of £157,736, with semi-detached properties fetching £172,339.

If you are looking for help to find a property give Pymm and Co and Abbotfox agents which have a good reputation in the area.    Try also the local property newspaper edited by Caroline Culot

As for conveyancing solicitors beware if you are directed to a specific firm by an estate agent as commission fees are rife in the City and add to the cost of buying a home. 

At MJP we have no ties with any agent and offer competitive fees.  You can obtain a  quotation here 

For more information on Norwich Tourist Information Board 

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

Will the arrival of the 'Facebook Conveyancer' mark the end of the traditionalist approach?

I understand the  ideals behind a traditional conveyancer and the need for all conveyancers to act at all times in a professional manner. However  I must  question whether the demand for a traditional conveyancing service is still as great as it was at one time and indeed sufficient secure longevity in an ever changing and highly competitive market. 

A typical traditional conveyancer is someone who would not touch a conveyance unless a fee in excess of £1000 is charged, who operates with a secretary and per perhaps also an assistant, who takes long lunch breaks and who  loves to engage in long meetings and telephone calls with clients.  

He or she will also subscribe to the pigeon post mode of communication.  Receiving a letter placing it in a lovely wooden in tray and then after lunch getting out the dictaphone and dictating a very and long and flowery letter in reply.  The dictation would then sit on the tape until a couple of further long letters joined it when a few days later it would find its way to the secretary for transcribing. Once typed the letter would then be left for the conveyancer to check and sign, probably after  the completion of an afternoon on the golf course.  Three or four days later following the arrival of the letter into the office it would find itself on the post room awaiting despatch.  

As for technology, there would be a PC standing on the desk and one which  would probably be turned on but rarely used.  Perhaps the occasional surfing of the net would take place from time to time mainly though to check the latest cricket score. 

This description may be extreme and only representative of  a few but I am sure we have all come across a conveyancer who could be connected to some or all of these features.  I acknowledge there will always be a place for the traditionalist because there are some clients who are prepared to pay for this type of service and who have the money to meet the cost.   The question of whether this demand will last forever given the arrival of a generation who have grown up with technology and social media remains to be seen. 

The growth in Instant Messaging, Facebook, SnapChat and Twitter should be sending out alarm bells to these traditionalists, particularly the small traditional high street firms.   It may still be possible to demand high fees and to continue with traditional work practices but unless  change is on the agenda the prospect of longevity in a fast changing and competitive market is low. 

There is a high demand amongst a large group of the population for instant communication and greater transparency.  The time for a smoke and mirrors approach to conveyancing is at an end, the educated client does not need to be kept in the dark about what goes on behind the scenes, they want and indeed demand 24/7 access to all parts of the conveyancing process.  

The modern thinking client wishes to be notified on their smartphone when a development in the transition arises and also welcomes the ability to see post and other communication as and when it arrives.  This type of client also wishes to be able to communicate with his conveyancer electronically in ways which are already familiar such as Instant Messaging and Facebook. 

Snobbery is such that the traditional lawyer will look down and frown on the practices of a modern day conveyancer arguing that such service is vulgar and unprofessional.   Receiving an email or perhaps a message through an electronic case management system rather than a traditional letter in the post is often viewed as outrageous.  Add to this the practice of acting for a client outside one  mile radius of one’s office the Facebook conveyancer is often looked upon as a disgrace to his or her profession. 

Then there is the ongoing snipes as those conveyancers who charge low fees.   There seems to be a growing misconception around these firms.   Low fees do not always equate to an inferior service and those who sneer at 'bucket shop' conveyancers often fail to look through the anger and analyse why it is possible to run a successful business with such a low fee base.  There are many conveyancers out there who regard themselves as traditionalists, who charge high fees but who deliver a mediocre service.  On top of this many of these firms are operating under the misapprehension that they are making a profit out of the work.  The truth is that even though the Facebook conveyancer may be charging a low fee, the combination of good and efficient use if technology  and a low overhead base, often means that the business is well run. offers good client service and more to the point makes a profit.  

Rather than ranting and raving about these firms with a modern and forward approach to conveyancing, the energy of these doubters may be far better spent in carrying out a self appraisal and looking to challenge the traditional approach to conveyancing.  Is the technology you are using sufficient and advanced enough, do you really need all of those assistants and secretaries and has the time come to drop the old fashioned and generally unwanted modes of client communication. 

Who I ask though will have the last laugh.  The reality is that the Facebook Conveyancer has already arrived and guess what is making good money and building successful practices.  The time frame to get on board and to  begin competing with the likes of this new breed of lawyer is running short.  Right or wrong the life span of the traditional lawyer is limited and with the advent of ABS and the increased competition that time for charging large fees and dining out with clients is nearly at an end.  Only those with good technology and well oiled processes will be able to afford to stay in the market and survive.  

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 many conveyancers give the correct advice on building insurance ?

Do you advise your client on insurance or do you make it clear that you are not an expert on insurance matters and that the client is better talking to an insurance expert?  If you do advise I suspect  you make think differently when  you read through what follows.

In line with current conveyancing practice if you are instructed by the client to check an insurance policy and you agree to do so there is an obligation on you to check the following issues:

1. Is the amount of cover adequate?
2. Is the sum index linked?
3. Are the risks insured adequate?  Cross referencing perhaps to the result of your environmental search result. 
4. Have all particular features  of the property such as a thatched roof been disclosed and are they adequately insured?
5. Is the property attached to an adjoining property, if so does the insurance extend to damage to a neighbouring property where practicable? 
6. Does the policy comply with the buyers lender requirements?

Most leasehold properties are cowered by insurance put into effect by the Freehold owner.  The policy still  needs however to be checked in the same way.  Additionally there may need to be extra cover put into effect to cover damage caused by an uninsured risk.  The client may remain liable under the lease including the covenants to repair and pay rent.  Some policies do not extend to flats where a resident is claiming social security benefits. 

Though the need to check where a lender is not involved is something which I would not offer to do ( I am not an expert in this field ) I would always make sure that where the client is borrowing  the client is made aware of the lender requirements for insurance.  It would be negligent not to do so. 

A lender’s particular requirements, set out in part 2 of the CML handbook, will stipulate:

-whether the buildings insurance policy must be in the joint names of the lender and the owners of the property, or whether it is sufficient for the lender’s interest to just be noted on the policy the maximum excess which is acceptable to the lender

-whether the lender requires written confirmation from the insurance company that they will notify the lender if the policy is not renewed, or is cancelled; and

-whether the lender requires a copy of the buildings insurance policy, and the last premium receipt, to be sent to them

It is also necessary to make the client aware of the need to take care and not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer. 

So next time you come to consider insurance as part of the exchange process do keep in mind the above and make a clear decision on whether to take on responsibility for advising or whether to make it clear to the client that the time has come for the client to take advice from an insurance specialist.   This is something which you may wish to address and make clear in the terms of your retainer. 

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

Veyo - A Change in Strategy

It seems the guys at Veyo are now listening to feedback and taking what appears to be a different course with product development.  The news comes following a recent presentation made by Veyo.

The presentation was given by Paul Humphreys Veyo’s Programme Director. Some new and interesting information came to light during the session.  

It was already known that Veyo has a budget of around 10 million pounds but what was not clear was how much of the fund had been expended so far.  Though no figure was disclosed it was revealed that it is estimated the funding will only last until 2017 at which point Veyo will need to be self funding.  It seems they employ 95 people with 25 based in the UK.  There are a staggering 45 developers employed on the project. 

The aim is still to launch in Spring 2015 but there will no integration with CMS until 2016.  Until then the method of data entry will be  manual. 

Despite the indication given before Christmas, Veyo claims it will not compete with other CMS suppliers. 

Mr Humphreys explains that they no have a modern approach to sharing data which is necessary for CMS and other suppliers to integrate with Veyo, although the the data exchange system has yet to be designed.  Veyo would like to see the spec for this to be agreed between the LSSA (or individual suppliers if necessary) over the next 3 or 4 months. 

Following this there will be a development period and then a testing period after which suppliers could write their own integrations into the Veyo platform. Realistically, Veyo accepted that they would not expect any CMS suppliers to be ready to deliver an integrated product for a least 9 months from today. Veyo claim that whilst its system will work without CMS integration it will work better with it.

Again, despite the massive investment, and 45 developers, there was still no demonstration of the system (although they are apparently in a test phase now).  

An outline of  headline features was however given . Perhaps the two key features were that Veyo would store the data for both sides of a transaction (with appropriate security) and they also wanted to display the “chain view” so a client can see all of the transactions in the chain. Uncanny that this is what I was suggesting should happen when Veyo first announced its arrival.  There was a clear need for a unique identity and it seems that this may now be what is happening with this change in course.  

Interestingly however, Mr Humphrys was not suggesting that lawyers should use their system where they have a solution from another suppliers. He said they may wish to use it where existing suppliers don't have the ability to do it. It is unclear what he meant by this as if it offers a unique chain data view then why would lawyers not wish to use it along side their existing CMS?

Still no news however on pricing! 

Veyo said it is proposing a flexible pricing structure which will consist of a licence fee and a transaction fee but the details of this have not been announced yet. Nor have they formed an opinion on how CMS suppliers and others should integrate with Veyo commercially. 

They are talking to lenders about Veyo but there is no suggestion that lenders would mandate the use of this over any other portal at this point.  Still no views on where the lender aspect to Veyo will fit in given the stronghold Lender Exchange has in this area. 

Veyo was asked about the number of users they anticipate will sign up  and in response all they could say is that they were pleased with the large number of pre-registrations on their websites.   No contract signing will take place until March. I suspect the number of registered lawyers will when fall far short of actual  users with much depending on the eagerly waited announcement on price. 

This sudden though not unexpected change of direction will be welcomed.  The arrogance or self denial which prevailed seems to have left and it is encouraging that Veyo despite claiming they had consulted with the legal technology industry has now made a commitment to do this.  There is no doubt lawyers and those like myself who have an interest in the project have helped to  guide Veyo onto a less rocky road. 

The empathise has moved away from the case management aspects of their system though this may turn out to be a cynical move to get other CMS suppliers on board.  It must be kept in mind that until integration with CMS can commence users of Veyo would need to fall back in the CMS within Veyo. This may lead to some users sticking with Veyo. 

The lack of a clear message on how users might wish to use the system when they already have invested in a CMS still seems lacking. Veyo appear to be saying that some users may wish to use aspects of Veyo that their current CMS do not provide.   Interestingly they are not proposing to charge a lower fee for this reduced usage. 

I suspect they are thinking here of the ‘Chain View’ which is now the USP of the system.  A good idea.  There still however remains an issue as we all know a chain is as strong as its weakest link. If it is not mandatory for all lawyers to be part of Veyo the chain will simply breakdown and become worthless.  Also what is there to prevent other CMS suppliers not building a chain view component of their own.  This would be at no additional cost to the user and would then render Veyo redundant to their existing users.  

The jury is still out I am afraid.  If I was a shareholder in Mastek however, I would still despite this change in approach be asking some probing questions about the level of investment and future expenditure in a product which stills seems to struggling to find a commercially viable identity different to that of existing and well established CMS suppliers.  

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