Years ago, the department of transport spent millions of pounds widening the M40 and merely ended up relocating traffic jams a few miles down the road from Greenford into west London. It was fundamentally a good idea, but in reality, merely helped a few people get into London more quickly outside the busiest periods.
For people buying and selling properties, the experience can be very similar to sitting in lines of traffic - aggravating, slow and completely unpredictable.
That's why, in theory, the Law's Society's latest attempt to speed up conveyancing with its Veyo conveyancing project, whose logo is an orange bunny, is laudable and well-intentioned.
Sadly, in our opinion, it is doomed to fail and will join a growing list of failed projects designed to improve the conveyancing process.
The previous government tried to help with Home Information Packs, which even the most cynical estate agents now recognise was a good idea, undermined by poor implementation and party politics.
The Land Registry tried with their "econveyancing" project of centralising transactions, which was very sensible as they control the transactional data, but sadly, again, was let down by delays and inertia.
Whilst we salute the Law Society's gallant efforts to try and help their fee-paying members like us, we feel that maybe they should have talked to someone first before embarking on this exercise in futility.
There are fundamental problems with chains and keeping systems updated that they don't seem to have taken into account.
Unless everyone in a chain is using the same system, then, like today, transactions will only be able to move at the pace of the slowest element. If only a couple of law firms in a chain are using Veyo, the benefits will be extremely limited. This means that whilst it may well speed up certain elements of communication, overall, it will have minimal impact on overall transaction times.
Secondly, given that most lawyers are already struggling to keep their internal case management systems updated, if they are expected to keep another system updated as well, the chances seem slim at best. Any direct integration between case management systems will lag at least six months behind the launch, by which time, its credibility will be sorely tested.
If Veyo ever does see the light of day, the reality will be a system with incomplete data from only part of a chain, containing information that is likely to be out of date and therefore cannot be trusted.
We would suggest that the Law Society reconsiders its revolutionary plans for conveyancing before it meets a similar fate to a cuddly bunny that strays onto the Westway.
The results are going to be messy and probably a bit bloody.
Saturday, 28 February 2015
Sunday, 1 February 2015
The legal "profession" really needs to grow up a bit ...
OK - we'll admit it.
As relative newcomers to the legal business, we understand that traditional law firms are upset by the changes that companies like ours are bringing to the house buying and selling process.
When we started the company five years ago, we were told of a "dive to the bottom" and the good old days when solicitors were respected were well and truly behind us. People would say "it's such a shame, law used to be considered a profession, now it is just a business". Indeed, we are constantly on the receiving end of numerous patronising comments and criticism from competitors, purely because our business wasn't established before those new computer-things were invented.
However, even we were surprised when a client came to us this week, who had been upset by an email from her former solicitor when she asked him to send her documents to us. His response to her very polite and professional email was extraordinary. "I try and look after all of my clients ... in the expectation they will remain loyal ... the estate agents urged you to use their pet solicitors but it is difficult not to hide my disappointment that you have chosen not to use me."
REALLY?
Sadly, we see this hard-done-by sentiment all too often.
Whether it is complaining about estate agent fees, trying to score points by blaming someone else, or just merely upset that they have lost business to a competitor, such schoolyard histrionics seem part and parcel of the daily life of some property lawyers.
To be clear. The legal market is going through some major changes and will continue to do so.
However, contrary to what many lawyers believe, these changes are not about fees, but about service, which is borne out in numerous surveys. The challenge is that service goes beyond being knowledgeable and doing the work properly. It's also about acting in a professional manner at all times with everyone involved in the transaction.
We think that its probably time for many law firms to sit up and take notice and would like to offer some general pointers to those who are not clear what professional service really entails;
- Answer your telephone
- Return telephone calls
- Offer solutions not problems
- Don't expect respect as you've been doing this for years or have the word "Partner" in your email signature
- Charge appropriate fees so that you can employ enough people
In our opinion, it would make all our lives a lot easier if everyone involved in the legal side of the house selling and buying process started to show a little more maturity and rather less nit-picking grandstanding.
In this way, maybe our jobs would be easier and all our clients would receive a better service.
And perhaps they might even refer their friends.
As relative newcomers to the legal business, we understand that traditional law firms are upset by the changes that companies like ours are bringing to the house buying and selling process.
When we started the company five years ago, we were told of a "dive to the bottom" and the good old days when solicitors were respected were well and truly behind us. People would say "it's such a shame, law used to be considered a profession, now it is just a business". Indeed, we are constantly on the receiving end of numerous patronising comments and criticism from competitors, purely because our business wasn't established before those new computer-things were invented.
However, even we were surprised when a client came to us this week, who had been upset by an email from her former solicitor when she asked him to send her documents to us. His response to her very polite and professional email was extraordinary. "I try and look after all of my clients ... in the expectation they will remain loyal ... the estate agents urged you to use their pet solicitors but it is difficult not to hide my disappointment that you have chosen not to use me."
REALLY?
Sadly, we see this hard-done-by sentiment all too often.
Whether it is complaining about estate agent fees, trying to score points by blaming someone else, or just merely upset that they have lost business to a competitor, such schoolyard histrionics seem part and parcel of the daily life of some property lawyers.
To be clear. The legal market is going through some major changes and will continue to do so.
However, contrary to what many lawyers believe, these changes are not about fees, but about service, which is borne out in numerous surveys. The challenge is that service goes beyond being knowledgeable and doing the work properly. It's also about acting in a professional manner at all times with everyone involved in the transaction.
We think that its probably time for many law firms to sit up and take notice and would like to offer some general pointers to those who are not clear what professional service really entails;
- Answer your telephone
- Return telephone calls
- Offer solutions not problems
- Don't expect respect as you've been doing this for years or have the word "Partner" in your email signature
- Charge appropriate fees so that you can employ enough people
In our opinion, it would make all our lives a lot easier if everyone involved in the legal side of the house selling and buying process started to show a little more maturity and rather less nit-picking grandstanding.
In this way, maybe our jobs would be easier and all our clients would receive a better service.
And perhaps they might even refer their friends.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Lenders really are surpassing themselves these days ...
Being at the sharp end of the property market, means that we get very clear visibility as to the reality of how mortgage lenders are working with our clients.
A current trend that we have found is lenders continuing to try and push their own "preferred" conveyancers. Whilst we fully understand that they need to reduce risk, and there is still much mortgage fraud going on out there, we do find their attitude towards conveyancing solicitors a little intriguing to put it politely.
On most days, we take telephone calls from clients who have been "urged" by their mortgage adviser or lender to use another solicitor. Indeed, we had one client that used a high volume firm, "because their mortgage adviser had a good relationship with them which meant the deal would go through more quickly". Obviously we didn't point out that their advisor doesn't really control the process, nor that the firm would pay their advisor a large referral fee".
Nationwide have upped the ante recently - given that they closed their panel over four years ago, and are actively removing solicitors from it, their decision to force all work through their panel management company reduces the choice for consumers even further.
With the ongoing debacle that is HSBC refusing to allow firms to represent them depending on their regulator, it really is time for us to follow the lead in Scotland (where all the decent property ideas seem to come from) and force everyone to use a separate solicitor for the lender.
A current trend that we have found is lenders continuing to try and push their own "preferred" conveyancers. Whilst we fully understand that they need to reduce risk, and there is still much mortgage fraud going on out there, we do find their attitude towards conveyancing solicitors a little intriguing to put it politely.
On most days, we take telephone calls from clients who have been "urged" by their mortgage adviser or lender to use another solicitor. Indeed, we had one client that used a high volume firm, "because their mortgage adviser had a good relationship with them which meant the deal would go through more quickly". Obviously we didn't point out that their advisor doesn't really control the process, nor that the firm would pay their advisor a large referral fee".
Nationwide have upped the ante recently - given that they closed their panel over four years ago, and are actively removing solicitors from it, their decision to force all work through their panel management company reduces the choice for consumers even further.
With the ongoing debacle that is HSBC refusing to allow firms to represent them depending on their regulator, it really is time for us to follow the lead in Scotland (where all the decent property ideas seem to come from) and force everyone to use a separate solicitor for the lender.
Monday, 25 February 2013
The Partnership Newsletter December 2012
"It's behind you!!"
EPCs not required on property particulars This anti-red-tape campaigning government that introduced the ridiculous notion of including a copy of the first page of the EPC on property particulars has just announced that from January 9th 2013 they are changing this policy. Naturally. From that date, the first page of the EPC does not need to be included on advertising, which includes brochures. The official guidance states that the coloured charts should be included although it is not clear that this is mandatory and "it is recognised that this is not always possible". In short, the requirement is rather elastic. | ||
| We believe that if clients have a better understanding of the legal process of house buying and selling, this will reduce stress levels so we have produced a free conveyancing guide. Following on from the outstanding response to our unique agent handbook, a new Client Edition is now available to all our referrers to give to clients. There is an online version available for browsing purposes but if you would like copies of this booklet, just send an email to us and we'll put a set in the post to you |
| Our reputation for efficiency and a uniquely agent-friendly approach has lead to a significant growth in sales, with results up 250% over last year. To meet this growing demand, we continue to recruit enthusiastic and dynamic solicitors and assistants to join our company. In just the last few weeks, Lucy Eldred has joined as a solicitor, Ceri Bromwich as an administrator and Tim Kirkconel will be joining us in January as a Legal Assistant. We'll take a rest over Christmas before the recruitment process starts again, and then start the joyous process of looking for new larger offices to cater for all these new desks! |
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
Nationwide thwarts the latest efforts to put lipstick on the financial services pig
Well ... at least we thought there were some rules, but it seems that lenders can play quite fast and loose when it comes to advising their clients.
First, it was HSBC that broke the mould by selecting their clients' lawyers for them. For one of the world's most conservative banks it was a brave move. Someone in head office decided that if their clients wanted to get a mortgage with HSBC then they wouldn't be able to choose their own solicitor to represent them.
Suffice to say, it didn't go down terribly well, and even BBC Radio 4 listeners got to hear about the issue.
Bowing to the inevitable pressure from estate agents who were obviously frustrated by the huge delays that this decision caused, HSBC revisited the idea and allowed a few more solicitors to represent them.
So that's the old news.
Now, it seems that Nationwide have decided to embark on a similar, but altogether more aggressive course. Not content with refusing to allow any law firms that haven't represented them for more than four years ago, now they have dictated that they will "encourage" their clients to use their recommended lawyers.
If any client has the temerity to try and select their own lawyer, Nationwide (and their brokers) will do their utmost to dissuade them from this free choice. We've seen a significant increase over the past few months in clients being strong-armed by the lender and their brokers alike to use their own lawyers.
These lawyers all receive work through a panel, LMS, for whom, no doubt, this is good business.
Unfortunately, for both the lawyers that receive this panelled work, the fees are necessarily reduced (after all, LMS have to get paid) and for Nationwide's clients, they inevitably suffer the consequences that arise out of solicitors working for reduced fees.
Sadly, the FSA, (the Financial Services Authority, rather than the Food Standards Agency, but equally known for their toothlessness) cannot do anything about this.
It seems that while lenders can act against their clients' wishes, the efforts to rehabilitate the disgraced financial service industry and still akin to putting lipstick on a pig.
First, it was HSBC that broke the mould by selecting their clients' lawyers for them. For one of the world's most conservative banks it was a brave move. Someone in head office decided that if their clients wanted to get a mortgage with HSBC then they wouldn't be able to choose their own solicitor to represent them.
Suffice to say, it didn't go down terribly well, and even BBC Radio 4 listeners got to hear about the issue.
Bowing to the inevitable pressure from estate agents who were obviously frustrated by the huge delays that this decision caused, HSBC revisited the idea and allowed a few more solicitors to represent them.
So that's the old news.
Now, it seems that Nationwide have decided to embark on a similar, but altogether more aggressive course. Not content with refusing to allow any law firms that haven't represented them for more than four years ago, now they have dictated that they will "encourage" their clients to use their recommended lawyers.
If any client has the temerity to try and select their own lawyer, Nationwide (and their brokers) will do their utmost to dissuade them from this free choice. We've seen a significant increase over the past few months in clients being strong-armed by the lender and their brokers alike to use their own lawyers.
These lawyers all receive work through a panel, LMS, for whom, no doubt, this is good business.
Unfortunately, for both the lawyers that receive this panelled work, the fees are necessarily reduced (after all, LMS have to get paid) and for Nationwide's clients, they inevitably suffer the consequences that arise out of solicitors working for reduced fees.
Sadly, the FSA, (the Financial Services Authority, rather than the Food Standards Agency, but equally known for their toothlessness) cannot do anything about this.
It seems that while lenders can act against their clients' wishes, the efforts to rehabilitate the disgraced financial service industry and still akin to putting lipstick on a pig.
Monday, 29 October 2012
The Partnership Newsletter - October 2012
| "Remember, remember, the 5th November ..." |
| Gunpowder, treason and "phut". We were promised a revolution with expensive solicitors being run out of town and everyone having access to cheap legal services. However, in reality, the radical change in the law allowing non-lawyers to buy law firms has been nothing more than a damp squib, resulting in embarrassing adverts of spring onions in suits and Saga offering the over-55's last-minute Wills as they board their Mediterranean cruises. With a year gone and less than 35 companies currently licensed, there is either no appetite or simply no demand. The promise of Lidl Legal Services seems further away than its ever been - not exactly a "bang" - more of a whimper. |
Investors facing challenges from lenders
| We have seen the improvement in the buy-to-let market being challenged by recent changes in processes from mortgage lenders. In the past, either a lawyer was able to act for a lender, or they weren't. However, in recent months, lenders have been creating "sub-panels" for clients choosing certain types of mortgages. In some cases, lenders are only offering specially reduced interest rates on the condition that the client uses a specific lawyer, irrespective of whether their solicitor is on their panel. Given that on occasions, the lender's own staff are not clear about the policy this change has introduced even more unwelcome delays into the conveyancing process. |
EPCs now available through property address
| One of the most frustrating aspects of retrieving Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) is that the unique reference code was required before they could be downloaded. However, after only five years, it has now become possible for vendors and agents to retrieve reports based on the property address. Somewhat surprisingly, this change was not announced, but just appeared on the central government database a few weeks ago. The reports are available from the Landmark database immediately. More positive responses from agents |
| Our new Conveyancing Discussions continue to go from strength to strength with these free 1 hour sessions currently being run 4-5 times a week at agents' offices. Feedback has been very positive from negotiators and managers, with improved levels of confidence and understanding helping negotiators progress deals more effectively. The free pens and handbooks have been particular popular - our website has more information about the sessions. |
Monday, 24 September 2012
The Partnership Newsletter - September 2012
You're an embarrassment to the Quality Street name
The toffee penny is, in our opinion, possibly one of the least popular sweets invented, and illustrates how the word "Quality" can be abused. Even though the manufacturers write the word on the tin, this dullard's very existence calls the brand into question. Indeed, we've recent experience of exactly the same problem with the word being used by legal providers. Whether its the Law Society's Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) or the Quality Solicitors franchise, neither provides sanctions where their members abuse the brand. This means that unfortunately, unlike the toffee penny which can be given to the dog, as our blog indicates, for now, we're going to have to put up with those companies that don't follow the rules and insist on being rude, inefficient and frankly, no-one's favourite.
Lenders - There's more trouble ahead
HSBC's decision to force their clients to use their choice of lawyer was the first time the impact of separate lender representation was felt widely. Given the negative feedback to this approach which lead to HSBC's humiliating climbdown, many agents and clients hoped we'd seen the end of this practice. Unfortunately, we are seeing increasing numbers of lenders forcing specific types of clients to use their selected lawyer. In recent weeks, clients getting buy-to-let mortgages and one applying for an offset mortgage, were all forced to use the bank's lawyers. This is definitely a growing trend, and clients and agents should be aware where such representation is required, as it will slow transactions and cause unexpected frustration for buyers and sellers alike.
HSBC - not exactly a level playing field
HSBC have backtracked on their decision to allow only a handful of lawyers to represent them, and from the beginning of September, have now allowed a slightly larger handful of firms who have joined the Law Society's CQS to represent them. However, citing "technical difficulties", the bank is not allowing licensed conveyancers onto the panel. Which is curious, as they already have several such companies on their existing panel. And licensed conveyancers can also represent them for First Direct mortgages. Which at least demonstrates a consistent lack of inconsistency.
Partnership New Conveyancing Discussions are proving a Hit
Following successful trials with a number of London estate agents, our new, free Conveyancing Discussion is now being launched. Accompanied by a unique handbook and materials, this informal 45 minute session reviews recent changes to the conveyancing process, how agents can help resolve problems and actually get to see the documents involved in the process. To learn more about this new service, send an email for more information and we'll send you a free sample of the handbook.
The toffee penny is, in our opinion, possibly one of the least popular sweets invented, and illustrates how the word "Quality" can be abused. Even though the manufacturers write the word on the tin, this dullard's very existence calls the brand into question. Indeed, we've recent experience of exactly the same problem with the word being used by legal providers. Whether its the Law Society's Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) or the Quality Solicitors franchise, neither provides sanctions where their members abuse the brand. This means that unfortunately, unlike the toffee penny which can be given to the dog, as our blog indicates, for now, we're going to have to put up with those companies that don't follow the rules and insist on being rude, inefficient and frankly, no-one's favourite.
Lenders - There's more trouble ahead
HSBC's decision to force their clients to use their choice of lawyer was the first time the impact of separate lender representation was felt widely. Given the negative feedback to this approach which lead to HSBC's humiliating climbdown, many agents and clients hoped we'd seen the end of this practice. Unfortunately, we are seeing increasing numbers of lenders forcing specific types of clients to use their selected lawyer. In recent weeks, clients getting buy-to-let mortgages and one applying for an offset mortgage, were all forced to use the bank's lawyers. This is definitely a growing trend, and clients and agents should be aware where such representation is required, as it will slow transactions and cause unexpected frustration for buyers and sellers alike.
HSBC - not exactly a level playing field
HSBC have backtracked on their decision to allow only a handful of lawyers to represent them, and from the beginning of September, have now allowed a slightly larger handful of firms who have joined the Law Society's CQS to represent them. However, citing "technical difficulties", the bank is not allowing licensed conveyancers onto the panel. Which is curious, as they already have several such companies on their existing panel. And licensed conveyancers can also represent them for First Direct mortgages. Which at least demonstrates a consistent lack of inconsistency.
Partnership New Conveyancing Discussions are proving a Hit
Following successful trials with a number of London estate agents, our new, free Conveyancing Discussion is now being launched. Accompanied by a unique handbook and materials, this informal 45 minute session reviews recent changes to the conveyancing process, how agents can help resolve problems and actually get to see the documents involved in the process. To learn more about this new service, send an email for more information and we'll send you a free sample of the handbook.
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Quality - possibly the most abused word in service
Traditional law firms are frightened. Their world is going to end - like Virgin's trains, their gravy versions are hitting the buffers and they'll soon be down the pawnshops with their dictation machines.
This was because until last year, solicitors were like the post office, and had one of the few monopolies left, managing to escape the hand of Margaret Thatcher's (and subsequent Conservative governments) reforms. Following the breaking of this monopoly where only lawyers could own law firms, they were told that firms such as Lidl and Poundland were going to offer legal services. To stave off disaster, some came up with cunning plans, the like of which Baldrick would be proud, focussing on the word "Quality".
One enterprising chap came up with the idea of black and purple letterhead and included the word "Quality Solicitors" on it. They convinced a bunch of solicitors to buy this letterhead and even WHSmith thought would be a good idea to put some of this letterhead in their shops so people would buy legal services along with the newspapers and notepads.
Not wishing to be left behind, the Law Society then came up with a similarly cunning plan called the Conveyancing Quality Scheme whereby solicitors filled in some forms, paid them a fee and they could put a logo on their letterhead as well. Firms that signed up to the scheme apparently had to adhere to the principles of treating other firms with respect, following the Law Society's new rules on running conveyancing cases and generally acting in a helpful manner.
Sadly, recent experience with firms that belong to these Letterhead Schemes have been some way away from what we would call quality. Beligerent, rude, bullying and extraordinarily inefficient would be more appropriate. Sadly, we don't think that these attributes make such an attractive tagline as simply, Quality.
However, the fundemental problem with these Letterhead Schemes is that there are no sanctions against the firms that breach the rules. Once a firm has got its letterhead printed, then there is nothing that can be done, other than for clients and estate agents who have to suffer working with them, highlight their shortcomings and do their utmost to ensure that future business does not go to them.
We would urge any client considering using a Quality Letterhead scheme firm to check their references before assuming that because they can spell the word Quality and have put in on their envelopes, doesn't necessarily mean that they understand what it actually involves.
This was because until last year, solicitors were like the post office, and had one of the few monopolies left, managing to escape the hand of Margaret Thatcher's (and subsequent Conservative governments) reforms. Following the breaking of this monopoly where only lawyers could own law firms, they were told that firms such as Lidl and Poundland were going to offer legal services. To stave off disaster, some came up with cunning plans, the like of which Baldrick would be proud, focussing on the word "Quality".
One enterprising chap came up with the idea of black and purple letterhead and included the word "Quality Solicitors" on it. They convinced a bunch of solicitors to buy this letterhead and even WHSmith thought would be a good idea to put some of this letterhead in their shops so people would buy legal services along with the newspapers and notepads.
Not wishing to be left behind, the Law Society then came up with a similarly cunning plan called the Conveyancing Quality Scheme whereby solicitors filled in some forms, paid them a fee and they could put a logo on their letterhead as well. Firms that signed up to the scheme apparently had to adhere to the principles of treating other firms with respect, following the Law Society's new rules on running conveyancing cases and generally acting in a helpful manner.
Sadly, recent experience with firms that belong to these Letterhead Schemes have been some way away from what we would call quality. Beligerent, rude, bullying and extraordinarily inefficient would be more appropriate. Sadly, we don't think that these attributes make such an attractive tagline as simply, Quality.
However, the fundemental problem with these Letterhead Schemes is that there are no sanctions against the firms that breach the rules. Once a firm has got its letterhead printed, then there is nothing that can be done, other than for clients and estate agents who have to suffer working with them, highlight their shortcomings and do their utmost to ensure that future business does not go to them.
We would urge any client considering using a Quality Letterhead scheme firm to check their references before assuming that because they can spell the word Quality and have put in on their envelopes, doesn't necessarily mean that they understand what it actually involves.
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Here we go again ...
and this time it's Barclays that's determined to cause more hassle and time-wasting for clients looking to buy properties.
For years, when it came to buying properties, solicitors have had to represent both their clients' interests and the lender. What must have seemed a good idea at the time, has rapidly descended into frustration and conflict with clients often frustrated that their requirements may not match the needs of their lender.
However, in recent months, the landscape has changed and banks, determined to exercise even more control over the property market, have decided they are going to dictate to clients which lawyers they can use to represent them.
HSBC broke ranks in January, by selecting about 40 companies across the country that could act for them. The result has been slowed transactions, frustrated clients and even more frustrated solicitors who are attempting to get deals through. The upshot of this, is that when estate agents hear clients mention that fateful four letter word, they prepare themselves (and their clients) for a protracted and painful process.
However, despite the bad press that HSBC have been receiving, it seems that Barclays (who are themselves no stranger to making controversial decisions) have decided to follow a similar route. They have taken the decision on Monday (although not officially yet) that they will dictate which law firms can represent them independently.
However, they make HSBC's choice of 40 lawyers look remarkably generous, compared to the number that they are alledgedly allowing to represent them. Namely, ONE. Yes - only one firm will be handling all Woolwich mortgage cases where the lender is not being represented by the client's solicitor.
Given the delays and backlogs caused by HSBC's actions when they had 40 law firms, we think that possibly, Barclays might be a little optimistic when it comes to processing their cases through a single firm.
And the final kicker - Barclays have decided that this new procedure will apply to ALL existing cases.
Need we say more?
For years, when it came to buying properties, solicitors have had to represent both their clients' interests and the lender. What must have seemed a good idea at the time, has rapidly descended into frustration and conflict with clients often frustrated that their requirements may not match the needs of their lender.
However, in recent months, the landscape has changed and banks, determined to exercise even more control over the property market, have decided they are going to dictate to clients which lawyers they can use to represent them.
HSBC broke ranks in January, by selecting about 40 companies across the country that could act for them. The result has been slowed transactions, frustrated clients and even more frustrated solicitors who are attempting to get deals through. The upshot of this, is that when estate agents hear clients mention that fateful four letter word, they prepare themselves (and their clients) for a protracted and painful process.
However, despite the bad press that HSBC have been receiving, it seems that Barclays (who are themselves no stranger to making controversial decisions) have decided to follow a similar route. They have taken the decision on Monday (although not officially yet) that they will dictate which law firms can represent them independently.
However, they make HSBC's choice of 40 lawyers look remarkably generous, compared to the number that they are alledgedly allowing to represent them. Namely, ONE. Yes - only one firm will be handling all Woolwich mortgage cases where the lender is not being represented by the client's solicitor.
Given the delays and backlogs caused by HSBC's actions when they had 40 law firms, we think that possibly, Barclays might be a little optimistic when it comes to processing their cases through a single firm.
And the final kicker - Barclays have decided that this new procedure will apply to ALL existing cases.
Need we say more?
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
The Partnership Newsletter - March 2012
"You were only supposed to blow the doors off"
No doubt there are a few people at HSBC who are feeling like Michael Caine in the Italian Job when he saw the unexpected consequences of his actions. We're not exactly sure whether those that decided to stop buyers choosing their own solicitors have either bought a house recently or understood that agents will do their best to stop clients using lenders or lawyers that can't get deals through quickly. Given the glacial speed these transactions are taking to go through, we wonder in our blog whether HSBC might be on the cliff-edge of public opinion with this idea.
Solar panels - Pain today and Pain Tomorrow
When the coalition government chose to cut the subsidies (and the jobs that went with them) paid to home owners to put solar panels on their roofs, many were not aware that not only had they bought something that didn't give them the returns they were after, but they also may have legal problems in the future. Some home owners are finding the lease agreements they signed to enable them to afford these panels is preventing them from remortgaging their properties and could in turn cause problems when they come to sell. There is an increase in litigation expected from frustrated sellers whose buyers cannot obtain mortgages on their potential purchases because of these restrictive leases.
Changes in EPC rules coming in April 6th
Having spent years in opposition criticising the previous government's attempts to change the house buying and selling process, it seems the coalition are learning that property legislation is challenging. The changes to the Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) rules that have just been announced include the extraordinary requirement to include a full page of the EPC with all property particulars. We have produced a summary sheet of changes that are due to come into effect after Easter.
Stamp Duty Land Tax avoidance Schemes - not so attractive anymore
Finally, we were intrigued to receive a telephone call on budget day from a company offering SDLT avoidance schemes for our clients. The salesman told us they were avoiding solicitors because "the Law Society had cracked down on them and were fining them for getting involved". We found that strange because according to this same salesman, there is no comeback whatseover for our clients and it's risk free. Naturally, like the Law Society, we beg to differ.
No doubt there are a few people at HSBC who are feeling like Michael Caine in the Italian Job when he saw the unexpected consequences of his actions. We're not exactly sure whether those that decided to stop buyers choosing their own solicitors have either bought a house recently or understood that agents will do their best to stop clients using lenders or lawyers that can't get deals through quickly. Given the glacial speed these transactions are taking to go through, we wonder in our blog whether HSBC might be on the cliff-edge of public opinion with this idea.
Solar panels - Pain today and Pain Tomorrow
When the coalition government chose to cut the subsidies (and the jobs that went with them) paid to home owners to put solar panels on their roofs, many were not aware that not only had they bought something that didn't give them the returns they were after, but they also may have legal problems in the future. Some home owners are finding the lease agreements they signed to enable them to afford these panels is preventing them from remortgaging their properties and could in turn cause problems when they come to sell. There is an increase in litigation expected from frustrated sellers whose buyers cannot obtain mortgages on their potential purchases because of these restrictive leases.
Changes in EPC rules coming in April 6th
Having spent years in opposition criticising the previous government's attempts to change the house buying and selling process, it seems the coalition are learning that property legislation is challenging. The changes to the Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) rules that have just been announced include the extraordinary requirement to include a full page of the EPC with all property particulars. We have produced a summary sheet of changes that are due to come into effect after Easter.
Stamp Duty Land Tax avoidance Schemes - not so attractive anymore
Finally, we were intrigued to receive a telephone call on budget day from a company offering SDLT avoidance schemes for our clients. The salesman told us they were avoiding solicitors because "the Law Society had cracked down on them and were fining them for getting involved". We found that strange because according to this same salesman, there is no comeback whatseover for our clients and it's risk free. Naturally, like the Law Society, we beg to differ.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Is HSBC the new Boerclays?
With the news that another one of our clients has decided to "drink the HSBC Kool-Aid" (as in the Jonestown Massacre in 1978) we are starting to wonder whether HSBC will suffer the same fate as Barclays did in the mid 90's when they were vilified for their investment in South Africa.
When HSBC decided to create a legal panel of a small number of low-cost providers of conveyancing services, this caused much gnashing of solicitor's teeth. Naturally, this gnashing sound is being heard by estate agents who are now suggesting that if clients use HSBC for their mortgage, then they will be forced to use a law firm that the bank dictates.
Indeed, in a recent scenario, HSBC persuaded one of our clients that we had mislead them over our suggestion that using separate representation would cost more and that by using their solicitor it would be cheaper.
Given that HSBC has created this doubt in our client's mind, our previously ambivalent position towards them has changed. We now suggest to agents and clients that if you're looking for a lender and want to choose your own representation, then HSBC should be avoided.
It took Barclays years to overcome the prejudice that they suffered - we wonder whether HSBC will heed this warning from history and consider the damage that this decision may have on their business.
When HSBC decided to create a legal panel of a small number of low-cost providers of conveyancing services, this caused much gnashing of solicitor's teeth. Naturally, this gnashing sound is being heard by estate agents who are now suggesting that if clients use HSBC for their mortgage, then they will be forced to use a law firm that the bank dictates.
Indeed, in a recent scenario, HSBC persuaded one of our clients that we had mislead them over our suggestion that using separate representation would cost more and that by using their solicitor it would be cheaper.
Given that HSBC has created this doubt in our client's mind, our previously ambivalent position towards them has changed. We now suggest to agents and clients that if you're looking for a lender and want to choose your own representation, then HSBC should be avoided.
It took Barclays years to overcome the prejudice that they suffered - we wonder whether HSBC will heed this warning from history and consider the damage that this decision may have on their business.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
The Partnership Newsletter - January 2012
You can trust me - I'm a lawyer. Honest, Guv.
Some of the promises we're seeing being made by companies selling legal services would make Arthur Daley blush. Last week, a firm promising "no-sale no-fee" forgot to mention that the client has to buy insurance to ensure that they don't pay anything if the sale aborts - this insurance costs about £100. Obviously, "no fee" is only relevant when used in conjunction with the word "legal". Another favourite trick we've seen is disguising fee-earning work as a disbursement, such as completing Stamp Duty Land Tax forms. Another client was quoted £600 for the work, and ended up paying £1600 (for unexpected items). However, we adam-and-eve that agents are steering clients away from the cut-and-shunt merchants which can only be good wooden pews. (Click here for a translator to help you communicate with such firms)
Lenders help to slow the housing market
With lenders determined to eliminate mortgage fraud, some are reducing the number of firms they will allow to represent them. HSBC have taken a radical approach and reduced the number to about 40. The lender has told our clients that if they want to use their own solicitors that are not on their panel, that this will slow down the buying process, and could cost them more. Other lenders have indicated that they will follow this lead by reducing the number of firms that will represent them. It is unclear how this reduction in choice, increase in fees and the introduction of further delays will benefit the housing market.
Buyers impacted by searches
There are some new challenges for people looking to buy properties in London, primarily from several local authorities that are now taking over 6 weeks to return searches, and the new issues that are raised by the building of the HS2 trainline. To head off potential problems, over the past 6 months, we have been carrying out searches specifically to check whether the line will affect the property in question. Over the past few years, buyers looking for a London property had to contend with concerns over the CrossRail project, but now, it's delays in searches and the impact of the new rail line that they need to consider as well when looking at purchase decisions and timescales.
The Partnership introduces unique online assistance
As part of the development that is well underway with our revamped website, we are providing new online services, including a unique guide for first-time-buyers to help explain the conveyancing process more effectively. We will also be offering an online-chat service where clients can talk to us online at any time, in addition to our Skype offering, due in early Spring.
Some of the promises we're seeing being made by companies selling legal services would make Arthur Daley blush. Last week, a firm promising "no-sale no-fee" forgot to mention that the client has to buy insurance to ensure that they don't pay anything if the sale aborts - this insurance costs about £100. Obviously, "no fee" is only relevant when used in conjunction with the word "legal". Another favourite trick we've seen is disguising fee-earning work as a disbursement, such as completing Stamp Duty Land Tax forms. Another client was quoted £600 for the work, and ended up paying £1600 (for unexpected items). However, we adam-and-eve that agents are steering clients away from the cut-and-shunt merchants which can only be good wooden pews. (Click here for a translator to help you communicate with such firms)
Lenders help to slow the housing market
With lenders determined to eliminate mortgage fraud, some are reducing the number of firms they will allow to represent them. HSBC have taken a radical approach and reduced the number to about 40. The lender has told our clients that if they want to use their own solicitors that are not on their panel, that this will slow down the buying process, and could cost them more. Other lenders have indicated that they will follow this lead by reducing the number of firms that will represent them. It is unclear how this reduction in choice, increase in fees and the introduction of further delays will benefit the housing market.
Buyers impacted by searches
There are some new challenges for people looking to buy properties in London, primarily from several local authorities that are now taking over 6 weeks to return searches, and the new issues that are raised by the building of the HS2 trainline. To head off potential problems, over the past 6 months, we have been carrying out searches specifically to check whether the line will affect the property in question. Over the past few years, buyers looking for a London property had to contend with concerns over the CrossRail project, but now, it's delays in searches and the impact of the new rail line that they need to consider as well when looking at purchase decisions and timescales.
The Partnership introduces unique online assistance
As part of the development that is well underway with our revamped website, we are providing new online services, including a unique guide for first-time-buyers to help explain the conveyancing process more effectively. We will also be offering an online-chat service where clients can talk to us online at any time, in addition to our Skype offering, due in early Spring.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
The Partnership raises concern about lenders abusing their position
For Immediate Release
Guildford, Surrey – 22nd January 2012 – The Partnership has evidence that banks and building societies are misleading their mortgage clients over legal representation and costs, with the result that one of their clients has instructed the financial ombudsman to take direct action.
Traditionally, solicitors represented both the buyer and the mortgage lender in the purchase of a property. However, lenders, concerned about the increasing levels of mortgage fraud, have recently started to dictate who may represent them, by setting up panels of “authorised” firms.
This change has lead to warnings that consumer choice was being restricted, but The Partnership now has specific evidence where clients are being penalised due to their selection of mortgage provider. These include a bank misleading a client over costs, another forcing a client to use an expensive London solicitor, and a nationalised lender refusing to disclose their charges.
Peter Ambrose, Director of The Partnership, is extremely concerned; “We do not mind lenders dictating who may represent them - indeed, we would prefer that ALL lenders used their own chosen law firms to represent themselves as it removes a potential conflict of interest that we currently face.
However, our evidence shows that lenders are abusing their position, to the detriment of their clients. After approving a mortgage, a bank tried to allocate a conveyancer directly to one of our clients for a cost of £600. When our client explained that he already had a solicitor, he was told this fee would apply anyway. As the correct figure was £160, it suggests that the bank was quoting the full conveyancing fee in what appears to be an attempt to encourage our client to use their chosen provider.
We had been acting for a lender with their authority, but two days before exchange, they withdrew this authority and told our client to either use another law firm for the entire transaction, or to use one of their chosen firms to represent them for a fee of nearly £1000. Given the time pressure, our client had no choice but to use the firm that was representing the lender, resulting in a doubling of their fees.”
Given the much publicised pressure on banks to act fairly, we are disappointed that some do not appear to be acting in the best interests of their clients. It is particularly galling when a client must revert to the financial ombudsman because a nationalised firm refuses to disclose the fees that their chosen law firm will be charging. This abuse of power must be stopped, and we are delighted that the ombudsman has acted quickly but are very concerned about the approach some lenders are taking.”
Notes to Editors
The Partnership is a new breed of law firm, employing London-trained solicitors, specialising in fast and efficient transactions. For more information go to www.thepartnershiplimited.com. A PDF version of this press release is available.
Media enquiries
Peter Ambrose, The Partnership – 01483 579978 or email info@thepartnershiplimited.com
Guildford, Surrey – 22nd January 2012 – The Partnership has evidence that banks and building societies are misleading their mortgage clients over legal representation and costs, with the result that one of their clients has instructed the financial ombudsman to take direct action.
Traditionally, solicitors represented both the buyer and the mortgage lender in the purchase of a property. However, lenders, concerned about the increasing levels of mortgage fraud, have recently started to dictate who may represent them, by setting up panels of “authorised” firms.
This change has lead to warnings that consumer choice was being restricted, but The Partnership now has specific evidence where clients are being penalised due to their selection of mortgage provider. These include a bank misleading a client over costs, another forcing a client to use an expensive London solicitor, and a nationalised lender refusing to disclose their charges.
Peter Ambrose, Director of The Partnership, is extremely concerned; “We do not mind lenders dictating who may represent them - indeed, we would prefer that ALL lenders used their own chosen law firms to represent themselves as it removes a potential conflict of interest that we currently face.
However, our evidence shows that lenders are abusing their position, to the detriment of their clients. After approving a mortgage, a bank tried to allocate a conveyancer directly to one of our clients for a cost of £600. When our client explained that he already had a solicitor, he was told this fee would apply anyway. As the correct figure was £160, it suggests that the bank was quoting the full conveyancing fee in what appears to be an attempt to encourage our client to use their chosen provider.
We had been acting for a lender with their authority, but two days before exchange, they withdrew this authority and told our client to either use another law firm for the entire transaction, or to use one of their chosen firms to represent them for a fee of nearly £1000. Given the time pressure, our client had no choice but to use the firm that was representing the lender, resulting in a doubling of their fees.”
Given the much publicised pressure on banks to act fairly, we are disappointed that some do not appear to be acting in the best interests of their clients. It is particularly galling when a client must revert to the financial ombudsman because a nationalised firm refuses to disclose the fees that their chosen law firm will be charging. This abuse of power must be stopped, and we are delighted that the ombudsman has acted quickly but are very concerned about the approach some lenders are taking.”
Notes to Editors
The Partnership is a new breed of law firm, employing London-trained solicitors, specialising in fast and efficient transactions. For more information go to www.thepartnershiplimited.com. A PDF version of this press release is available.
Media enquiries
Peter Ambrose, The Partnership – 01483 579978 or email info@thepartnershiplimited.com
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Brave new world or just the emperor's new clothes?
Over the past week we've discovered that the brave new world promised by the breaking of the monopoly on legal services is not so brave or new after all, with firms offering traditional services but just with new brochures.
On October 6th 2011, the Legal Services Act enabled non-lawyers to own law firms. This change promised innovative new offerings from modern firms and it is widely expected that residential conveyancing would be the first service to experience this change.
However, it appears that rather than innovation, its more a lack of imagination that has come to the fore, with several new offerings merely re-packaging existing services under a new name.
In the first instance, a major agency chain is promising a new fast conveyancing service as part of their selling process. The brochures are covered with pictures of happy smiling house buyers, delighted with their 24 hour access to case information and friendly solicitors getting their deals done in days. The disappointing reality merely just another name for a tired old legal panel, paying local solicitors a fraction of the fee to carry out the work. Nothing new beyond the name here (and of course the disatisfaction from the same lawyers).
Another firm is offering an interesting model with low costs and high introductory fees to agents. Again, promising 24 hour access to dedicated staff; this time it's just another name for a high-volume conveyancing factory, known to have high fall-through rates and slow turnaround times.
Its extremely disappointing to see this lack of commitment at first hand - it seems that innovation has yet to come to the legal services market and what we see are merely false starts on the road to innovation.
Here's an idea for companies looking to offer legal services. Instead of pimping out non-lawyers and offering generic support email addresses as a communication substitute why not take the plunge and actually employ staff and invest in systems to provide the service directly.
Or is that a step too far in this brave new world?
On October 6th 2011, the Legal Services Act enabled non-lawyers to own law firms. This change promised innovative new offerings from modern firms and it is widely expected that residential conveyancing would be the first service to experience this change.
However, it appears that rather than innovation, its more a lack of imagination that has come to the fore, with several new offerings merely re-packaging existing services under a new name.
In the first instance, a major agency chain is promising a new fast conveyancing service as part of their selling process. The brochures are covered with pictures of happy smiling house buyers, delighted with their 24 hour access to case information and friendly solicitors getting their deals done in days. The disappointing reality merely just another name for a tired old legal panel, paying local solicitors a fraction of the fee to carry out the work. Nothing new beyond the name here (and of course the disatisfaction from the same lawyers).
Another firm is offering an interesting model with low costs and high introductory fees to agents. Again, promising 24 hour access to dedicated staff; this time it's just another name for a high-volume conveyancing factory, known to have high fall-through rates and slow turnaround times.
Its extremely disappointing to see this lack of commitment at first hand - it seems that innovation has yet to come to the legal services market and what we see are merely false starts on the road to innovation.
Here's an idea for companies looking to offer legal services. Instead of pimping out non-lawyers and offering generic support email addresses as a communication substitute why not take the plunge and actually employ staff and invest in systems to provide the service directly.
Or is that a step too far in this brave new world?
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
The Partnership Newsletter - December 2011
"Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition"
It appears that solicitors who are members of the Law Society's new Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) needn't worry about a Pythonesque "fear and surprise" reprisal if they break the guidance rules.
The Law Society introduced the CQS to help traditional high street law firms differentiate themselves from ordinary legal providers. Although it is designed to show that member firms are always courteous and offer excellent service, our recent experience with some CQS firms indicates that this may not always be the case.
Following some recent exchanges of the nature that we thought solicitors only reserved for estate agents, we checked with the Law Society what sanctions were available where firms breach their rules. The answer was that there are none. The words teapot and chocolate spring to mind, although not necessarily in that order.
Chancel repair liabilities - the clock is ticking
Over recent years, it has become a standard requirement for buyers (particularly when getting a mortgage) to check whether there is any liability for homeowners to pay for the upkeep of the local church, through a rather arcane law enacted centuries ago. Although there have not been many cases, this right expires next year, so there is a possibility that some churches may look to make the most of this opportunity.
The potential liability is real and we will be introducing a low-cost service next year for homewners to check whether they have this liability and take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
SDLT Changes
The government and Revenue & Customs have warned they will close the loopholes that people are exploiting to avoid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). Indeed, last month, they announced they would remove one method, whereby buyers used companies to buy properties, by increasing the rate to 5%. Discussions with agents has shown a marked decrease in the numbers of clients trying to avoid SDLT, and we have witnessed numbers falling.
Whilst currently, mitigating SDLT can be done legally, some are speculating that in the future, it may be considered to be a criminal offence.
Finally, the government appears committed to its decision to scrap the SDLT exemption for first time buyers spending less than £250K after 24th March 2012.
New website and online case tracking
We will be launching our new-look website in January, with the focus very much on social media and information delivery. We will also be extending our Partnership League system so agents will be able to track the progress of their client's cases online. This will enhance our current offering of our fast-response email and 7 days-erp-week telephone access.
... and finally ... we don't DO end of year reviews, so it just remains for us to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to our readers!
It appears that solicitors who are members of the Law Society's new Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) needn't worry about a Pythonesque "fear and surprise" reprisal if they break the guidance rules.
The Law Society introduced the CQS to help traditional high street law firms differentiate themselves from ordinary legal providers. Although it is designed to show that member firms are always courteous and offer excellent service, our recent experience with some CQS firms indicates that this may not always be the case.
Following some recent exchanges of the nature that we thought solicitors only reserved for estate agents, we checked with the Law Society what sanctions were available where firms breach their rules. The answer was that there are none. The words teapot and chocolate spring to mind, although not necessarily in that order.
Chancel repair liabilities - the clock is ticking
Over recent years, it has become a standard requirement for buyers (particularly when getting a mortgage) to check whether there is any liability for homeowners to pay for the upkeep of the local church, through a rather arcane law enacted centuries ago. Although there have not been many cases, this right expires next year, so there is a possibility that some churches may look to make the most of this opportunity.
The potential liability is real and we will be introducing a low-cost service next year for homewners to check whether they have this liability and take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
SDLT Changes
The government and Revenue & Customs have warned they will close the loopholes that people are exploiting to avoid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). Indeed, last month, they announced they would remove one method, whereby buyers used companies to buy properties, by increasing the rate to 5%. Discussions with agents has shown a marked decrease in the numbers of clients trying to avoid SDLT, and we have witnessed numbers falling.
Whilst currently, mitigating SDLT can be done legally, some are speculating that in the future, it may be considered to be a criminal offence.
Finally, the government appears committed to its decision to scrap the SDLT exemption for first time buyers spending less than £250K after 24th March 2012.
New website and online case tracking
We will be launching our new-look website in January, with the focus very much on social media and information delivery. We will also be extending our Partnership League system so agents will be able to track the progress of their client's cases online. This will enhance our current offering of our fast-response email and 7 days-erp-week telephone access.
... and finally ... we don't DO end of year reviews, so it just remains for us to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to our readers!
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Solar panels - its deja vu all over again
We should have known.
In our last blog, we found it within our hearts to compliment the government on actually doing what they said they would do when it came to eradicating tax avoidance with Stamp Duty Land Tax.
We believed that we were witnessing a new political dawn.
However, as Nick Clegg will testify, a week is a long time in politics. Therefore, we're not surprised to see, that, unfortunately, Westminster is back to its old ways when it comes to shifting policy goal posts overnight.
This time it's the solar panel industry.
Recent years have seen massive growth in the sale of solar panels - the promise of free electricity and money from the government paying home owners to produce it, was simply too strong for many. Indeed, this business opportunity, with its green overtones, seemed ideal for domestic energy assessors, (DEAs) many of whom had lost significant income from the overnight scrapping of HIPs, where they made their money.
The key to the business was the "feed-in tariff" - money from the government paying consumers to generate their own electricity. Without it, the cost of buying (or leasing in many cases) these solar panels simply didn't make financial sense. This fee was guaranteed. (Or so the franchise salespeople told their franchisees).
The amount paid was up for review in April 2012, and a consultation period was underway. However, in a HIP-like move, the government has overnight reduced this tariff by 50%, making the proposition for many, unviable.
Observers estimate this will cost 20,000 jobs. Add that to the estimate of 10,000 jobs lost when HIPs were abandoned, and suddenly, Cameron's new caring Conservatism doesn't appear to be quite so friendly after all.
In our last blog, we found it within our hearts to compliment the government on actually doing what they said they would do when it came to eradicating tax avoidance with Stamp Duty Land Tax.
We believed that we were witnessing a new political dawn.
However, as Nick Clegg will testify, a week is a long time in politics. Therefore, we're not surprised to see, that, unfortunately, Westminster is back to its old ways when it comes to shifting policy goal posts overnight.
This time it's the solar panel industry.
Recent years have seen massive growth in the sale of solar panels - the promise of free electricity and money from the government paying home owners to produce it, was simply too strong for many. Indeed, this business opportunity, with its green overtones, seemed ideal for domestic energy assessors, (DEAs) many of whom had lost significant income from the overnight scrapping of HIPs, where they made their money.
The key to the business was the "feed-in tariff" - money from the government paying consumers to generate their own electricity. Without it, the cost of buying (or leasing in many cases) these solar panels simply didn't make financial sense. This fee was guaranteed. (Or so the franchise salespeople told their franchisees).
The amount paid was up for review in April 2012, and a consultation period was underway. However, in a HIP-like move, the government has overnight reduced this tariff by 50%, making the proposition for many, unviable.
Observers estimate this will cost 20,000 jobs. Add that to the estimate of 10,000 jobs lost when HIPs were abandoned, and suddenly, Cameron's new caring Conservatism doesn't appear to be quite so friendly after all.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Good to see the government grasping the mettle
To be completely frank, when we saw a Conservative prime minister appear at the doors of number 10 Downing Street last year, the last thing we expected would they would actually resolve a taxation issue that affects many of their supporters.
However, we're delighted to see that after various promises over the past six months, that they are cracking down on those people looking to avoid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT).
In addition to the budget earlier this year when many avoidance schemes were outlawed, we read that the draft Finance Bill 2012 now includes a change to SDLT rules outlawing avoidance for properties over £1m, where previously, buyers could exploit a loophole which would save them thousands of pounds.
We remain concerned that those people that have been sold such avoidance schemes in the past will end up having to find the money that they have saved (not forgetting the 50% fee that they paid to the providers that sold them the "cast-iron" schemes) when the Revenue and Customs finally catch up with them.
However, we're delighted to see that after various promises over the past six months, that they are cracking down on those people looking to avoid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT).
In addition to the budget earlier this year when many avoidance schemes were outlawed, we read that the draft Finance Bill 2012 now includes a change to SDLT rules outlawing avoidance for properties over £1m, where previously, buyers could exploit a loophole which would save them thousands of pounds.
We remain concerned that those people that have been sold such avoidance schemes in the past will end up having to find the money that they have saved (not forgetting the 50% fee that they paid to the providers that sold them the "cast-iron" schemes) when the Revenue and Customs finally catch up with them.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
The Partnership Newsletter - November 2011
"There's something here that doesn't quite add up"
The great Quincy (MD) would no doubt be a little surprised to see himself quoted in a property newsletter. Its because we're very confused. In our experience agents always ask for the name of the solicitor to give to their clients, clients only recommend individual solicitors to friends, and clients always want to speak directly to that particular person. Therefore, as its clearly the personal approach that most clients want, why are lawyers worrying about large "nameless" firms taking business from them? We are gaining market share by simply communicating regularly with agents and clients, offering full availability and co-operation and the results have been very encouraging. It appears that its simply a case of "going back to basics" - now where have we heard THAT before?
Stamp Duty Land Tax Mitigation - more difficulties for tax avoiders
The BBC has highlighted how Revenue & Customs are taking a more robust line when it comes to home buyers using Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) mitigation schemes to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay. Revenue and Customs are also following up on their commitment to pursue people who have avoided this tax - there are now reports of clients receiving letters from them questioning the amount of tax paid on transactions from several years ago. Lenders are refusing to provide mortgages to people that are using these schemes and it is expected that their number will grow.
Recent case highlights potential problems for unmarried couples
A recent case case has highlighted the problems that can arise when unmarried couples that have bought property together, separate. Patricia Jones and Leonard Kernott, an unmarried couple, had bought a property together but following their separation, Mr Kernott had tried to claim 50% of the share of the value of the property. The court ruled that this was not the case and reinstated the original judgement giving Mr Kernott only 10%. This underlines the importance for unmarried couples to organise both a Will and also a Declaration of Trust when buying together, and all buyers should be aware of the risks of not organising these.
7 Days a week availability
Agents tell us that one of their biggest frustrations is not being able to speak to solicitors out of hours, particularly Saturdays. That's why we now offer 7 days per week telephone availability for agents. This is proving very popular where clients are looking to make a purchase and want to have a quote and paperwork organised immediately. Please email us for contact information.
The great Quincy (MD) would no doubt be a little surprised to see himself quoted in a property newsletter. Its because we're very confused. In our experience agents always ask for the name of the solicitor to give to their clients, clients only recommend individual solicitors to friends, and clients always want to speak directly to that particular person. Therefore, as its clearly the personal approach that most clients want, why are lawyers worrying about large "nameless" firms taking business from them? We are gaining market share by simply communicating regularly with agents and clients, offering full availability and co-operation and the results have been very encouraging. It appears that its simply a case of "going back to basics" - now where have we heard THAT before?
Stamp Duty Land Tax Mitigation - more difficulties for tax avoiders
The BBC has highlighted how Revenue & Customs are taking a more robust line when it comes to home buyers using Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) mitigation schemes to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay. Revenue and Customs are also following up on their commitment to pursue people who have avoided this tax - there are now reports of clients receiving letters from them questioning the amount of tax paid on transactions from several years ago. Lenders are refusing to provide mortgages to people that are using these schemes and it is expected that their number will grow.
Recent case highlights potential problems for unmarried couples
A recent case case has highlighted the problems that can arise when unmarried couples that have bought property together, separate. Patricia Jones and Leonard Kernott, an unmarried couple, had bought a property together but following their separation, Mr Kernott had tried to claim 50% of the share of the value of the property. The court ruled that this was not the case and reinstated the original judgement giving Mr Kernott only 10%. This underlines the importance for unmarried couples to organise both a Will and also a Declaration of Trust when buying together, and all buyers should be aware of the risks of not organising these.
7 Days a week availability
Agents tell us that one of their biggest frustrations is not being able to speak to solicitors out of hours, particularly Saturdays. That's why we now offer 7 days per week telephone availability for agents. This is proving very popular where clients are looking to make a purchase and want to have a quote and paperwork organised immediately. Please email us for contact information.
Monday, 21 November 2011
Individual or company - who is your solicitor?
We had a contradiction arise last week that actually raises issues about the future of the choice of legal service suppliers.
We support www.solicitor.info a comparison website aimed at promoting solicitors that offer good service. Last week, a competitor complained that because our company is regulated by the Council of Licensed Conveyancers, we should not be allowed to be on the site. (Our competitor has since retracted his complaint as we employ solicitors and the site is aimed at rating solicitors.)
However, this raises a wider question about how people buy legal services, and whether the recent liberalisation of the legal market will have a large an impact as many traditional lawyers fear it will.
It is clear that many consumers select a solicitor based on a recommendation, the most effective being a friend or work colleague. Indeed, we have found that it is very common for an individual to be named on the reviews on www.solicitor.info which usually includes a reference to a person rather than a company.
In our opinion, this calls into question the importance of company branding and how consumers perceive quality from a legal provider. Do consumers buy legal services from a company or an individual and given that the Law Society is promoting the use of solicitors, how important is the branding of the firm in which those particular solicitors work?
This raises further questions about the value of some of the new branding schemes that have been introduced such as QualitySolicitors where the plan is to subvert the names of even the company by trading under a single banner.
However, the major challenge is that a good solicitors' time is finite. In our opinion, the firms that will succeed will be those that combine the smart use of supportive technology with intelligent support staff, ensuring consistency of support throughout the organisation.
After all, the days of "I'm sorry but the person handling the file is not available and no-one else can help you" should be long gone by now.
We support www.solicitor.info a comparison website aimed at promoting solicitors that offer good service. Last week, a competitor complained that because our company is regulated by the Council of Licensed Conveyancers, we should not be allowed to be on the site. (Our competitor has since retracted his complaint as we employ solicitors and the site is aimed at rating solicitors.)
However, this raises a wider question about how people buy legal services, and whether the recent liberalisation of the legal market will have a large an impact as many traditional lawyers fear it will.
It is clear that many consumers select a solicitor based on a recommendation, the most effective being a friend or work colleague. Indeed, we have found that it is very common for an individual to be named on the reviews on www.solicitor.info which usually includes a reference to a person rather than a company.
In our opinion, this calls into question the importance of company branding and how consumers perceive quality from a legal provider. Do consumers buy legal services from a company or an individual and given that the Law Society is promoting the use of solicitors, how important is the branding of the firm in which those particular solicitors work?
This raises further questions about the value of some of the new branding schemes that have been introduced such as QualitySolicitors where the plan is to subvert the names of even the company by trading under a single banner.
However, the major challenge is that a good solicitors' time is finite. In our opinion, the firms that will succeed will be those that combine the smart use of supportive technology with intelligent support staff, ensuring consistency of support throughout the organisation.
After all, the days of "I'm sorry but the person handling the file is not available and no-one else can help you" should be long gone by now.
Monday, 14 November 2011
Unmarried couples and their rights
We've been working hard to ensure that anyone buying a property in joint names who isn't married is aware of some of the pitfalls that they might endure.
Many people that we speak to are not aware of the legal difference between being married or just living together. Some go so far as assuming that such things as "common-law rights", however, in reality, when things go wrong in a relationship where the couple is not married, then this can present major challenges.
Therefore, we were pleased to see this highlighted in the recent case between Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones which highlighted some of the problems involved when couples split up.
This case involved a couple that had split up 20 years ago, and Kernott (who left) was then claiming a higher proportion of the value of the property than he was originally granted. The judge decided that even though Kernott had paid the mortgage and much of the costs, he was not entitled to claim the 50% of the value of the property.
We recommend all unmarried couples buying a property should obtain a Declaration of Trust - contact us for more information.
Many people that we speak to are not aware of the legal difference between being married or just living together. Some go so far as assuming that such things as "common-law rights", however, in reality, when things go wrong in a relationship where the couple is not married, then this can present major challenges.
Therefore, we were pleased to see this highlighted in the recent case between Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones which highlighted some of the problems involved when couples split up.
This case involved a couple that had split up 20 years ago, and Kernott (who left) was then claiming a higher proportion of the value of the property than he was originally granted. The judge decided that even though Kernott had paid the mortgage and much of the costs, he was not entitled to claim the 50% of the value of the property.
We recommend all unmarried couples buying a property should obtain a Declaration of Trust - contact us for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)