“I'm all in favour of something being done to tighten up on fraudulent conveyancers and to promote best practice to consumers but in the current economic climate, a balance has to be struck between achieving this with a light, practical touch and making it effective. I suspect all but the biggest firms will find the proposed scheme unworkable and expensive and I am not sure what some of the proposals really do in terms of safeguards. The scheme appears rushed and to have come in with little or no consultation. I have certainly heard nothing about it either from other firms or the regulators, ILEX etc.
In particular, I do not see that employers have a right to carry out (nor necessarily the ability to interpret) credit checks on all employees who might conceivably be involved in conveyancing. I think an employee has the right to consider their personal finances just that, personal. I can see the value of CRB checks but am concerned about the length of time these are likely to take.
In my own firm, the SRO would be our senior partner, a litigator who has no direct involvement in the property department. I cannot see the value in obtaining such detailed information on him nor in making him complete the application form when the head of conveyancing's information is surely more important and relevant. If this is not a partner and one must be involved, one who works in property would surely be a more sensible choice.
Whilst I can see why a requirement to report on complaints whether dealt with internally or externally has been included, I cannot see the value in a separate complaints systems with all the cost and bureaucracy this entails when there are perfectly good existing processes for external complaints handling by regulators. I also think a dual system is going to be confusing for the consumer. Would it not be simpler to come to an arrangement with third parties such as lenders, the Land Registry, the regulators to report firms of concern, panel terminations etc and for those running the scheme then to visit and monitor those firms rather than relying on firms to "own up"?
When do we get to see and be consulted on proposed changes to the conveyancing protocol and the proposed client service charter. Is a new service charter really necessary given the existing raft of consumer led practice and regulation?
What happens when we are dealing with a firm which does not subscribe to the scheme?
I suspect many firms will find it difficult to easily provide the level of transactional information being requested. I doubt they separately record which matters go abortive and which do not, which are buy to let and which are not, whether they have ever dealt with a lender who does not subscribe to the CML/BSA (most high street firms will have dealt with the odd private charge but I doubt they will have separately recorded this). Although firms could go through individual files, this would be a huge task and I doubt the data would then be much more than a best guess. If firms are to go to these lengths to provide the information, there ought to a clear understanding of the use to which this information will be put and why it is required. I personally cannot see that knowing how many transactions a firm has carried out and its value will provide any indication of the risk that firm poses and am concerned as to what use (and whether the information provided will be shared with any other organisation or body) it will be put. Small firms carrying out low volumes may be doing a fantastic, compliant job for clients including lenders, large volume firms may be doing high numbers with inexperienced staff. Given the threat posed by corporates such as Tesco or lenders coming into the market in future poses, this is a real and legitimate worry, particularly for small high street practices. I definitely cannot see what relevance Legal Aid work has to a conveyancing scheme and cannot understand why this is being requested.
Surely the bigger problem here is that a conveyancer's only real safeguard is checking the details of whatever firm they are dealing with on the SRA/CLC websites. I have contacted the fraud section of the SRA on numerous occasions in relation to firms whose branches or details are incorrectly shown or have not been updated quickly only to be told that no information with regard to any applications being processed can be given and effectively, they cannot help me identify whether I am dealing with a bogus firm, a real firm with a bogus branch or one under investigation. This leaves decent conveyancers trying to do the right thing horribly exposed. Do you tell your clients that you cannot proceed unless the other side change solicitors effectively putting the transaction at risk when in fact the SRA may just not have updated their details yet, do you ask the other firm and have a good fraudster spin a compelling tale or do you go ahead and hope for the best or that by the time you get to exchange, the website might be up to date? I don't see that the proposed scheme will help with this dilemma. What is needed is some sort of confidential advice line where you can find out if another firm is under investigation, subject to possible intervention, has recently opened or closed a branch office etc.”
Head of Conveyancing – regional firm
