Law Society to hand over solicitor data in bid to negate need for lender panel fees

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

8 September 2011

Hudson: panel fees will be passed on to clients

The Law Society will next month begin sharing information about conveyancing solicitors with a lender as part of moves to discourage lenders from charging a compliance fee for firms that want to be on their panels.

Meanwhile, standard mortgage instructions for solicitors acting just for lenders should be released in the first quarter of 2012, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has revealed.

The pilot with the unnamed lender will feed information from the Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) and other Law Society databases, chief executive Des Hudson told the Today’s Conveyancer conference in Leicestershire.

The information – which will cover the details lenders are seeking as part of the move to more active panel management – will be free. Santander recently announced a controversial annual compliance check, which will cost firms £99, plus a £199 application fee for firms wanting to join the panel.

Mr Hudson branded Santander’s move “a mistake”, pointing out that the society first offered to provide this information for free two years ago. The cost of a law firm having to undergo similar compliance checks to Santander’s by 20 or 30 lenders would end up being passed on to consumers, he warned.

In time he said he hoped to build a “trusted community” where information flowed both ways, with lenders informing the Solicitors Regulation Authority of misconduct by solicitors.

Speaking earlier at the conference, Jennifer Bourne, senior policy adviser at the CML, said she expected other lenders to follow Santander’s lead but pointed out that some have said they will not. She suggested there might be an “industry solution” that could ameliorate the situation.

Saying “the day of the open panel is at an end”, she described the greater controls lenders are exerting as a good thing because some had not previously conducted enough due diligence on their firms. However, she said lenders also needed to ensure consumers had sufficient choice, and that their panel management is “not too intrusive”.

While understanding lenders’ desire to introduce “prudent controls” of their panels, Mr Hudson said he was “very disappointed” that the CML had turned down the society’s offer to work on objective criteria for panel membership and removal.

Ms Bourne told delegates that the CML expected to see separate representation of lenders and borrowers increase, as panels contract and also as a way to reduce the risk of fraud. But it has proven difficult to develop instructions for acting just for the lender and to make clear the division of responsibilities between the three solicitors involved in the transaction, which is why the original intention to introduce the instructions next month has now slipped to early next year.

She also said that alternative business structures, and particularly external investment in law firms, “does present some risks” to lenders in their fight against mortgage fraud. “It is slightly unclear how the [Solicitors Regulation Authority’s fit and proper person test] will work and how well it will ensure that the wrong person isn’t involved.”

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

The skills shortage in law firms is the biggest threat to handling cybercrime

CLC Roundtable discussion at Malmaison Hotel, Charterhouse Square

The skills shortage in our businesses is the biggest threat to our industry when looking at cybercrime. Cybercriminals are not just after money but are looking for sensitive information too, so the legal services sector is an obvious target. In the last year we have had reports of around £7m of client money being lost to such crime. This is not an IT issue and it should not be left to the IT teams to sort out. It is a high-level responsibility and a board-level issue that must be taken seriously. We suspect that we will look back on 2016 and ask why we didn’t respond quicker.

March 21st, 2017