MP urges government to raise conveyancing standards

Longhi: System does not protect consumers enough

A Conservative MP has urged the government to establish “minimum standards regarding searches and assessments of risk” by residential conveyancers.

Marco Longhi, who represents Dudley North, accused solicitors and licensed conveyancers of not doing enough to highlight the possible downsides of purchases to their clients.

He introduced a 10-minute rule bill, called the Conveyancing Standards Bill, into Parliament yesterday. These bills give MPs 10 minutes in the House of Commons to raise an issue with the government.

They rarely progress any further, although technically the bill has now passed its first reading and has a date for a second reading at the end of November.

Mr Longhi said: “The system does not offer enough consumer protections for people who are about to make possibly the single most important investment of their lives, while the transaction itself is mired in documents and legal complexities that are rarely fully understood.”

He was not proposing “radical changes” to the conveyancing process, he added.

The MP gave examples of two real-life cases involving his constituents “who have been let down by a system that has not kept pace with an industry that has become increasingly cut-throat”.

The first was of a developer that liquidated the company owning the site of the new-build properties as soon as the last one was sold and, it later turned out, had failed to comply with some of the conditions of the planning permission, leaving the buyers with a host of complaints.

“At that point, the homeowners turned to the council for help, in the expectation that it would have the ability, as a local regulatory body, somehow to fix things. It transpired that any regulatory liabilities relating to the properties transferred to the property owners at point of sale, and that if the council chose to enforce breaches of planning, it would have to pursue the new homeowners.”

Mr Longhi noted that local planning authorities were not required to pursue developers for evidence of compliance with planning conditions.

“So here we are: we have just purchased a property in good faith following the advice of the conveyancing solicitor – who, by the way, was recommended by the developer – and the property does not have planning permission.

“Certification costs could be extremely significant, and we have no recourse to the developer because they no longer exist as a legal entity.”

The second example was a more common one, he suggested, of buyers being responsible to pay maintenance contracts for common areas on new-build estates.

.“What is not discussed with sufficient clarity at the point of conveyance, if at all, is that the small print of the maintenance contract will state that contract owners can increase the price as and when they wish, and there is virtually no recourse within the contract for poor workmanship or lack of clarity.

“The fee of £100 per year may soon become £500 per year, and the grass cutting may be once a year instead of once a month.”

Mr Longhi said buyers could not refuse to pay, because the contracts allowed for a charge to be placed against the property.

“The system is being gamed by unscrupulous developers and contractors, because it is not transparent enough to shine a light on the potential risks to people when they are buying a property.

“People might feel that the very fact that a solicitor is handling the conveyance means that they are sufficiently protected. They employ a solicitor not just to carry out due diligence for them, but to highlight any potential downsides. That is not happening with enough robustness, and that is why I propose the bill.”

Eleven other MPs supported the bill: Nicola Richards, Gareth Bacon, Sir John Hayes, Peter Gibson, Jamie Stone, Sir David Amess, Lee Anderson, Paul Howell, Ian Levy, Jim Shannon and Sally-Ann Hart.

    Readers Comments

  • Arthur Robinson says:

    Incredible. The 2 examples quoted appear to relate more to the conduct of the builder/developer rather than the “failure” of the conveyancer to give better advice.
    One issue we find consistently is the failure of clients to read what they are sent (which will be in plain English) notwithstanding the amount of money involved and the seriousness of the transaction.
    Parliament passes laws. This MP would be better off encouraging Government to pass laws to address the issues raised rather than make everything the liability of the conveyancer whose main role is to ensure Good Title for the buyer and lender rather than advise on every possible issue that may or may not materialise.

  • Marion Palmann says:

    I have great sympathy for people who discover too late that they have been played by the developer and it does happen often in many different ways, but what this MP does not seem to appreciate is that conveyancing lawyers spend all day long giving people the relevant advice about what might happen, but they don’t want to hear it. It makes no difference to their decision to buy what looks, to them, like a splendid house. His proposal is not even close to being the answer and shows he doesn’t quite understand what is involved. I hope there is an answer because I agree with him that people are often left very disappointed and don’t end up with what they thought they were getting. Community orchards shown on the drawings get magically transmuted into another tranche of houses; green spaces that should be planted are not planted; gym equipment suddenly appears right outside someone’s kitchen window, professional managing agents are employed who only have an interest in getting 15% (if you are lucky) of the annual maintenance costs – there is precious little control on the part of the people who will actually live on these estates. Part of the reason for that is that the older type of management company that used to be left to residents themselves frequently crashed due to lack of participation on the part of the residents, leaving them with yet another set of problems and unsaleable homes. Leasehold is used where it shouldn’t be; freehold management companies are used as a tool for someone else’s profit and are run like Colditz only not quite so humane. We need some regulation, but this is not in the conveyancer’s camp.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Retrospective or not retrospective, that is the question

As the debate heats up over the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, it is crucial to understand what is the true vice in retrospective legislation.

Harnessing the balance of technology and human interaction

In today’s legal landscape, finding the delicate balance between driving efficiency via use of technology and providing a personalised service is paramount to success.

AI’s legal leap: transforming law practice with intelligent tech

Just like in numerous other industries, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal sector is proving to be a game-changer.

Loading animation