Solicitor fined for role in £29m off-plan development schemes

SDT: Solicitor failed to provide proper level of service

A solicitor has been fined £8,000 for failing to advise clients of the risks inherent in three off-plan development schemes which were not completed, putting nearly £30m at risk.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said it did not know “how much, if any” the overseas investors had been able to recover of £29.3m in deposits they sent to the sellers in relation to 379 units.

Approving an agreed outcome, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that David Sewell admitted the misconduct.

The SRA said there was “no evidence” that the solicitor’s clients were “obvious candidates” for a high-risk investment scheme and they may have regarded investing in the UK buy-to-let property market as a “relatively safe” investment.

The SRA said the public expected those earning fees to represent buyers in a property transaction “to act as a first line of defence against unduly risky transactions”.

Mr Sewell, who qualified in 1976, described himself as an experienced commercial conveyancing solicitor. He worked first as an assistant solicitor and latterly as a consultant at Oliver & Co, and first became involved with fractional developments in 2012.

He retired from the firm in 2018 and had “no intention of practising as a solicitor in the future”.

The SRA said problems with the three schemes included minimal contractual control over and protection of funds and certainly less than would typically be in place in an ordinary construction project of this size. This indicated how limited the legal protections were and the “inherently high risk that funds would be mis-spent or even misappropriated”.

Investors had to pay 50% of the purchase price upfront but these risks were not made clear to them.

The SRA stressed: “Whilst it is open to purchasers to take such legal risks, they must be fully informed of them when they do so.

“The investment was effectively worthless unless the development is brought to completion. Thus not only was the level of risk inherently high, but the risk if it materialised was the total loss of each investor’s funds.”

Mr Sewell had contributed to the drafting of the original purchase agreement on which subsequent contracts were based, which the SRA said should have made him “particularly aware” of the weak level of legal protections they afforded.

In mitigation not endorsed by the SRA, Mr Sewell said that, prior to the schemes which led to the disciplinary proceedings, Oliver & Co had completed “many successful fractional developments”.

His main role was to examine the title to the schemes and prepare or approve the contract, standard form of lease and ancillary documents.

Mr Sewell insisted that the transactional work on the off-plan developments was carried out by a team “supervised by others” and “although he contributed to the standard documents sent to all clients, the ultimate responsibility for those documents rested with others”.

The solicitor said that he and colleagues had travelled to Hong Kong “to attend meetings with clients to advise and deal with enquiries” on the documents.

“Despite travelling to meet clients in their own country, it is accepted that, minded by earlier successes of projects by the same developers, his advice failed to deal adequately with the matters admitted.”

The SDT concluded that Mr Sewell “should have provided adequate advice to his clients as to risks in investing in off plan properties, which were inherently risky investments, in order for his clients to reach informed decisions”.

By failing to provide it, and instead relying on clients to “seek out other less well-qualified professionals”, Mr Sewell failed to provide a proper standard of service and put client funds at risk.

He was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

    Readers Comments

  • Colm Nugent says:

    The solicitor’s involvement was the imprimatur that the investment was – at the very minimum – not a scam. Given the sums lost, the consequences to the solicitor appear to have been minimal.

  • Tom Minney says:

    I am surprised that the Solicitors Regulatory Authority is the only warning I can find about these schemes, that also warns solicitors not to participate in all of them whether they are promoted by a City Council or whoever. Some schemes have been operating for years and SRA suggests that nearly ALL seem to fit in the spirit of unregulated collective investment schemes (S235), but FCA stays quiet all the time? What am I missing?

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.


How a good customer journey can put your business on the map

Good customer service should be a priority for any business and, if you want to stay ahead of the competition, something that’s constantly under review.

The CAT’s welcome boost for the funding industry

There was welcome guidance from the Competition Appeal Tribunal this week for funded cases looking for certainty following PACCAR, with the renegotiated Sony litigation funding agreement upheld as lawful.

The promising prospects and potential pitfalls of AI in the legal industry

The legal industry, steeped in tradition, precedent, and the intricacies of human interpretation, is witnessing an increasingly apparent integration of artificial intelligence as the digital era progresses.

Loading animation