Solicitors first in negligence firing line over escalating ground rent clauses, barrister warns

Print This Post

4 September 2017

Munro: many may not have given any advice on ground rent clauses

The furore over ground rents that double periodically is likely to lead to a “swell” in negligence claims against conveyancers, who will be “first in the firing line” because many may not have given any advice on the clauses, a barrister has warned.

Joshua Munro of Hailsham Chambers said these leases also often have other clauses which may be considered unreasonable and so pose a negligence risk unless conveyancers have given sufficient advice.

He said: “When the true position is found out as to increasing ground rent liabilities, it is very likely that the long-leasehold owners will want to make claims. The problems are often remediable, via leasehold enfranchisement and acquisition of a share of freehold, or an extension of the long lease’s term with reduction of ground rent to a peppercorn.

“However, the remedies come at a cost of professional fees, the monies payable to the freeholder, and also the time and hassle of going through the necessary legal processes, and if appropriate garnering the support of sufficient numbers of fellow long-leaseholders.”

He predicted that conveyancers would be “first in the firing line for claims”.

The issue has provoked considerable emotions. A story on Legal Futures a few weeks ago quoting a conveyancer suggesting that buyers should blame themselves, rather than solicitors, triggered several angry responses from consumers.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) Handbook requires conveyancers to check any specific conditions relating to ground rent in a lease.

Paragraph 5.14.9 states: “We have no objection to a lease which contains provision for a periodic increase of the ground rent provided that the amount of the increased ground rent is fixed or can be readily established and is reasonable. If you consider any increase in the ground rent may materially affect the value of the property, you must report this to us.”

Mr Munro said: “Thousands of ground rent clauses, however, may be regarded as unreasonable. Plus, the threshold for reporting is extremely low. Indeed, the last sentence of paragraph 5.14.9 does not make much sense. Almost any increase in ground rent, unless at a nominal de minimis level, will materially affect the value of the property.”

Some lenders have also made specific extra requirements in respect of ground rents.

Conveyancers would be liable unless they gave sufficient advice to the purchaser clients, and Mr Munro suggested that “many may not have given any advice on ground rent clauses”.

He continued: “The relevant leases also often have other clauses which may be considered unreasonable and in respect of which inadequate advice may have been given, for example, fees for remortgaging or making structural changes.

“Furthermore, there are potential claims that are more complex as to the adequacy of advice in respect of leaseholds with short terms that will need to be extended, often at high cost. Conveyancers may also be liable for breach of fiduciary duty if a conflict of interest existed, most usually if they had a commercial relationship with then vendor of new-build leasehold properties.”

Mr Munro said limitation may be “the most fruitful defence for conveyancers” given that many of the leases were made more than six years ago.

“Claimants in many cases will struggle to make out section 14A Limitation Act 1980 arguments, deliberate concealment, or other attempts to extend the six-year period.”

He concluded: “Historically, residential conveyancing has generated the largest number of claims on solicitors’ professional indemnity policies. That number is likely to swell as claims arising from leasehold issues come to light.”

3 Responses to “Solicitors first in negligence firing line over escalating ground rent clauses, barrister warns”

  1. I have spoken to so many practitioners about these types of provisions over recent years. There was a time pre-Lenders’ Handbook when the conveyancer could write to the lender & exclude from their retainer advice on any factor that was relevant to valuation. However, the requirement in the Handbook that “If you consider any increase in the ground rent may materially affect the value of the property, you must report this to us” is another illustration of the lenders passing the buck onto the conveyancing profession. I still cannot understand why this was not opposed by the Law Society.

  2. Stephen Desmond on September 7th, 2017 at 8:00 am
  3. This is not only related to the valuation – it is related to onerous clauses, high ground rents, costs of lease extensions and purchase, un adopted roads etc – The list is endless- The previous comment is just passing the buck again and we the poor customers left to pick up the pieces. If we cannot rely on a solicitor to give advice then why use them !

  4. Kay on October 14th, 2017 at 8:52 am
  5. Why should solicitors be asked to make a judgement on value? Shouldn’t that be a valuer’s job?

  6. Fraser Maldoom on November 13th, 2017 at 9:47 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

How best to achieve independent regulation under the Legal Services Act?

Craig Wakeford LSB

Independent regulation gives confidence to consumers, providers, investors and society as a whole that legal services work in the public interest and support the rule of law. The Legal Services Act 2007 does not require all approved regulators to be structurally separate from representative bodies. Instead, the Legal Services Board is required by the Act to produce internal governance rules (IGR) which apply the principle of regulatory independence in legal service regulation. We are currently running a consultation on the IGR which continues until 9 February.

January 19th, 2018