Coffee cup conveyancing

Coffee cup conveyancing

?

Whilst drinking my coffee this morning at a local coffee house I have had an epiphany.

?

In my 21 years’ experience being involved indirectly and directly in about 300 conveyances a year during this period and, ?for the last 11 years, managing my practice, I rarely make time to reflect on the processes and procedures incumbent upon my staff and my firm when it comes to residential conveyancing. I have never been one to follow the crowd without asking questions and moaning about the challenges facing conveyancing firms but with increased regulatory regime and cost of running a conveyancing practice I also need to shout to those who would listen and join me in making necessary changes for the sake of the profession.

?

In this first of a set of articles I will highlight one problem which continues to cause buying conveyancers wasted time, resources, money, and exposes the firm to unwarranted complaints by their clients.

?

The Problem

?

The problem is the seller’s conveyancer’s failure to provide a validly executed and dated original transfer deed (TR1/TP1) or lease on time or at all post completion.

?

Our firm recently had a situation where the selling conveyancing solicitor, a qualified practitioner, did not have a validly executed deed of transfer on completion. We then had to spend time and resources chasing the solicitor, being as polite as possible and helpful as well mind you but ultimately putting our own insurance on the line for not having received the transfer necessary to perfect our clients title.

?

There is the Law Society’s Code for Completion where the Seller’s conveyancer undertakes to deliver the deeds to the buyer’s conveyancer’s office by no later than close of business on the day following completion. ?When this does not happen busy conveyancers rarely have the time or inclination to report the breach of the code to the Conveyancers Regulators and become involved in acrimonious lengthy correspondence since their resources are limited to chasing the offending firm for a (amended) deed.

?

The Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) requires conveyancers to send a copy of the executed Transfer Deed to the Buyer’s solicitors prior to completion and the Completion Information Form (TA13) has been updated to reflect this. Unfortunately the form provides an option to give the answer ‘to follow’ and in our experience it is rare we receive the copy Transfer. Even if complied with it does not resolve the problem as it would not be dated and is not required to be certified as a true copy.

?

I can confidently tell you all, practitioners, clients, and our regulators that, in this day and age of electronic registration and compliance, there is a fix that would give all parties concerned greater confidence: for the buyers that ?title will be registered in their names in a timely manner and for the sellers the confidence that the property is no longer in their name and ownership.

?

The Solution

?

The Law Society’s code for completion could be amended (taking the CQS requirement one step further) to include a requirement for the sellers conveyancer to email a dated, validly executed TR1 or lease on the morning of completion to be held to the seller’s solicitor’s order pending receipt of completion funds.

?

In the email the seller’s qualified conveyancer can make a Land Registry compliant statement confirming that the copy emailed is a true copy for land registry registration purposes. The deed is deemed released to the buyer’s conveyancer upon the seller’s solicitor’s confirmation of receipt of the completion monies.

?

Additionally, there could be an undertaking by the buyer’s conveyancer to lodge an application to register the deed within the later of 5 working days of completion or when all necessary evidences of discharges and compliance certificates have been received. Both parties should agree to indemnify each other’s costs in the event that the undertakings are breached (for example the TR1 emailed by the sellers conveyancer on completion is not validly witnessed delaying completion) such undertaking enforceable by the Regulators on a strict liability basis.

?

Of course there will be instances where these provisions will need to be relaxed by both parties, for example where ?the application is dependent upon having additional documentation that both parties acknowledge will not be forthcoming. In this case the code can be varied by mutual agreement.

?

I’d be interested to hear from conveyancing practitioners as to whether they agree to my proposed solution. Please do leave comments