HSBC panel ‘backlash’
The Law Society is considering ‘all possible options’ in response to what some practitioners are describing as an unprecedented backlash by high street firms over HSBC’s decision to replace its open conveyancing panel with a panel comprising just 43 firms.
Jonathan Smithers, chair of the Society’s conveyancing and land law committee, said he understands the frustration felt by firms, but warns that a ‘knee-jerk, headline-grabbing’ response could do more harm than good.
‘The profession needs to accept that the Society cannot tell lenders whom they can instruct,’ he stressed.
Since HSBC announced the launch of its new panel, some solicitors have called for firms to withdraw their business from the bank. Rob Hailstone, founder of the Bold Group, which represents some 130 firms, said the announcement prompted an ‘unprecedented backlash’ from solicitors seeking to vent their frustration and anger.
Hailstone said he had heard of one firm that has taken the matter up with its MP and another taking out local advertising pointing out the difficulties that buyers could face in using their solicitor of choice if they have an HSBC mortgage.
He added that firms fully accept that lenders are in a position of strength, but the action taken by HSBC was perhaps ‘a step too far for many’.
However, chair of the Conveyancing Association Eddie Goldsmith said lenders had the right to determine the size of their panels. ‘I can understand why high street firms are shouting and screaming about the move, but they have to live in the real world – it’s a fact of life and an inevitability,’ he said.
Lloyds Banking Group, Santander, The Co-operative, Nationwide and Northern Rock all told the Gazette they have no current plans to cut the size of their conveyancing panels.
Comments
Erm
No one has suggested that the profession can tell lenders whom they can instruct: everyone has a right to instruct the lawyer of his choice (provided, of course, that he can afford it). The issue here is not the lender's freedom of choice, but the borrower's freedom of choice. Does the Law Society not understand that? Perhaps the Society would like to outline (for the benefit of those who pay for its existence) the "options" which it is considering.
HSBC STICK TWO FINGERS UP AT THE PROFFESION
I do not think that Jonathan Smithers has any idea about the frustration we are feeling. He is sitting in his office at the LS and not fighting each day to survive in the business world. Mr Smithers if you honestly feel the frustration then perhaps you would actually do something.
I want to know what options the Law Society is considering. Presumably they will be following the same course of action they always have of "engagement" with the lenders. Look where that got us!!!!
There is a simply answer to this problem. 1. Ban referral fees 2. Require a lender and borrower to be separately represented. The latter would pull the rug from under the lenders feet. 3. Consider a breach of EU anti competion regulations.
The Conveyancing Associations response is predictable. You only have to look at their members. Are they the same members who are on the HSBC mini panel???
MP's will not get involved. We already did that with our local MP and got us nowhere.
We are telling all our clients to avoid HSBC as a lender as well as all estate agents and brokers with whom we have dealings. I have closed my personal account with HSBC and moved my account to Barclays. A small gesture.
Not going to happen...
Anyone seriously believing that the Law Soc 'considering all options' will lead to the situation changing is deluded! Not only that, but we may as well face the sad reality that HSBC are just the first of the lenders to take this step - they certainly won't be the last. Firms need to start to make plans on how to ensure continued viability without conveyancing.
As ever the Law Soc will do
As ever the Law Soc will do nothing.
A CALL TO THE LAW SOCIETY
Please let your members know what you are doing to protect us from the growing risk of lenders doing what HSBS have done.
1. BAN REFERRAL FEES
2. PRESS SRA FOR SEPARATE REPRESENTATION
3. CONSIDER LITIGATION UNDER EU ANTI COMPETITION LEGISLATION.
1 and 2 should be actioned immediately
For heavens sake grow up! The
For heavens sake grow up!
The Law Society just takes your money and does nothing. The people who run it couldn't give a damn about you-except as a means for them to get paid and have status.
The "Conveyancing Committee" (a grand title for an ineffectual and meaningless body-which is always the case-the grander the title the less use it is) has no intention of doing anything other than "consider the options", but will do nothing.
The President (overpaid for being a pantomime horse) has not even said anything.
Surely you must realise you're on your own?
I am hoping on this occassion
I am hoping on this occassion you are wrong.
We are all going to see in the next few days if you are correct.
Lets hope that for once they will do something.
I will have faith for a little longer
That aside I concure and support your frustration. Thats why were are both making these comments.
I am hoping on this occassion
I am hoping on this occassion you are wrong.
We are all going to see in the next few days if you are correct.
Lets hope that for once they will do something.
I will have faith for a little longer
That aside I concure and support your frustration. Thats why were are both making these comments.
Inevitable
This has been coming for a long time. Mark my words - this is the thin end of the wedge...
And that is why there should
And that is why there should be seperate representation of borrower and lender.
As the old adage says-a man cannot have two masters. If each master wishes to accept that because of cost, they cannot expect the same duty to each.
The Law Society has a
The Law Society has a conflict of interest between those solicitors it represents who act for large corporate organisations and those who act for "the man in the street" It is therefore totally ineffective as an organisation and it represents no one. It should therefore recognise that it there is no place for it in its present form. It should be disbanded and the Profession divided into its constituent parts with each part represented by a body that looks after the interests of that part
The lenders and Plc's should be represented by "Corporate solicitors" and the purchasers by the "Non corporate solicitors" Those representing PLC's or lending institutions would be prevented from acting for non corporate bodies and purchasers and vice versa.
It may be that some purchasers would choose not to be represented by a solicitor if they had to pay a fee to their personal solicitor in the same way that some buyers choose not to have a personal survey, but to rely on the lenders valuation .. that is their choice,
The solicitor acting for the large corporate institution would not be able to act on any personal sales. The Non Corporate Solicitor would have a field day finding fault with the work done by the Corporate solicitor on the purchase and undoubtedly the indemnity premiums of those firms acting for the lender would soar!
I give it 5 years,10 at most, the lenders would be begging the high street firms to act for them once more!
Seconded! The Law Society is
Seconded!
The Law Society is a 19th century body trying to deal with modern events. It should indeed be dissolved.
Stop Complaining - Start Competing
At least anon 17.46 is thinking he may have a good point.
The way I see it is as a starting point whatever a Solicitor charges the consumer should reflect the nature of the transaction and be cost effective.
The first question to ask is simply this. Acting as a Solicitor in an sole rep transaction, for a consumer only. will the consumer suffer any detriment as a result.
The answers may vary but from the tone of the responses to date it would appear that if a Solicitor is carrying out more work as a result of acting only for the consumer the increase in work load can be either :-
1) Written off by the Solicitor
2) Paid for by the Consumer
3) Paid for by the Lender
Looking at the above scenarios in turn :-
1) This is a commercial non starter due to the current barely economic level of fees.
2) The consumer could foot the increased bill however this could be viewed as unreasonable in the sense this is due to an abuse of a dominant position in the market place by a financial institution and it may well be a Leading QC, briefed by the Law Society, as we speak is advising the Law Society on the options available !
3) Looking at things logically why should anyone other than the Lender not contribute towards the consumers increased bill. It may take a bit of thinking outside the box but has anyone thought of charging the Bank for the information or searches they may be providing to them. Why should the consumer pay !!
On the basis 3 above is the chosen option start asking for an undertaking from the lenders solicitor to pay a contribution to searches in proportion to the mortgage advance say 75%, your fees for the additional work say £200 and suddenly we have a very different model. If the Bank is so concerned about fraud etc they should feel it is a price worth paying. If they resist and every other Solicitor adopts this approach this scheme will die a death within a week.
The message is whatever you do - stop complaining blaming the Law Society and anyone else you can think off and start competing.
If you are not sure what to do, phone for example the Bold Group who have put forward constructive comments or any other of the forward thinking groups such as the Conveyancing Association or the SLC just do not expect someone else to do it for you.
If you are unhappy with the Law Society apply to join the CLC. They do not want any dross but you just may be successful if your claims record is good and you know your stuff.
Tomorrow Morning when you wake up - Make yourself a coffee, start smelling the Coffee and continue.
So when you were doing
So when you were doing conveyancing, the lenders solicitor obviously did not ask for an undertaking from you to meet his costs. How old are you?
Why should we ask another organisation to do the job of the Law Society, which we already pay for?
Finally, obviously your planet is different-which one is it?
Could some one explain to "
Could some one explain to " So when are you doing " the big picture preferably not on this page to avoid further embarassment to the profession.
The points made by the Reformed Conveyancer are very well argued although clearly not understood by " So when are you doing ".
The adverse comments about Jonathan Smithers are a disgrace.
Ladies & Gentlemen reflect on all the constructive comments in this column and take them on board.
Rubbishing comments clearly not read or fully understood does not take the debate forward.
Obviously no answers to "So
Obviously no answers to "So when you are doing" then.
Yes, best just to avoid the questions-and call criticism a disgrace.
If people in positions of power or influence cannot take criticism, they shouldn't be there.
Law Society Chief Exec letter to profession re HSBC - link
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/news/view=newsarticle.law?NEW...
Take the bull by the horns
The Law Society has to tread a very fine line, others do not. If you want to take some more radical, speedy action, I would be happy to share my ideas with you.
No, it doesn't. It is quite
No, it doesn't.
It is quite clearly not in the public interest that the consumer effectively has their choice of solicitor curtailed in this manner. If the Law Society cannot win this one then it may as well pack up.
Solicitors are not the publics most popular people, but banks are even less popular (especially as the lending to SMEs is down -obviously renegeing on Project Merlin), awarding large bonuses etc.
Our opponent is down, if we can't give him a damned good kicking now, then there's no chance. It's hardly the most difficult PR job in the world. And make no mistake, the lenders are not our friends-and never have been. They have lent irresponsibly, caused a recession and taken huge rewards for doing so.
The banks are seen as the enemy-lets be the good guy and get the public on our side for a change.