Hudson warning over failure to modernise conveyancing
Failure to computerise the conveyancing process could damage the UK economy, the chief executive of the Law Society has told a United Nations conference.
Speaking at a UN Economic Commission for Europe event on the role of land registration in economic recovery, Desmond Hudson (pictured) criticised the lack of progress since the Land Registry of England and Wales announced it had shelved its ‘e-conveyancing’ project last year.
Hudson also warned of the lack of security in current title transfer arrangements. He said the UK risked being overtaken in competitiveness by countries with national electronic identity systems, such as some EU accession countries: ‘We are beginning to fall behind in that our civil and legal systems are not digitised enough.’
The conference heard Europe’s first cross-border e-conveyancing transaction had already been carried out, between the Netherlands and Spain.
The Registry last year revealed that it had abandoned a programme to develop end-to-end e-conveyancing. Cancellation involved writing off £6.4m spent on developing electronic charges, signatures and transfers, and a further £4.5m spent on software to support its planned e-services.
Malcolm Dawson, chief land registrar, told the conference that the Registry’s work on e-conveyancing showed ‘technically, it worked, but it was a bit ahead of its time’. He defended the Registry’s record on electronic innovation, saying that 95% of initial property searches and nearly all mortgage discharges are conducted electronically.
Calling on the Registry to revive its efforts, Paul Broadhead, head of mortgage policy at the Building Societies Association, said that there was a danger of e-conveyancing fragmenting if a system was set up by lenders. He said the Registry would be the most credible operator as ‘the Land Registry’s interests are allied with consumer interests’.
Dawson agreed that the Registry has ‘a role to play in moving e-conveyancing forward’, but that its role should not be to drive it. Instead, the Registry would work with alliances, acting as an ‘honest broker’, he said.
Comments
Modernisation
At the expense of good advice?
I am reminded of an American
I am reminded of an American expression about "putting the fox in charge of the chicken house?
Our beloved CEO already thinks the "modernisation" of the regulation of solicitors in the form of the SRA has been a great success.
Remember the idea of a "traffic light" system for electronic conveyancing?
How about the idea of a "chain manager"
Both these ideas were put forward by the Land Registry as serious propositions.
It is not surprising that such ideas, like standard leases, were dismissed by lawyers in the real world as ludricrous.
The Law Society promotes greater computerisation as the ultimate good, conveniently forgetting all the claims which have arisen by virtue of poor professionalism encouraged by lazy thinking becuase of the over relaince on computers
Modernising Conveyancing
Like it or not the computer now plays a part in almost every aspect of daily life, and this will increase as the fountain pen generation is replaced by the smart phone generation.
The trick is to understand that the computer, like the fountain pen, is a tool and not a universal solution.
Well put Alan but the outcome
Well put Alan but the outcome of using the tool you speak of is quite often the production of repetitious statements, showing rigid linear thought patterns unable to deviate from an all pervasive rigid thought process.
"The computer says no" springs to mind.
So
The SRA is investigating the need to hold client money and the use of undertakings, lenders are cutting their panels and now the Society is saying that the system of conveyancing needs to be "digitised".
It's pretty obvious that the Society needs to sit down with the SRA, the Land Registry and lenders and work out a revised system of conveyancing, in which the opportunities for fraud are minimised (at least until fraudsters work out how to get round the new system - for example, by hacking into the "digitised" system).
e-conveyancing
The conveyancing system has already been massively computerised, certainly compared to when I started in property law thirty years ago. But guess what? Transactions are no simpler and certainly no quicker - if anything, the reverse!
As indicated by previous comments, the answer to improving the conveyancing system lies not in easy soundbites about computerisation, but in (a) harmonisation (particularly all lenders getting their act together and having uniform paperwork and requirements, and the odd conveyancer who still clings to his long list of additional contract clauses or additional enquiries being told where to put them) and (b) operation of the system by professionals who know what they are doing and rely on training, experience and common sense rather than ticking boxes on a computer screen.
Daft comments by Mr Hudson
These remarks seem to be predicated on the assumption that every home owner wants the cheapest quickest sale or purchase they can secure. As "several times" home buyer, that was not my experience.
Children with matches should not be let loose near fireworks or petrol, and governments and their agencies should not be let loose with computers. Especially those that can be used to affect a fraudulent sale of someone's home.
On the bright side, if they lose the records on a lap top on a train, there is cause to hope that a helpful member of the public might hand them in.
Modernising Conveyancing
I welcome the opportunity of being able to practise conveyancing as it is done in Europe. To be have a codified law system which prescribes the documents for each type of transaction, which are enshrined in law and cannot be changed, and to be able to act as a notary and validate people's identity and transactions at speed and to charge a (very) high fee calculated as a percentage of the transaction and also enshrined in law so that it can't be undercut. How does Mr. Hudson propose we achieve that?
Indeed rather than making comments like this, is it not about time that the Society made a more positive contribution as to how the procedure could be improved without compromising on clients' rights and the risks of fraud and impersonation? I would certainly be happy to be part of that discussion.
Modernising conveyancing?
I agree that we should use whatever means available to us in order to provide the best service possible to our clients. However I have to ask if anyone can explain to me what our £407,000 per year chief executive actually knows about conveyancing? After all this is the man who is determined to assist the mortgage lenders in culling our profession of countless firms across the country by insisting on the ridiculous CQS system. This is the man who is completely out of touch with the grass roots of our profession and who frankly doesn't care, but then as long as OUR society, OUR supposed representative body pays him £407,000 per year, why would he care about anyone at grass roots level?
I wonder when Des Hudson last dealt with a conveyancing file or met a "client" face to face?
Silly question really, as we all know what a fantastic job he is doing representing us all and saving our profession, whilst obviously giving excellent value for money.
I agree with all those who feel we need a new representative body who will actually listen to it's members rather than dictating to them.
modernising?
I agree. The time for change is upon us. Out with the over paid and out of touch Hudson and in with the new representative body.
We need people who actually care and listen to us rather than putting themselves first!!!!!