Lloyds Banking Group to review conveyancing panel

house-building-plans.jpg
Monday 26 July 2010 by Catherine Baksi

Lloyds Banking Group (LBG) is to review the criteria for membership of its conveyancing panels and reduce the number of firms it instructs using a ‘risk based’ model that it says will allow it to assess firms individually.

The group, which includes Lloyds TSB; Halifax; Bank of Scotland and Birmingham Midshires, told the Law Society it intends to remove firms that have conducted a low volume of transactions on a rolling 12-month period.

It said firms that are to be removed will still be entitled to carry out ‘pipeline cases’ and the panels will remain open to new applicants, who will have to meet the volume threshold within 12 months of membership.

Letters will be sent to those firms affected during the next month.

Following this action, the group said it will look to make further cuts during the rest of 2010 using what the Law Society has been told is a ‘risk based’ model that will enable it to assess firms individually.

Chancery Lane said that although the low-volume threshold would be applied across the board, the group assured it that it will look at each firm on a case-by-case basis to ensure access to solicitors’ advice and representation is maintained in all areas, particularly in rural areas.

Law Society property spokesman Paul Marsh said: ‘The Law Society is disappointed to learn of these decisions by Lloyds Banking Group but recognises that like any client, they are entitled to chose which firms they instruct.

‘We will continue to engage with the Council of Mortgage Lenders, Building Societies Association and individual lenders encouraging them to recognise that a “one-size-fits-all” model is not the best way to address lenders’ concerns in the current economic climate.’

Marsh added that because the Lloyds group provides banking services to a large number of solicitors, this should give it greater understanding of the way firms operate when it comes to carrying out the review.

An LBG spokeswoman said: ‘Following a review of criteria, Lloyds Banking Group has introduced a condition requiring all firms on its conveyancing panel to act on behalf of the group on a regular basis. This ensures that all firms on the panel are fully familiar with the group's policies and processes.

‘We have introduced a volume based threshold to allow us to be satisfied that firms on our panel do a sufficient number of cases to enable them to keep completely up to date with all changes to our processes and requirements. We believe taking this approach is the best way of establishing this. By introducing a specific numerical measure this allows us to apply our criteria fairly and consistently to all firms.’

Comments

The Law Society is utterly

The Law Society is utterly useless in looking after the interests of the profession and "engaging" with the CML means just agreeing with what the CML wants.

The Law Society should propose that Borrower and Lender be seperately represented. The conflict between the two is obvious but solicitors are the ones who get the blame when there is a problem

Lloyds Bank

I agree with anonymous about seperate representation. If this were to happen there would be a level playing field and our Indemnity Premiums would be considerably reduced.

One wonders what the hidden agenda is with Lloyds. The Halifax promotes its own legal services using a restricted panel of large firms. With ABS coming in a little over a years time are they intending to go into conveyancing in a big way? If they are, why not take out the competition now?

If the whole lot is to be packaged up and passed by lenders to their pet solicitors then the only way the High Street solicitor will survive is by strictly enforced seperate representation.

If the Law Society suggest this they will be accused of driving up costs for buyers but frankly the ever increasing indemnity costs will do that anyway. Perhaps the Indemnity Insurers should insist on seperate representation.

At the monment we are truly the whipping boys.

law soc power-or not

anon@10.11
the law society has never had any power to dictate which solicitors are on mortgage lenders' panels.

conveyancing panels

At first blush, the profession would benefit from an insistence on separate representation for buyer and lender; at present the lender gets a pretty good deal - a long pocket to claim from if things go sour, and few solicitors dare to charge the buyer client a proper extra fee for the work and risk involved in acting for the lender - all a bit of a mug's game really for the solicitor.

However, even if all solicitors agreed to observe this ruling (getting solicitors to look after their own profession's interests is a bit like herding cats, which has been the profession's downfall), might this not cause a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis licensed conveyancers?

Law Soc power

With regard to Tony Hatfield's comment, Anon10.11 does not suggest the the Law Society has the power to determine who Lenders appoint to their panels (helpful if he read the comment first really).

The Law Society does have the power not to agree with rules in the CML Handbook which are effectively unfair to solicitors.

They can certainly propose that Lenders and Borrowers be seperately represented.

Tony Hafield really should

Tony Hafield really should read things before responding.

Anon 10.11 does not suggest that the Law Society has any power as to appointments to lenders panels. It does have the power not to agree to rules in the CML handbook which are patently unfair to solicitors-it has not done so.

It has allowed the Lenders, who have been totally reckless in their lending to use the profession as insurers of their commercial risk (when they have not been using the taxpayer).

With regard to the competitive advantage of Licensed Conveyancers, their main advantage appears to be that they have a professional body which can achieve PII cover at reasonable prices. Again, the Law Society apparently cannot do this.

Panal Membership

the fliping law society is useless, we pay huge amount of money every year so that they can abuse us. i am now quitting this profession and earning more on the dole