Quality hallmark for HSBC’s conveyancing mini-panel
HSBC has established a conveyancing panel of solicitors and licensed conveyancers to provide legal services to its residential mortgage customers. Solicitor member firms must have the Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) accreditation.
The panel, managed by Countrywide, will launch on Monday across the UK. Of the 43 members, 39 are solicitor firms and four licensed conveyancing companies.
The panel is not closed and others can apply to join. HSBC has 5% of the UK’s mortgage market. It introduced the new panel in response to the Financial Service Authority’s recommendations for tackling mortgage fraud.
Customers will continue to be free to use their own solicitor or conveyancer to act for them, but HSBC will use a panel firm for its own legal requirements. Where a customer chooses a non-panel firm, the new process will separate the two pieces of legal work, and the customer will pay for both.
Where customers appoint a panel firm to act for them, work will be carried out for a fixed fee. They will be able to monitor the sale online and check to ensure the solicitor is carrying out the work in a timely manner.
Head of mortgages at HSBC Peter Dockar said: ‘Our new panel arrangement will spare customers the time and hassle of searching for a firm to do the important conveyancing work on their new property. Customers who choose to use a firm on the panel can benefit from agreed conveyancing costs as well as valuable guarantees should the seller pull out. We also believe this will provide additional protection for our customers and HSBC.’
The Law Society welcomed the requirement that law firms on the panel have the CQS quality mark, but raised concerns over the small size of the panel.
Chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘HSBC’s decision to appoint only CQS accredited firms to its panel is further evidence that the scheme is firmly establishing itself as an essential standard for lenders. Nevertheless, we are concerned that fewer than 43 firms will serve home-buyers who use HSBC for their mortgage in England and Wales. Does this provide sufficient consumer choice?’
Such a small number could restrict the choice available to consumers who prefer to use a local service, he said.
‘The disabled, those living in rural areas or even those wishing to simply use their family solicitor will either have little choice but to opt for the same solicitor as HSBC, one of their panel firms or pay twice over for their own solicitor as well as HSBC’s legal fees,’ said Hudson.
He added: ‘It is disappointing that HSBC failed to consult the Society. I suspect they have made the calculation that the majority of their customers will opt to use the bank's solicitor.’ He also raised the possibility of the bank being tempted to sell valuable places on the panel, thus putting up costs for house buyers. ‘This is not in the long-term interests of consumers. HSBC should reconsider.’
Comments
The world's local bank ...
Seriously? Is this some kind of joke? 43 panel firms covering England & Wales? Countrywide in charge? Prescribed methods of undertaking work?
Wow.
hsbc
Yes and when you phone hsbc to ask for details of to whom you apply to get on the new panel you get put through to India customer services who have no idea what the panel team is nor of whom one should speak to about it. That's quality standards for you.
There's your mistake, see.
There's your mistake, see. You need to be calling Countrywide. Preferably with your chequebook within easy reach.
Called Countrywide too-no
Called Countrywide too-no answer!
Does this mean ........?
Does this mean that HSBC is happy to appoint firms on the basis they are part of CQS? If this is the case why do other lenders not accept CQS and require firms to jump through further hoops?
HSBC to lose more market share?
Maybe the overall loser will be HSBC.
Why?
If you were an IFA or Estate Agent with a mortgage side and you are organising thousands of mortgages a year and directing them to a referral fee paying conveyancer, would you choose to lose those referral fees and recommend to your customer a mortgage from HSBC that had to go to another conveyancer? They should, but .......
As for CQS, only 1000 firms joined after a year...the drop off when they have to apply (and again pay) for reaccreditation will also be the final nail?
That's not quite right though
That's not quite right though as HSBC don't sell their mainstream mortgages through brokers anyway. They sell through their own branch network and online only.
It is quite right - !
IFA mortgage brokers who consider whole of market will consider all lenders including direct to customer.
http://www.newsroom.hsbc.co.u
http://www.newsroom.hsbc.co.uk/press/release/direct_lender_mortgage_deals_a
Avoid HSBC conveyancing
I repeat, an IFA mortgage adviser who considers the 'whole of the market' (i.e not like some chumps who say they do but then just consider a handful - please address this definition FSA) will source HSBC mortgages (if they are competitive) but as brokers will not receive commission from HSBC, the borrower will have to pay a fee for the broker's time and advice. Brokers will complete all the paperwork but just c/o the borrower.
Basic - so pointing me at website links is not enough to challenge what actually happens.
As for the wider HSBC story, it may be attractive to a first-time buyer but I think an expereinced home move rmay will have an established connection with a solicitor and decide to stick with that, especially as they may feel they are being railroaded in to doing otherwise.
One of the major criticisms I believe of Banks is that they try and sell you everything when you go to see them about something - so this in fact could backfire!
Your original argument was
Your original argument was HSBC could be on to a loser due to launching the panel, as mortgage brokers would choose not to push their products to avoid losing income from conveyancing referrals.
The point is that as HSBC do not sell through intermediaries (and I take your point where by 'good and honest brokers' can still recommend/complete forms) and therefore this has never been main channel for their mortgage sales. What percentage of HSBC purchase mortgages do you think come from mortgage brokers operating on a genuine whole of market basis? Less than 20%? Less than 5%? HSBC are the largest direct lender and their own commentary on the market makes it clear they have no interest in the intermediary market so whilst there may be many other questions around this conveyancing panel, the impact of brokers for this particular product will be very limited.
About time there was
About time there was seperation between those acting for buyer and lender, surely.
Surely this falls foul of the
Surely this falls foul of the Competition Act?
Typical mealy-mouthed pathetic response from the useless Law Society. Letting an estate agency / licensed conveyancer outfit control such a large section of the market, dictate costs AND set out how the work is to be done!
Make it a prohibited outcome to act for the lender and borrower where the lender restricts choice of solicitor based on a panel or other non-justifiable grounds. (or better still, no acting for lender and borrower ever)
And what a great choice of
And what a great choice of headline from the ABS Gazette! not, "HSBC to distort competition and restrict choice", but instead more selling of the pointless (but money-spinning) CQS, ignoring the true significance of the story.
"HSBC should reconsider"
"HSBC should reconsider," says Mr Hudson. Why not do something more effective about it, Mr Hudson? The Society wasted money suing Rick Kordowski, but doesn't have the guts to take on those who can fight back effectively?
What? Do something of
What? Do something of consequence for the profession? You must be joking!
HSBC panel
Anyone got a list of the "HSBC 43"?
HSBC 'Countrywide' panel ...breaking news
After reviewing 'Countrywide' via Google and getting off the floor.....
Surprise surprise, but HSBC are now to accept - wait for it - personal searches.
Their CML Part 2 just issued permits it.
Yes, 'personal searches' which are negligence just waiting to happen, and which decent conveyancers avoid like the plague.
Service standards for the panel have just revealed their cards.
Yikes!!!!
And just look at the fees!
See the HSBC press release. Fees include VAT and the pay off to Countrywide. This is a very disappointing move from a bank that seemed to have a bit of common sense once but now seems desperate to run into the arms of the cheapest provider. Then lack of sensibel fees will lead to lack of sensible work practices and then to negligence claims by HSBC. Daft.
http://www.newsroom.hsbc.co.uk/press/release/hsbc_introduces_conveyancing_p
Service standards raise concern
Service standards with regards to negligence is likely to cause stir and I think HSBC might be wise to get their in-house PR team to look at the issue before further press releases!
As an HSBC customer.....
and firm of solicitors, I trust the rip off CHAPS fees that HSBC charge their solicitor customers for sending TTs themselves will be a disbursement in addition to the stupidly low (and dangerous) fees on offer here.
There is a limit to patience and banks do little to make themselves popular. Fools. But we knew that of course.........
Oh well - better look for another bank.
Negligence
Maybe CQS should ban personal searches for CQS firms? Does Countrywide Property Lawyers actually have CQS itself? Now there's a question.
Well Done Law Soc
Sleepwalked into this trap didn't you! Thousands of solicitors saw it coming. You wait and see how many other banks follow suit.
And to those who talk of the removal of a conflict of interest in acting for Buyer and Lender - why can the chosen 43 still work for both then!
To me what is truly sad about this is that it is the legal profession that will get a bad name with Joe Public. We will be seen as further money grabbing and artificially inflating the costs when in actual fact it is not solicitors who'll be getting rich off the back of this one.
Law Society
Gobsmacked. Virtually every high street solicitor in the UK is unable to for a client who takes a mortgage from HSBC without the client paying over the odds to do so. Just 43 firms are authorised to act, thousands are now no longer permitted. This will have a substantial effect on virtually firms who deal with conveyancing in the country.
The Law Society's response is even more mind blowing...congratulating themselves on the fact that all 43 firms have to be members of CQS!
What do we have to do to have a body that will actually stand up for the profession?
Yours, thoroughly depressed,
A Low Street Solicitor
Calm yourself
This is a storm in a teacup, like I believe the QS hype and WHSmith legal stands both to be too.
HSBC will need to make some serious changes to how competitive their mortgages are first, as how often do we see their offers?
Then the clients who want something for nothing will be first to be persuaded to use one of the 'quality HSBC fixed fee law firms. Only then will your clients be tempted.
Get out there and shout how good your conveyancing quality is and the incoming non-HSBC mortgages will more than compensate.
When giving a quote, ask who they plan to use for a Lender, and if they say HSBC, steer them firmly to an IFA mortgage adviser you know.
Well it Had to Come
So is the Law Society actually going to do anything about this - having been ignored by HSBC before the announcement will they make a stand after it. A total ban on referral fees would go a considerable way towards making this an unviable option as without referral fees there is no incentive on big lenders to go down this route. HSBC may be the first but without strong action I cannot imagine they will be the last.
At least I haven't wasted money on the pointless CQS - what a surprise - offer something to lenders for free and of course they say they need it - it means nothing to HSBC (as is clear from their decision) and all the Law Society can do is try and spin it as a victory
CQS Misconception
For the avoidance of doubt the panel is clearly not all CQS members.
All the CLC members including Countrywide do not have CQS.
Very interesting choice Countrywide ?????
HSBC
This is outrageous. I shall be calling Countrywide to find out if they are CQS accredited. That is if I manage to get through to them which from past experience is unlikely! Hopefully the public will see through this in a short time!
As you would know Countrywide
As you would know Countrywide Property Lawyers are not CQS accredited nor do they need to be as they are a firm of Licensed Conveyancers.
The Lenders trust these firms more than Solicitors in how they are regulated by the CLC and as such there are no calls for any CQS for this legal sector. You may take offense however the proof is that LC Firms have far lower PI costs compared to Solicitors.
What we should be asking is what are they doing right and what are we doing whats so wrong for us to be in this position.
It is surely the way that the
It is surely the way that the CLC arranges the PII which leads to the lower premiums rather than just the firms being LCs.
The CLC seem to be much more commercially aware than the Law Society-but then it doesn't have the boot of the SRA on its professions neck.
PII cover in conveyancing
Are LCs to blame for all the mistakes in conveyancing, which us solicitors get tarnished with..."My solicitor made a mistake"...no they didn't you dont have an actual solicitor acting?
I have never once yet - ever
I have never once yet - ever - heard a client of mine say "my licensed conveyancer who did the sale of my house back in ...". Invariably they say, "my solicitors who did the house sale" even where the firm are licensed conveyancers.
The profile of licensed conveyancers is different to solicitors firms.
It is highly unlikely that the local gangster who wants to buy some buy-to-let flats, using his limited company in a deal with the delveoper to deliberately overvalue the flats so he can then resell them back-to-back the same day to himself using a 75% mortgage and thereby without paying any deposit, will instruct Countrywide.
And even though I have no sympathy whatsoever for the banks, I am nonetheless able to see why they get just a little bit pissed off that solicitors up and down the country still continue to take on instructions from the local gangster in the manner above.
HSBC
So approximately 10850 firms have been removed from the the Banks panel
Does this not breach competition law unlike the Lloyds Banking Group debacle?
This is a further example of the Law of unintended consquences with our professional body enfeebled and with a lower standing following the Legal Services Act not being consulted about another seismic shift in conveyancing services
Surely some action should be
Surely some action should be taken by the 11,000 firms that have been excluded by HSBC in one swoop?
I can confirm that we are one of the firms affected by this move and we actually bank with HSBC!
Needless to say, we will be moving our business account to another Lender at our earliest opportunity and I would implore all other solicitors to do the same
Why should we continue to bank with the enemy!
what a great idea for all
what a great idea for all affected firms who currently bank with HSBC to transfer their banking arrangements away from HSBC. There must be billions of pounds in the client accounts of these firms. Or would the banks gang up and refuse to transfer accounts?
Thank you for your comment
Thank you for your comment CRW
I do not think they could stop us - We are always being hounded by other Lenders to move our biz banking facilities
Also, it would be even more powerful if we all chose the same day to transfer our accounts!
(Remember the message that sent to Northern Rock!)
The local HSBC commercial
The local HSBC commercial manager is hounding us for our business. I wonder how we should respond... Any ideas?
Do you want the polite answer
Do you want the polite answer to that?
Tell them to "do" one
On a serious note, point out this issue, link them to their own press release
http://www.newsroom.hsbc.co.uk/press/release/hsbc_introduces_conveyancing_p
and see what they have to say
As previously stated, we currently bank with HSBC and we have approached our Commercial Manager about this issue. Needless to say, he is unusually quiet
HSBC Fiasco
What a total farce!!
The Law Society must take action now. I will be telling all of my clients to avoid HSBC
This must be a total breach of European competion regulations.
We pay the Law Society thousands of pounds to protect our interests and I implore Des Hudson to take firm and swift action now!!
This is another nail in the coffin of solicitors undertaking property work
HSBC
Clearly all solicitors who bank with HSBC should move their client accounts immediately. We have recently changed banks. it was a simple painless process and took abour four weeks. Come on Law Society mobilise yourselves and represent our interests over this. May even be able to negotiate preferential rates for those moving. Most Banks need capital at the moment and will be falling over themselves to get their hands on these new accounts.
HSBC
I am a minion, rather than a business owner, but I shall be moving my personal accounts away from this firm.
Small beer perhaps, but every little should help.
How about LS Gazette doing a piece about the "outrage in the profession" and "grass-roots call to move bank accounts" and try to get some momentum behind this? god knows LS won't do anything..
best to all fighting the good fight.
Dear Fed up, Anon 10/01/11
Dear Fed up, Anon 10/01/11 15:48, Anon on Tue, 10/01/2012 - 14:35, anony mouse on Tue, 10/01/2012 - 14:31 & CRW
It is good to see that there are some fellow Solicitors who still appear to have a bit of fight left in them!!
We are Solicitors, we are supposed to stand up and argue, yet in recent years we seem to be happy taking these kind of things laying down
HSBC need to be dealt with like any other schoolyard bully, we have to hit them where it hurts! In the “family jewels” - so I would implore all Solicitors affected by this move and who currently bank with HSBC to start to move their business accounts to other lenders …..
…. Preferably on the same day !!
Sorry not to mention the
Sorry not to mention the other fellow posters on this issue
I only scrolled up so far on the screen and looked to where I had posted
HSBC- Fightback!
I call on the law society and SRA to protect our profession once and for all.
The solution is simple - make it a rule that solicitors can no longer act for lender and borrower!! That would take the wind out of the lenders sail and we would no longer be vulnerable to lenders forcing our clients to use one of their panel solicitors.
HSBC
Does anyone have any idea as to the position if we are acting in the sale of a property and we want a redemption figure ? Is that also restricted to panel firms only? And again , what if instructed in a sale but client is transferring/porting existing mortgage?
The client has an equitable
The client has an equitable right to redeem a mortgage at any time without fetter or 'clog' so no they couldn't say only panel solicitors can have a redemption figure. (and even if they could, the client could obtain this information themselves anyway and therefore you could do so with their signed mandate)
As to "porting" this is not recognised legally. It doesn't exist. It is simply a marketing term for discharging one mortgage and re-lending the money on the strength of new security. The lender needs to be satisied as to the security and needs the mortgage to be registered and properly executed, so it does need legal work, which they can restrct to their panel if they so wish.
HSBC
So I applied to countrwide on day 1 and was rejected today. I do not meet the criteria which are apparently an objective set of criteria put in place to satisfy hsbc as to the experience and capability of all the firms on its panel. However, hsbc do not publish what these criteria are and cannot provide the reason for why my application was unsuccessful! This, in itself, is shady and shows how lacking in transparency the process is. What is there to protect Countrywide from simply appointing their mates from their existing panel and their own LC's? So, after 12 years of acting for hsbc, my firm which has 5 partners and has never had a claim on any hsbc matter, is suddenly not good enough. The world has gone mad and we have let it happen. This is a total stitch up. The letter came from countrywide's panel team manager. What an absolute farce.I implore the Law Society to take action to protect all hard working solicitors who will suffer as a result of this madness.
HSBC- THE FARCE
Totally agree with the last post!! This is verging on the "criminal" a farce a stitch up!! Shame on those memebers of this panel who would even undertake professional work for the fees they are dictated to charge. This is nothing more than anti competition
The Law Society must take action today in conjunction with the CML and SRA- ban referral fees and regulate for separate represntation.
I implore all firms to contact the Law Society at the highest level. Time for action and not words!!
I call on the Law Society to tell us in clear words what they are going to do! ebnough engaging with these lenders. Lets unite.and fight. I am sick to the back teath of this.
The Law Society will do
The Law Society will do NOTHING. It never has acted to help the people it is paid by, and never will.
No matter what the members ask, the Council will just do nothing-pleading, as with referral fees, that there is nothing which can be done. They'll even get counsel's opinion to back them up.
The Law Society only has any spine when beating its own members-that is the British way.
I agree The Law Society is a
I agree
The Law Society is a real "toothless puppy"
Look at the way they have headlined this article!
THE LAW SOCIETY WON'T DO ANYTHING!
Don't wait for them!!!
[QUOTE]
Agreements between undertakings,... or concerted practices, which may affect trade ... and have as their object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition ... are prohibited...
In particular, practices which...
(a)directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions
(d)apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e)make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
[END QUOTE]
Competition Act 1998, section 2.
HSBC panel - Agent swung client away
Just had a cleint instruct us following HSBC's sales pitch to convince them to use their 43 strong panel.
Estate Agent had already warned them away from this panel and the client was most grateful.
Ask every Estate Agent that you work with that they should be asking Buyers which lender they are having, and have them consider directing them to your Firm instead, as you will be able to say how you will offer a far better service. Won't you.
I know that some Estate Agents will tell their Selling clients to think carefully whether they accept a Buyer's offer if the Buyer insists on using a certain few factory conveyancing outfits I could name, so this is just another panel/outfit to draw their attention to.
Do the email now.
NOTHING FROM OUR LAW SOCIETY
Not a word from the law society!!!
Please can the President and Chief Executive make a press release about what they are going to do- not next month, next week BUT TODAY!!!
I call on all solicitors effected- 11,000 firms to call the law society and write today
HSBC
Ref DomcCoop: Are we in a position to act when the other lawyer or the client's bank is actively engaged in a prohibited agreement - and would we want to?
It would be a free-standing
It would be a free-standing action, not connected to any particular transaction, but connected to the likely damages suffered by High Street Firms who will lose out on business.
Let's not forget that the majority of the legal work (even on the bank's own case) is there for the benefit of the client and not the bank - therefore the bank at the outset have to justify what business they have setting stringent terms and low prices for the work chargeable to the client - £207 INCLUDING VAT on their own figures for a freehold under £100k (based on their figure of £399 inc VAT, minus the charge of £192 inc VAT for work payable to their panel firm for representing the bank)
TIME FOR SOLICITORS TO TAKE A STAND
I never finished my earlier post, but I meant to go on to say:-
This seems to me to be an unlawful agreement, and given the salient feature of the case, namely:-
1) Astronomical reduction overnight in the size of the panel from 11,000 to 43.
2) The management, operation, and selection of the panel is undertaken by the main competitor to the 11,000 firms no longer selected.
3) The prices are fixed, and low, with the result that it favours the main competitior (countrywide) and that it deliberately and uneconomically prices the 11,000 others out of the market.
4) It severely affects and restricts freedom of choice of the consumer by virtue of the predatory pricing structure
I think that there are grounds for bringing an action.
Let's see if we can find an After the Event Insurer willing to take the risk, and let's start a representative claim against HSBC for damages. It might not work, and if it doesn't
Don't wait for the Law Society. They are FAR too busy, you know. Selecting which champagne to use for the party celebrating the opening for business of the first ABS is very important, don't you know!
(cut off again! - I wish
(cut off again! - I wish there was an "edit" button).
and if it doesn't work, it will just fizzle out. Most likely HSBC would capitulate if they thought the profession was serious.
Champagne is already selected
Champagne is already selected for the party - "Co-op own brand Champagne".
Watch the new co-op conveyancing service, they will send you a bottle of Co-op Champagne when you move in to your new house. Promotes the home delivery of their supermarkets and continues the cross-selling. Just watch the disbursements on the completion statement.
Big business marches on...
ARRANGE A MEEETING
Lets arrange this - lets actually get this moving.
We do need a venue that all solicitors can attend. We all pay a sum of money for a claim.
Maybe we can use the law society hall in London
We need leading counsels opinion
Im not a litigator but we do need someone with experience and expertise to organise this.
Now is the time to take a stand. My concern is that these are empty threats we do need to do something.
I will support this 100% we just need to arrange a venue where we can all meet. Spread the word - many solicitors do not even know about this yet.
I say join the revolution and once and fior all end this fiasco.
Tell estate agents.......
that this is happening. The Countrywide agents are already forced to recommend Countrywide for conveyancing. All the other agents in the country should be aware that sending mortgages to HSBC will mean helping their competitors make money.
Law Society does nothing
The Law Society should be looking into legal action on behalf of the profession. It's organ - The Gazette - should be telling its reporters that they are no longer needed. There is no understanding in the reporting at all. Again we have Ms Baksi regurgitating almost verbatim a press release like she spent many months doing for QS. This time it is worse as Mr Hudson seems to have got it wrong too. They need to get out more, talk to people in the real world and stop and think before they print these stories.
Even on Solicitors From Hell it took the Law Society years to do something and then only when more or less invited to do so by the High Court.
HSBC giving hard sell but customer resists
Client called me back after my giving him a quote and telling him to tell HSBC that I am his lawyer, to say HSBC gave him a hard sell to say 'did you know you will have to pay our lawyer's legal fees if you use your own conveyancer, because they are not on our approved panel'.
The client was appauled at their second guessing and just wanted me to know he was firmly staying with me.
Just as I suspected first of our clients to resist, but it helps when quoting if you always ask who their lender is, and then divert them to an IFA mortgage adviser, and also have the Estate Agents in the Town on board to explain about HSBC's stance
Revolution
Dear Annie Mouse
I am ready to attend and to spread the word
I have ordered my "V for Vendetta" mask
On a serious note, I compeltely agree that we must take a stand and do something
I am happy to assist in any way
Everyone should write to
Everyone should write to their council member and tell them that unless they do something they will have a vote against them.
How about a resolution to council proposing that lenders should be seperately represented? Oh no, there'll be an opinin telling us it can't be done!