Santander requires CQS for all panel members
Santander has changed the terms of its residential conveyancing panel to require all existing members to gain the Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) accreditation.
The bank, which had already made it a requirement for new members to be CQS-accredited, this week sent letters to existing panel members informing them of the change.
The letter said: ‘In line with our current criteria for all new applicants to our residential conveyancing panel, we will shortly be requiring all existing members within England and Wales to become part of the Law Society CQS by 31 March 2013.
‘This forms a part of Santander's ongoing focus on risk management and our aim of maintaining the highest standards of customer service while reducing financial crime.’
Following Santander’s recent panel review, which the Law Society said resulted in hundreds of firms being removed from the panel, the Society’s chief executive Desmond Hudson wrote to business secretary Vince Cable asking Cable to mediate talks between the Society, lenders and other parties regarding the issue of conveyancing panels.
Commenting on the change to the terms and conditions of the bank’s panel membership, Hudson said: ‘Santander has previously made CQS a requirement for all new applicants to its conveyancing panel.
'This latest move, to require all panel members to have CQS by 31 March 2013, appears to be a step up from Santander’s previous approach to CQS.’
He added: ‘The scheme continues to gain traction with lenders and this certainly illustrates growing confidence in CQS. We will continue to discuss with Santander their approach to panel management over and above CQS.’
Comments
CQS
I can't help thinking the Law Society is painting itself (and its members) into a corner with CQS at best, it's a sticking plaster "solution" to a problem which needs more radical treatment.
Given that the SRA is now talking about solicitors not holding mortgage monies in conveyancing transactions, it's clear that there is going to have to be a thorough review of the process of conveyancing, so that the opportunities for fraud are reduced. Perhaps it's now time to get an independent organisation to look at all this - the Law Commission, for example.
I like the idea of a new
I like the idea of a new organisation but not independent one how about - "the Society of Attorneys" to robustly represent the legitimate interests of solicitors and to replace the increasingly discredited Law Society and its mutant offspring the SRA.
The Law Society is now well past its sell by date and the time for change is now
There is nothing wrong with conveyancing it is the SRA which has now become part of the problem
I like the idea of a new
I like the idea of a new organisation but not independent one how about - "the Society of Attorneys" to robustly represent the legitimate interests of solicitors and to replace the increasingly discredited Law Society and its mutant offspring the SRA.
The Law Society is now well past its sell by date and the time for change is now
There is nothing wrong with conveyancing it is the SRA which has now become part of the problem
CQS = Certificate of Quiescent Submission
How sadly predictable this was. Like the other mortgage lenders whose ultimate goal is to `own' conveyancing Santander don't yet have the capacity to undertake conveyancing themselves, but want a tame panel to deal with conveyancing in the meantime.
And the Law Society have played right into the hands of both Santander and the other lenders by creating the CQS. They have enabled the lenders to remove perfectly competent and honest firms from their panel by creating the complete illusion that CQS somehow equates to a quality service.
This absurd scheme derives from concepts like BS5750 and ISO 9001. They were designed for use in manufacturing, where an audit trail is actually important. The only place they have in a professional service industry is where most of the operatives carrying out the work are not professionals and are too uneducated and untrained to be trusted.
In other words, conveyancing factories.
As the vast majority of workers in conveyancing factories can only follow instructions and flow charts and have little or no professional skill something like the CQS is probably needed, if only for damage limitation purposes.
However, to imply that it is required for a qualified professional who has been undertaking conveyancing competently for years is a ridiculous and offensive insult.
I for one would never dream of signing up to such a pointless and bureaucratic scheme, but I’m fortunate in not relying on domestic conveyancing for my income and I feel genuinely sorry for anyone that has to submit to this humiliation because of financial pressure.
The mortgage lenders are no longer fit for purpose. They don't lend to people who need loans, they speculate with their customers’ money and then expect the taxpayer to make up their losses, they then use the bailout funds to pay unjustified remuneration, they screw their customers at every opportunity, they sell them worthless and expensive products - and then they have the cheek to tell us that we aren't suitable to be on their poxy panels. You really couldn't make it up!
I never thought I'd hear myself say it but I'm beginning to wonder whether some of these parasitical monsters shouldn't just be nationalised. It would be impossible for a state run bank to do any worse - and at least the profits would come back to us.
Vive la revolution!
Bien!
Bien!
Wehaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the sound of the Champagne Corks popping down at Chancery Lane!!!
With CQ$ on the agenda, they can get loadsa money!!!!
Trebles all round, and surely time to start employing more people. How's about a "Director of Systemic Engagement", or "Division of Quality Resource Scheme Supervision", "Deputy Assistance Supervisor: Consumer Internal Market Indicators"
Congratulations, and well done.
CQS
With respect it appears to me CQS is a nonsense as I have yet to come across a firm of solicitors which deals with residential conveyancing matters as provided under the "Protocol" from beginning to end! Because of this at the start of a matter I always inform the other side the matter will not be dealt with under the "Protocol"!
or an outcomes
or an outcomes "stimulator"
Real hoot at the christmas office party
CQS & SRA
It is clear that Hudson and his cronies are completely out of touch with the members of our profession. We are continually bombarded with lies about how good CQS is and how it has widespread support. ALL LIES. The simple truth is that CQS was forced upon us against our will and the majority have always been against it. Surely it is time for we solicitors to form a new representative body to fight against the "old boys club" commonly known as the Law Society, along with the SRA and lenders.
The Law Society is a total disgrace and DOES NOT represent the grass roots of our profession. Hudson and his cronies should go now before they destroy us all.
Anon Totally agree but
Anon
Totally agree but how?????
No turning back
Isn't it time to face the facts? If you don't have CQS you don't stand a chance, whether you like it or not. I am not a great fan of CQS but I realise I need it if I stand any chance. If rumours are to be believed when HSBC began using it last month they got a surge in mortgage applications. Maybe Santander got wind of that. CQS affecting mortgage market share? I doubt it, but I am not taking the risk.
Dead sheep
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed above. A banker reading Hudson's letter to Cable must feel as if he has been savaged by a dead sheep.
CQS
One of the obvious problems with CQS is that the Society charges for membership of it and therefore has an obvious financial interest in promoting it to lenders. That interest is difficult to reconcile with its duty to represent the interests of solicitors generally. Solicitors who undertake conveyancing are left with little choice but to seek CQS status.
In short, the Society has managed to devise a situation in which its own financial interests may conflict with those of some of its membership. If a solicitor did that vis-a-vis a client, he would, of course, be in trouble.
CQS = Certificate of Quiescent Submission
Brilliantly put, pro bono. Couldn't improve on your comments at all!!
will only partake following
will only partake following an outcomes based risk assessment
Santander and CQS
We have a busy conveyancing department and need to have panel membership for all major lenders if we are to keep our market share. We completed out initial application to santander last year. we originally had two Panel numbers for two offices and on reducing to one this caused mayhem as we had the wrong Panel number for the office which houses our conveyancing department. Nothing so simple as changing the address; we had to reapply and upload all documents again. The firm then had a major change of partners with some leaving and others joining. Having made all the amendments on the website we were then advised we must reapply because of the partnership changes (even though I, as the conveyancing partner, am still in place). The performance and hoops we have now had to jump through were extreme including CRB checks and much more information than was required initially. In the middle of this application and before our deadline for submission, we suddenly discovered via a friendly mortgage broker that we were no longer on the Panel. On telephone enquiry I was told we had been removed because of a lack of volume of Santander mortgages. I complained this was without any warning or regard for the fact that we had only paid our annual fee in march.
We were reinstated. We are still awaiting the outcome of our latest application so cannot access the website despite receipt of an email yesterday that I should log on to read a message. I complained again and was told casually that all panel members had been sent the same email to log on, even if they could not do so. At least I now know what it must say!
And as for the CQS, the extent of the information required is beyound belief. We have been putting together our application for some time, although things keep happening to alter the information required. It all seems to be jobs for the boys without considering the extent of many conveyancing solicitors years of experience
A different view
I saw these comments and couldn' help but smile. About a year ago I too was equally critical of CQS and the Society. I felt compelled to sign up and breaking with tradition on this discussion, I must say it is the best thing I have done. I am a sole practitioner in a small town. Since joining CQS I have seen not only more custom for conveyancing, but also for other types of work that I do especially this year.
What many lawyers don't realise is that the clients don't know about lenders and panels. They are told that CQS is good and so they go looking for it. The catch is CQS firms have to live up to the expectation.
I started seeking feedback from new clients as to how they heard of me and they nearly always say it was because they read I had the CQS kitemark in the paper. Some of them were clients who needed a will, rather than buy a house.
All I am saying is that my original view that CQS was a hurdle has changed. I see it as a life-line for me, when things were looking bleak before I got it.
Sorry to disappoint all those who are against it, I thought the inside view should be aired as well.
I can see CQS Convert's point
I can see CQS Convert's point of view. However there is one "major" problem with this looking at the big picture moving forward - surely when all of the conveyancing firms "catch up" having obtained their CQS status surely CQS Convert's existing competitive edge is lost and all you have gained is additional yearly form filling, audits, fees (which no doubt will start to increase at ridiculous rates) with competition not coming from the CQS firms but from the ABS and Licensed Conveyancers which funnily enough are not so far being asked to jump through these additional hoops and are therefore able to offer a more efficient and cheaper service by not being burden with additional "red tape"
It looks like a proper "home goal" by the Law Society to me
Licensed Conveyancers 1 Law Society 0
I would say it is the other
I would say it is the other way around LC's 0 CQS 1. The fact more clients are coming to me is not because of cheap, affordable pricing, it's because they want the kitemark, at least that's what they are saying. The LC's have even tried to start there own similar scheme in an attempt to catch up, presumably because they have seen what CQS has done. Would they turn down the chance, if they had it, to also have CQS? I doubt it.
Anonymous, I respect your view, but it reiterates the point I made - that the view of the public is being overlooked here. They are clearly keen on CQS, not necessarily cheap and affordable. Even I am surprised that thats not their overall preference, but I am not arguing with it.
But CQS is supposed to ensure
But CQS is supposed to ensure that a certain transaction flowchart is followed, that internal audits and file reviews take place, that a person is employed in a job as "Senior Responsible Officer", that there is an office manual etc.
So if a member of the public goes to a CQS firm without knowing the above (which they don't) then it follows that they are "keen" on CQS for some other reason.
It also follows that in theory, any "kitemark" would do.
It also follows - as was said - that if the Law Society / SRA plan is that solicitors HAVE to have CQS to do conveyancing (and QASA to do criminal work; and soon to be announced "willmark" to draft wills, "familymark" to do family work, etc., etc. which is the stated goal of Legal Services Consumer Panel / Legal Ombudsman) then ALL solicitor conveyancers will have it.
Why would they pick you over anybody else, if the anybody else has CQS?
More fundamentally from my point of view, why am I paying the Law Society each year - who are supposed to be a "representative body" - when they actually fight against me on the grounds that I do not pay them and their consultant leeches fees to "audit" me to get CQS?
THE ABOVE BLOGS REGARDING LENDERS PANEL
SO COMPULSORY SEPARATE REPRESENTATION IS OUT THEN?
CQS, separate representation, panels etc
So Lexcel is now pointless is it? That was supposed to be the passport to success when it arrived. What a palaver it was.
As a retired Licensed Conveyancer I have to say I always thought that it was illogical for LCs to be allowed to act for both parties and not solicitors. I would never have done so, although being employed by a solicitor's practice rendered the point irrelevant.
Let's not forget, as a previous writer referred to, clients, the general public, have little or no idea of all these goings on or much interest in them. All they want is a service at a reasonable price.
I am SO glad I am out of this now. Good luck conveyancers everywhere.
People buy people and not badges
Sorry I have to disagree about the merits of CQS - people buy people and not badges.
I am finding it difficult to believe that CQS is the reason why Clients would pick one firm over another unless the conveyancing standard in the area is pretty dire. Not one of my Clients who has asked for a conveyancing quote has asked whether I am part of CQS. This question strangely only seems to arise on application forms for Indemnity Insurance and lenders panels.
I have worked at many firms over the years with LEXCEL and my Clients come to me and recommend their friends because I give them a good efficient service not because of some "badge" I have.
Just out of interest could the Clients be getting the Conveyancing Quality Scheme mixed up with the recent "Quality" Solicitors advert - If so this can only be good for all of us.
If the general public only
If the general public only want badges and kite marks why then are the conveyancing factories so successful
Lloyds TSB - Markandan and
Lloyds TSB - Markandan and Uddin is a compelling read for conveyancing firms. It's on BAILII. If you haven't read the case report, please take 10 minutes to do so.
Markandan
That's the problem the Law Society faces in its dealings with lender and Vince Cable - there is no shortage of reported cases involving solicitors conducting conveyancing negligently or being caught up in mortgage fraud. Does the Society seriously think that CQS is going to eradicate sub-standard conveyancing? If it does, it appears that the SRA does not share that view.
The comments all have a
The comments all have a common theme - a loss of confidence and professional self esteem, springing from a lack of leadership by our professional body.
The lack of leadership from an organisation which should be defending the best interests of members is profoundly depressing for many. I know since it is a common theme of many people I speak to
Taking a macro perspective strong leadership would enable a firm grip to be taken of the political agenda to prevent further damage to a profession seen as a soft target by duplicitous politicians and others.It is no good leaving such matters to a permanent group of technocrats at Chancery Lane obsessed with process.This lacks passion and has little impact on our standing in the eyes of the public
It is a sad indictment of the Law Society that instead of enriching and enhancing the brand of "Solicitor" it has decided that the way forward for the profession is to say to the public that being a solicitor is inadequate and no longer of value, and we must now in effect "re-qualify" as accredited specialists with a scout like emblem on our letterheadings
This is a fundamental strategic error.
The public and business even now still associate solicitors with quality and ethical conduct with such perceptions having deep roots established over many years.
The Law Society Council must get a grip or otherwise in the words of a famous private we are all doomed!
Message from the President
Hi, it’s Lucy Scott-Moncrieff here. My attention has been drawn to these comments, and as some of you obviously feel thoroughly disenfranchised, I thought I would respond.
The representative part of the Law Society is here to look after the interests of its members. We want to help our members remain at the forefront of the increasingly competitive legal services market, in which 50% of legal services are provided by unregulated individuals and organisations. We consider that it is in our members’ interests to be seen as a profession that is ethical and puts the interests of its clients first, as well as being efficient and having high standards. We also know that no-one owes solicitors a living; it is for the profession to prove itself, not to expect special treatment.
That being the case, we respond to threats to our members, such as the restrictions of lender panels, by seeking to satisfy the lenders that our members can be trusted to deal with conveyances in a way that does not put their money at risk from the many sophisticated fraudsters and money launderers who see conveyancing and conveyancing solicitors as a very tempting prospect, and who have the technical skills to bamboozle us in ways unthought-of of even a few years ago.
Lenders are businesses, and, unless the government steps in, we have to accept their right to organise their businesses in ways that suit them. This is not to say that we can’t fight back, and earlier this year the Law Society-led campaign against the HSBC decision to slash its lender panel, which was conceived and prosecuted with great determination, skill and energy by Des Hudson, achieved an excellent result. The fact that CQS was there to provide an assurance of quality was an important element in the campaign’s success.
As yet, the Society does not make any money out of CQS, as the set-up and running costs have been considerable. In due course we hope that there will be some profit, as that will help keep down the cost of the practising certificate (and of course reducing fraud keeps down the cost of the compensation fund).
As a reader of Private Eye I recognise some of the expressions used in these comments, which are usually made in relation to public servants allegedly feathering their own nests at the public expense and probably through shoddy behaviour.
In national politics it is easy to feel that individual voices can’t be heard, but the Law Society has a very different relationship with its members. Individual voices can be heard; in fact we welcome engagement from individuals, and are always willing to have a conversation, even, or perhaps specially, a heated one.
I’m having to send this into the ether as I cannot contact most of you individually, as I have no names or contact details (I assume Voldemort won’t show up on Find a Solicitor), but if any of you want to contact me for a discussion, please get in touch. I would particularly like to hear from Jasper, as I would like to put him in touch with someone here who can talk him through the problems he is having.
Finally, as you can see, the threat of violence against me and Des has been taken down. I know it was a joke (sort of) but really, what is okay to say in the pub with your mates is hardly okay on a website with completely open access......let’s remember we are solicitors with standards!
All the best
Lucy
It has nothing do with reducing fraud
Dear Ms Scott-Moncrieff,
Apparently, my firm was removed by Santander from their panel on 16th July, although we were not advised and received dozens of instructions from Santander until 30th August when a broker advised that Santander had told her that we were not on their panel (the same broker had successfully place one of our clients with Santander a day or two previously).
When we contacted Santander they would not tell us why they had dumped us and gave us an email address to appeal to (it has difficult to appeal a decision that has not been explained to you but we gave it our best shot).
We have not had a reply from the Appeal Panel and Santander cannot tell us when we will but four different brokers have been told by Santander that we are not and never will be back on Santander's panel and they should be placing clients with Enact Licensed Conveyancers, or Countrywide Licensed Conveyancers.
In the last twelve months, we as a firm have completed over 100 Santander mortgages for clients without any issues and over the last 30 plus years have completed thousands of transactions without so much as a complaint, or claim from Santander, or any other Lender.
We are on the panel for every other lender in England and Wales and even have one of those CQS stickers in our window and logo on our letterhead.
We have never knowingly, or unknowingly, ever been involved in any for of mortgage fraud with any lender and indeed have reported suspicious activity to a number of lenders over the years (including Santander) and have thereby, prevented mortgage fraud taking place.
Once I receive official confirmation from Santander that our appeal has failed, I will have to decide which employees to make redundant to cover the loss of income. They will probably be:-
1. A Solicitor aged 33 who has just had her first child three months ago and whose husband is an out of work plumber.
2. A Legal Executive aged 27 who we have employed form the age of 16 straight out of school without any qualifications and trained up.
3. Two secretaries that we have employed for 11 years each, one of whom bought her first home last month (with a Santander mortgage).
Strangely though, a couple of our clients have complained to Santander that they cannot instruct us and threatened to use a different mortgage lender last week and I have received mortgage instructions from Santander in both matters two days ago. I immediately telephoned Santander and asked for an explanation and was told that they had applied for their mortgage before 16th July. When I told Santander that this was not true and they had not applied until the end of August beginning of September, I was told they were "one-offs".
A third client made a similar complaint to Santander two days ago and I have received a telephone call from Enact telling me that they would be acting for Santander and I would be acting for the Clients. No one had told me or the clients and I have not received anything in writing from Santander or Enact.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Yours sincerely,
Robert
(I can't give my real name as I haven't made the final decision as to which excellent, hard-working and hard-up employees lives I will have to ruin next week)
Save your effort-in the
Save your effort-in the unlikely event it is the President, it is just an attempt at a face saving PR exercise.
We really need to vote back a President who will actually fight for us.
Personal attacks are really
Personal attacks are really rather desperate.
Very appropriate for
Very appropriate for desperate times then. But there is an old saying that if you can't stand the heat -you shouldn't go into the kitchen. And the President is paid an awful lot of our money-presumably to represent us.
Politics is a hard game (and this is about politics) and if our representatives are not up to it, then they really shouldn't purport to represent us should they? Or do you believe that we will survive and win by just going along with whatever those who want to destroy the profession decide should be done? Not an attitude which most advocates adopt!
Absolutely spot on I am
Absolutely spot on
I am reminded by a comment by J S Mill to the effect that a lack of debate or a denial of the right to debate means that live ideas are replaced by dead dogma
These blogs are lively and in many cases provide the only opportunity for a disaffected and demoralised body of once proud solicitors to make known their feelings to an organisation which has become part of the problem.
The Law Society, especially the Council and the permanent staff, need to understand why it is increasingly being seen as an irrelevance, so that desperate solicitors feeling very let down, are now thinking the unthinkable, and are wanting to form a new body to properly look after their interests.
Thanks for your support. The
Thanks for your support.
The "let's be nice approach" which has been adopted by the profession's "leaders" has been absolutely catastrophic. The profession has been painted in the darkest of colours whilst commercial organisations whose only thought is to make the maximum profit for the least effort have been allowed to present themselves as being the clients saviours. And to be lectured by the lenders of all people about honesty! There is actually no lender which is properly solvent or honest, but if anyone cried "the king is naked" the Western financial system would collapse.
The whole situation is really unbelievable-God knows what the members of the Law Society Council think they are there for, tea and biscuits?
And when reality is pointed out in posts on here, there are whinges about personal attacks. I don't know about others but if an advocate I have instructed is patently useless, I sack them and get a better one. Its way past time we did it to our "advocates".
Unlike yours, my comment is
Unlike yours, my comment is not a whinge - it's a statement of fact. And again unlike you, I put my name to mine. I have said before that these pages are fast becoming unreadable because of the endemic cynicism and negativity. However we appear to be moving into a new, darker phase, where personal attacks are acceptable, threats of violence are made, and people who disagree with the prevailing view are shouted down.
No counter argument then-just
No counter argument then-just saying it's a whinge.
Do you really feel it is acceptable for our leaders to be paid lots of money to achieve nothing? Tell you what-let's put that money towards an election for the presidency-surely you can't have a problem with democracy?
But you are correct that there is much negativity on here-and rightly so. It has been created by the constant attacks on the profession, which are not countered. As for personal attacks, pointing out that the peple we pay have achieved little is hardly a personal attack. When you are unhappy with your MP, do you still vote for them?-most sensible people don't. They vote for someone else.
And expressing a view you disagree with does not constitute "being shouted down"-it constitutes the expression of a contrary view (how can one be "shouted down" on a blog in any event-have any of the comments you have made been removed?).
However, as before, if the heat is too much, best leave the kitchen.
This is actually a spoof
This is actually a spoof isn't it?
If it was really the President and she was actually concerned wouldn't an open meeting be called for members to attend? Or probably not.
Presumably this post will be taken down as well-without answering the question about a meeting.
Reply to the President
In reply to your message I would welcome the chance to meet you to discuss what I and countless other solicitors feel is the total disgrace known as the Law Society. Without doubt the view among the grass roots is that the "powers that be" at the Law Society have no interest in supporting and representing small provincial firms. As for being our reprtesentative body, well that would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You and your colleagues simply ignore the fact that CQS has been imposed upon the profession entirely against our will. If the Law Society won't listen to us then I agree with many of my fellow solicitors across the country with the vierw that it is time to form a true representative body. If we generate enough publicity then the "old boys club" which claims to represent us will finally be shown for what it really is!
I eagerly await your call or email.
Steve I will gladly back you
Steve
I will gladly back you up
Yes
But you can't keep firefighting each time a new lender announces that it is going to cut its panel. Neither can you sensibly hope that CQS is going to provide a proper solution to this problem.
The FSA has published a document (its Thematic Review) which advises lender to cut their panels; the Law Society of Scotland has set up a working party to look into separate representation (an idea to which the CML is opposed); and the SRA has just expressed concern about the level of claims/complaints arising out of conveyancing.
What does the Society have to say about those three things? Does it dispute the conclusions of the FSA's Thematic Review? If so, where is the Society's evidence to refute those conclusions? Does the Society regard the Law Society of Scotland as misguided? Does it agree with the SRA that poor conveyancing continues to be a major problem for the profession? What happens when we see the first batch of reported cases of negligence on the part of CQS firms?
Me You make a very good point
Me
You make a very good point about the Law Society's failure to fight the battles, which really matter to solicitors at the coal face with dust in their eyes.
The FSA is discredited as an organisation - for example its failure to predict the "Black Swan" moment for the major banks- but its findings do provide a convenient excuse for lenders to increase the opportunity for lenders to receive kick backs behind the smokescreen of actions driven by "proper outcomes"
History
It's worth looking at the history of the debate over seprep. A Law Society working party was in favour of it in 1994:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/law-new-standards-of-quality-control-a-newly-published-law-society-study-aims-to-improve-certain-areas-of-conveyancing-services-reports-sharon-wallach-1367207.html
Ultimately, of course, that did not happen, as a piece which appeared in the Gazette in May 1999 explains:
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/conveyancing-rules-ok-after-a-long-haul-agreement-has-finally-been-reached-lenders039-instructi
The 1999 article is a good example of a piece of properly researched journalism which extends beyond a couple of hundred words. Perhaps those currently writing for the Gazette would now like to put together a proper, detailed article on the topic of conveyancing claims, lender panels and separate representation.
Seprep
Here's a short interim report, produced during the last few days by the working party set up by the Law Society of Scotland:
http://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/533989/separate%20representation%20working%20party%20interim%20report.pdf
We lawyers need to get
We lawyers need to get together and set up "The Real Law Society" and The Real SRA"! to represent our interests.
Well Mr Pale The game is
Well Mr Pale
The game is afoot and the Hounds are straining on their leashes are ready to join a steering group to discuss your ideas
Ah, that's why our previously
Ah, that's why our previously supine President is now making herself busy!
Nothing like a bit of competition-it's certainly what we've been told for a long time now.
seprep
The article in the 1999 Gazette is a very interesting read, and very relevant to the current position. It is quite clear that conflict issues are still causing problems and the increase in fraud is obviously an added factor.
As mentioned previously, lenders are businesses and of course wish to protect their position. It is therefore surprising that they are keen for dual representation to continue. This position must be questioned.
As is clear, a large proportion of conveyancing related litigation is lender led, and often claims are settled where they ought not to be, purely because of "commercial reasons".
in order to protect their position, lenders should instruct their own lawyers.
The argument has been made that this will put solicitors at risk of losing business. This is a wrong argument. If it is for the lender's benefit to be separately represented where solicitors are concerned, then it must be beneficial for them to be separately represented no matter who is involved, whether it be licenced conveyancers or ABS'.
CQS might be a good exercise, but at the end of the day, all solicitors should have proper systems, and it is wrong of the LS to bang on about CQS and to keep pushing it, as it is like "divide to rule". The solicitor brand should be promoted - not a CQS brand.
I am not sure whether this sounds like a rant, but I do feel put upon by the requirements of COLP/COFA/CQS..... I am only a very small firm and and whilst I believe I am reasonably competent, there is just not enough time to do everything. I either reduce my work, in which case I have financial issues, or stop having any leisure time to ensure everything is done. Work life balance seems to have gone out of the window.
Robert and Santander
Robert,
Please email me at the Law Society so I can put you in touch with someone here who can try and help with your problem with Santander.....Lucy.Scott-Moncrieff@lawsociety.org.uk
Lucy
And what about everybody
And what about everybody else? They can go hang presumably.
History
Separate representation, kite marks and a union for conveyancing solicitors. These were all topics which were debated in the 1990s, yet here we are again. What lessons has the Society learnt? For an excellent summary of what happened during the 1990s, it's certainly worth reading pages 212 to 220 of Robert Abel's "English Lawyers Between Market and State":
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WRL5qDi-KBMC&q=separate+representation#v=snippet&q=separate%20representation&f=false
Mr Austin I invite you and
Mr Austin
I invite you and others that think like you to read via the internet the August edition of the Washington Bar News
Here is a profession at ease with itself and devoting constant attention to the very soul of what is to be a professional
Our leaders have got it completely wrong by worshiping at the altar of legal consumerism
There is hope and confidence in the American Bar borne out of the feeling of being proud to be a professional
Is that positive enough for you?
It's quite a large
It's quite a large publication. Any piece in it in particular?
More from the President
Dear Anon who said 'What about the rest of us they can go hang presumably' ( to distinguish you from all the other anons and noms de plume),
Of course I'm happy to talk to anyone who contacts me, as I said in my earlier comment. I was responding directly to Robert's cry of pain as he was setting out a specific problem that I hope we can help with.
I assume that most of the contributers to this thread are on LinkedIn, as you are all obviously familiar with the mores of social media. May I invite you to go to the Gazette LinkedIn group, and then have a look at the thread headed Good Ideas for Hard Times' starting 'Hi, I'm Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, President of the Law Society.....'
This is something I started after becoming President in July, arising out of my conviction that we are an inventive, innovative and flexible profession which has a long history of adapting to changing circumstances, and my further conviction that solicitors would be willing to share their good ideas with other members of the profession on how to cut overheads, attract new clients and make their services more affordable.
There has been a great response, and I and staff at the Law Society have been working on some of the ideas mentioned, to see how we can take them forward to the benefit of many more of our members.
May I suggest that those of you who are interested in engaging in positive discussions about how we can move with the times get involved in that debate.
I'm sorry that my earlier comments ( and of course I wrote them myself; our PR department is much more polite than me) have simply inflamed some of you. They were intended to be helpful, but I get the impression that for some of the contributers here, anything that the Law Society does or says is automatically rubbish, and, what is more, any
difficulties they are facing are somehow the Law Society's fault. While I can see the attraction of taking this approach, there seems to be a certain futility in me trying to engage with it, so I am going to repeat my invitation to any of you to email me if you want to ( and thanks to the one who already has and who I will be replying to) and hope that you will
All the best
Lucy
The difficulty you face is
The difficulty you face is quite simple. Under past "leadership" the profession has come to what might best be described as "a pretty pass indeed".
We are now no longer a true profession and are regulated by those who have no concept of profesional ethos but every concept of "tick-box". Despite the members misgivings, no word of help or understanding came from the "leadership"-just simply "do what you are told". As the current President you are receiving the backwash of this. Such, I am afraid, is the burden of office-and rightly so, for how else are the membership to express themselves?
In particular, there is much animus againstthe SRA, who are happy to enforce draconian penalties on solicitors for minor faults-but when it is incapable of doing the simplest thing (keeping the Roll for instance)-well, that's just the way things are, isn't it?
The SRA's MySRA has been disastrous-but has any criticism been voiced by our leadership? Well, none that I know of.
Was a letter written to the SRA pointing out that a huge amount of our money has been spent with no product and that is unacceptable? If so, pray let us see it.
Has the Council discussed the non-performance of the SRA? Not so far as I am aware.
Was any response made to the FSA's attack on the profession in their report on fraud? Again none that I know of-and the report itself being by a body under whose supervision the banks became predatory, and dishonest. Indeed, so discredited is the FSA that the Government is winding it up. Yet not a word by the LS about this!
So yes, most members do see a lot of our difficulties as being the fault of the Law Society for not fighting our corner.
Contrary to some comments on here suggesting otherwise, none of this is a personal attack-it is an attack on a culture at the LS of "the profession is always wrong".
The LS must change if it is to survive. Personally, my view is that it will not and it is, in any event, too late. The members patience is exhausted-other arrangements must be made and, I understand are in train. They will have my full support.
Refreshing candour and
Refreshing candour and absolutely right
Madam President
Please take a firm hold now- time is running about for the status quo
Answers
Perhaps Ms Scott-Moncrieff would like to provide some answers to the straight questions which I posed on Friday. These were:
1. Does the Law Society dispute the conclusions of the FSA's Thematic Review? If so, where is the Society's evidence to refute those conclusions?
2. Does the Society regard the Law Society of Scotland as misguided for setting up a working party to look into the idea of separate representation?
3. Does the Society agree with the SRA that the number of claims and complaints arising out of conveyancing continues to be a major problem for the profession?
4. What happens when we see the first batch of reported cases of negligence (or worse) on the part of CQS firms? Won't the CQS "kite-mark" then lose some of its lustre?
On the last point, can we have an up-to-date figure showing the number of applicants for CQS status whose applications have been refused? Previous figures have suggested that only a tiny percentage of firms which apply for CQS status have their applications rejected.
Response to queries from anon and Me
Hi Me and anon,
I will get ask the relevant people for a reply on your queries and get back to you in due course........you will be aware that as a democratic organisation, official decisions and views are reached through our governance structure, so I'm not sure how long it will take, but these are perfectly valid questions, so they will get a reply.
And as for those questions on matters of fact, I could give you what I think are the facts, but obviously I need to make sure that the answers I give are accurate, so bear with me
All the best
Lucy
It is refreshing, and
It is refreshing, and unusual, to say the least, that you are, in fact, engaging with members of the profession. Certainly this indicates you realise the gravity of the current situation.
However, the fact that you do not immediately KNOW the answers to these fairly obvious questions, and more importantly, that WE do not already know the answers to these questions surely tells you that the culture at the LS is defective-and far from democratic.
If you are to make a difference, you must tackle that culture-and not just commission another "report". We've had more than enough of those-to our considerable detriment. .
santander requires cps
I am a sole practitioner. I constantly hear that the law society would like to see the back of sole practitioners. It seems to me that the law society is more concerned with supporting the large factory type firms who employ numerous unqualified personnel . It's all about making lots of money for little or no effort. I still meet my clients to discuss papers and to ensure that they properly understand what they are doing. I am sure that a lot of firms still work in the same way. The problem seems to be that practice is expensive and it is in the interests of the factory firms to discourage it. CQS is just another nail in the coffin of small firms. The public do not know what to expect any more. It's about time the public were made aware of their choices. Fobbing people off with reams of reports they do not understand and I'm not inclined to read is hardly doing the job. I always understood that my clients were supposed to be making informed decisions. CQS seems in fact to be nothing more than a way of ensuring that firms do the bare minimum.
response to Timothy Roberton from the President
Timothy,
I dont know who is telling you the Law Society wants to get rid of sole practitioners...it certainly isnt my view or any part of Law Society policy, which is to support our members in whatever type of organisation they choose to work. This is what I said at the launch of my online discussion on LinkedIn which I mentioned before:
'Hi, I'm Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, President of the Law Society; we are looking for good ideas for tough times.... this is a call for action to the profession for the profession and those it serves.....
Local firms are at the heart of the provision of legal services in this country; a network of easily accessible offices dealing with the day to day legal needs of their local communities. This network is currently under threat, from challenges specific to the legal services market such as competition from large new providers such as the Co-Op and other ABS, or the dfficulties in recruiting, to the challenges facing all small and medium sized businesses today.....overheads going up, fewer clients, clients with less to spend and uncertainty about the future.
However, against this can be set the fact that solicitors are, by definition, problem solvers, and, by tradition, innovative, adaptable, determined and optimistic; there are 3 times as many solicitors practising as when I first qualified, and we are not all chasing the same amount or type of work as was being done then. However, despite this expansion, there are still many people in our society who do not use solicitors, even though we could help them. This might be because they don't realise we could help, or they think we will be too expensive, or they won't understand what we do and will be patronised. And shortly this group is going to be joined by all those whose access to advice and assistance is going to be cut off by the provisions of LASPO.
If we can find ways of providing services that are relevant and affordable to these people as well as our existing clients, we will not only be helping them but also ourselves.
As I have travelled round the country over the last couple of years I have learned of many innovations that individuals and firms have introduced to meet their changing circumstances; ways of cutting their overheads, attracting new clients, repackaging their services to make them more affordable, clever marketing, restructuring and so on. People are modest about their achievements, but not, as far as I can tell, because they want to be secretive, rather because they don't think to brag about their ingenuity.
Well, now is the time to start bragging! Your profession needs you to do so; we need to hear about your good ideas, your insights, your ways of saving money and growing business. We want to display your ideas to the rest of the profession so that they can see what might work for them.
The Law Society wants to spread your ideas to the profession, so please do get on line with your thoughts. If you don't mind sharing but want to be anonymous, contact me at president@lawsociety.org.uk and we will put it up for you.
All the best
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff''
Timothy, I hope you may find something useful on this thread, and also hope that you will feel like making a contribution on what works for you, and what we might be able to do for you (within our power and resources)>
All the best
Lucy
Madam President We need an
Madam President
We need an emergency general meeting- the time for action is now
Not gonna happen! The LS is
Not gonna happen!
The LS is irrelevant and should be wound up-but in fact it will just wither away over the next few years as members find other bodies who will represent them. Strangely enough, the SRA realised this would happen which is why it changed the basis on which the Practising fee is charged to ensure it still had a large income to squander.
The Licensed Conveyancers are the obvious choice for property firms-and probably litigators when it gets the power to do so.
SEPERATE REPRESENTATION
My own view is that Separate Representation is not the answer.
The client does not give instructions (nor indeed pay for) advice on the merits or de-merits of the proposed loan agreement with the bank. If that were the case, then there would be a conflict.
The client seeks three things:-
1) Title to the property;
2) The right to occupy it to the exclusion of others (whether personally, or by tenants, etc.)
3) The ability to sell the property in the future.
The lender seeks, according to CML, a "good marketable title" to the property. That is the same thing.
That being so, I can not see why there ought to be sep rep, despite the obvious benefits to High Street practices. The book quoted by Me above is instructive in that regard.
On the other hand, there is a problem here. When one looks at the case of Lloyds TBS v Markandan & Uddin, the legal point is supposed to be about breaches of trust, etc.
I read it and am horrified that a solicitor in practice would behave in such a way! Those involved were not found guilty of any fraud by the High Court. But paying away a mortgage advance - TWICE - without having a TR1, a signed mortgage Deed, or in fact ANYTHING, is shocking!
I think the answer may be tied up in PI Insurance. After all, what the bank want to do - and it is legitimate of them to want this - is protect their money. They instruct a solicitor to act for them, who is getting paid to do precisely that.
Not holding the mortgage advance isn't going to make a difference, and even if we don't physically hold the money, we could arguably be fixed with liability for wrongfully authorising it to be paid out anyway.
How's about:-
I know that something similar was proposed. I hate banks as much as the next man. But burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help. At the end of the day, the banks are entitled to have their money protected, and we are entitled not to be covering by PII, ARP, and Compensation Fund, idiots who pay mortgage advances out without having security. And in genuine cases of fraud, where the solicitor is duped as well (which may happen), surely having a separate insurance fund, which just pays out, on the basis that it is a risk which could happen to anyone, is the key?
Whilst I generally agree with
Whilst I generally agree with your comments, I think you are on the wrong track here.
The client wants many things when they buy a property-the three you mention are important, but if something goes wrong with another part of the transaction then usually THAT becomes the most important thing that the client most definitely wanted above all else!
Conveyancing is a complicated people/law/financial transaction. I wish it was as simple as you say-but it isn't. Emotion frequently comes into it-usually when one party "annoys" the other (i.e. disagrees on completion date, etc.-at which point the whole thing is practically litigation).
Further the lenders do NOT just want good and marketable title. Nowadays they want much more-practically a guarantee that the lender will actually repay the loan. Their CoTs have become much more onerous for the solicitor (again an own goal by the LS for going along with it all!)-and if the lender does not perform, the solicitor is the one the lender will go for (because the borrower has no money beyond the property).
So, in fact there are numerous points where the interests of the borrower and the lender conflict.
Add to that the fact that the lenders obviously want seperate representation (by having taken so many firms off their panels-and they won't be re-instated), and the "prevention of fraud"- and the case for seprep becomes very strong indeed.
Dom you make some interesting
Dom you make some interesting suggestions, which I'm going to think about.
The problem is that Markandan is not the only such case. Have a read of Padden-v-Bevan Ashford also: I think you'll be shocked by that, too.
Yes that is a shocking case,
Yes that is a shocking case, albeit for different reasons.
The cynic in me says that this is a case of the Court of Appeal following the well-known principle that if any transaction involves the word "solicitor" no matter how remote or how important, everyone who has suffered any sort of loss ought to be able to recover from the solicitor.
The lawyer in me says that in fact this is not the case - this is just an example of the Court of Appeal finding that a judge wrongly terminated a trial. It is not binding precedent for anything, and they were not saying that the judge was necessarily wrong in his assessment on the merits, just the mechanism and timing of what he did.
I know the actual judgment says otherwise (paras 57 and 58) but if the Trial Judge had continued to the end of the trial, and reached the same conclusion, it is likely that his decision would have been unassailable.
Personally, I think the cynic
Personally, I think the cynic in you is right!
The courts practically always find the solicitor at fault. This is probably a matter of public policy in that the solicitor is insured so the public's confidence in the legal system is sustained.
Naturally this must have taken a bit of a battering of recent when not one but two allegedly eminent judges got it wrong (to say the very least!) about the Hillsbrough disaster. It is probably fair to say that a courts judgment nowadays may well be in accord with the politics of the matter rather than the law or justice.
My point in posting was
My point in posting was simply to highlight that rather odd things happen in very large firms too. On the litigation itself, I agree that if the trial judge had allowed matters to proceed, and reached the same decision, the decision would have been watertight.
Solicitor's fault
Interesting point about Hillsborough - but on other blog posts on other websites, I have seen people say that witness statements were changed after legal advice from a solicitor, and therefore the solicitor must be at fault - so I think the principle lives on!
How can the Law Society
How can the Law Society defend CQS when I didn't have to get off the first page of the Legal Ombudsman's list to find a CQS firm which had a complaint against them for conveyancing - need I say more.
Santander's new requirements? Let me think CQS and you guessed it .... of course no complaints with LeO.