Councils must be prevented from abusing their dominant positions to deny personal searchers free access to information, says Neil Clayton


The Property Search Group (PSG) is concerned that the Law Society has joined the chorus of critics of personal searchers, while aligning itself with local authorities and the monopoly of electronic providers of data via the National Land and Property Information Service (NLIS) hub.



The background to the current consultation ordered by the Department of Communities and Local Government should be focusing lawyers' minds on the way in which the law is being abused by holders of public information, who have behaved less like its custodians and more like its proprietors. The law itself is clear enough. For anyone in doubt, we would recommend a glance at our response to the consultation, on our website.



PSG's response contains an analysis of the existing law on access and charging and a non-exhaustive list of errant councils, from which it is easy to deduce which authorities are operating outside the law by refusing personal searchers the access that statute and regulations prescribe, or by requiring payments for data that should be freely available.



This damning view of the obstructive behaviour of some local authorities, supported by some senior counsel, was the starting point for the Office of Fair Trading's market study, and has been the catalyst for many attempts to resolve the questions of access and charging which are the subjects of the current consultation.



It is clear that if full access were allowed to all public data, personal searches could be as comprehensive as local authority-compiled searches. The current criticisms aimed at many personal search companies are based on a lack of data within the searches, which has been caused by the illegal restrictions imposed by data holders.



PSG has worked closely with solicitors for more than ten years, during which time there have been substantial improvements in the conveyancing process, particularly the speed, efficiency and cost of obtaining local property search information. There appears to be a concern among many that the Law Society is aligning itself with local authority search compilers and against personal searchers, despite the continued blatant illegality of the actions of several authorities. Should lawyers be seen to be supporting the actions of a minority who wish to restrict access, economy and convenience for the consumer?



There is the added anomaly that the channels of the NLIS hub are closely linked with personal search, especially where local record-keeping systems have not been adapted for electronic storage or delivery. So if the Law Society were to favour NLIS channels and discourage the use of personal search it would, in some cases, be inadvertently advocating on one hand the use of something it deplored on the other.



Eventually there must come a reckoning, when those local authorities that are abusing their dominant positions will be compelled to comply (and possibly compensate). We would be surprised if the Law Society or its members would want to be associated with any illegal actions at that point, which begs the question: why should the Law Society place itself in that position now?



As with local authorities, personal search companies are not all the same. Admittedly, there are those that do not subscribe to the Property Codes Compliance Board, Search Code or HIP Code, and some which may cut corners for the sake of commercial gain. The Law Society should, however, be careful not to tar all with the same brush when its current 'allies' may also be less than perfect.



Neil Clayton is head of legal services at the Property Search Group



www.psgonline.co.uk