I wish to take issue with the recent letter from licensed conveyancer John Clay (see [2008] Gazette, 24 January, 13). Mr Clay rails against a buyer's solicitor for insisting that a loft conversion to a flat, which may or may not be a breach of the lease, is sorted out before his client buys from Mr Clay's client. Having not seen the lease, I cannot comment on that, but a loft conversion could amount to a breach of all manner of different covenants in the average residential lease.


In day-to-day conveyancing practice, it is amazing how many examples one comes across of similarly unjustified views. Some examples are:

- Why do you need those planning permissions - they are years old (but what if they contain an agricultural restriction, or a restriction tying the property to the owner of the next-door commercial property?)

- Why do you need searches on this property? It is only a piece of land after all. (Commons rights?)

- But a purchase of whole does protect purchase of part - (no it does not).



Mr Clay himself admits the lease is 'ambiguous' as to whether or not the loft space is included. Presumably, if he were acting for the buyer, he would simply sign an unqualified certificate on title to the lender and take the risk. Why would one do that? It is time we stopped blaming each other for trying to get things right.



Daniel Sproull, Sproull, Bodmin