I write on behalf of the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) in response to the letter from Alan Tunkel published in the Gazette on 1 October.

Mr Tunkel states that ‘over the last decade or so, the CML has imposed on solicitors who sign certificates of title ever-increasing obligations’.

This is incorrect. The duties required of the solicitor are set by the profession itself and not by the CML or any of its members.

The extent of the solicitor's retainer is set out (and limited) by rule 3.19 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The CML Lenders' Handbook is drafted to comply with those rules and the requirements of the handbook are discussed with the Law Society, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and the SRA.

The certificate of title is also prescribed by the SRA and protection is given to solicitors through rule 3.20.

Mr Tunkel suggests that solicitors should limit or exclude their liability to mortgage lenders for any financial loss arising from their certificates of title. It is hard to see why a lender would instruct a solicitor if this was pursued. A lender does not have to use the conveyancer nominated by the borrower. Doing so helps to reduce cost and is more convenient to the borrower.

The interests of the borrower and the lender are broadly the same. Any loss suffered by the lender because of the conveyancer is often also suffered by the borrower. Is the proposal to limit liability to the borrower as well?

Michael Webber, chairman, legal advisory panel, Council of Mortgage Lenders