Letters to the Editor

CONSULTING DOUBTS

Janet Paraskeva's article on the seriousness of the government consultation, In the Public Interest (see [2002] Gazette, 19 September, 20) prompts me to question how serious the government is about consultation.

The argument for allowing conveyancers employed by, for example, supermarkets to undertake conveyancing is based on the Office of Fair Trading's observation that, even after the advent of the licensed conveyancer, conveyancing is still being undertaken predominantly by solicitors, and that this is uncompetitive.

Is this not the same as saying that plumbing is being undertaken predominantly by plumbers? It is acknowledged that conveyancing services in England and Wales are among the cheapest in Europe.

Is the proposed solution to replace the several thousand independent conveyancing practices with a much-reduced number of supermarket conveyancing departments going to be more competitive?

Frankly, it looks less like consultation and more like 'we didn't get you with the licensed conveyancers, so we are going to try something else - after all, we managed to get personal injury work into the hands of a few claims farmers.'

Alan England, solicitor, Portsmouth

PRAISING THE LSC

All praise to the Legal Services Commission (LSC) office at Leeds.

I am an immigration specialist solicitor, and a number of my files were audited under the usual LSC inspection procedure.

I have lodged an appeal on several points of principle.

I am utterly delighted to report that a special area committee meeting is being set up to hear my appeal, composed of immigration practitioners.

This means that the issues of principle will be looked at by people who understand immigration.

It really is good to see that the LSC is using common sense.

Charles James, James & Co, Bradford

GROUNDS FOR CONCERN

I refer to Trevor Kent's letter (see [2002] Gazette, 12 September, 16) concerning the anomalies thrown up by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2002 with particular regard to vehicular access over common land.

As the UK's leading title insurer, this is an issue which has become of significant importance to our company.

We are handling a number of claims at present that concern this issue and our experience would appear to reflect that of Mr Kent - that this is going to become a major problem in rural areas, if it has not already.

The present government must have expected that this would be the outcome of such a piece of legislation.

We have heard of one instance where a so-called lord of the manor parked a vehicle over an access way and refused to move it unless he obtained payment from the occupier.

This is clearly an extreme example but there will be other instances where owners of properties will find themselves in situations where they will have no alternative but to pay monies to gain access to their own property.

It is clear that there are a number of land owners who have inherited the title of lord of the manor and presumed it to be worth nothing but an empty feudal title.

However, in view of the present legislation it may provide a substantial unearned income.

The calculation of the compensation sum as set out under the Act could in certain rural areas be substantial, especially in view of the significant increase in property prices over recent years.

Old established villages where common land abounds are most at risk.

Anyone who is contemplating selling their property should check their deeds to ensure that there is no issue concerning vehicular access to their property.

Equally, anyone proposing to develop waste ground should ensure that they have adequate access not only for vehicles but also for services.

Otherwise you may come home to find a vehicle parked across your driveway and being asked to get your chequebook out.

Kevin Dick, solicitor, head of claims, First Title Insurance

BEWARE OF GREED

I am amused and angered simultaneously by your recent article about chaos over conditional fee agreements (see [2002] Gazette, 22 August, 1).

There is no chaos, just an awful lot of greed - the greed of lawyers signing up to claims management companies in the hope of easy money.

There are lots of firms which, like this one, have had nothing to do with them on principle and have waited for the Law Society to make a stand on the issues of principle that this profession is supposed to stand for.

We are still waiting.

The County Court judge in question deserves congratulation and it is to be hoped his view is upheld by the superior courts.

John Wilson, Wilsons, Leeds

CML BROUGHT TO BOOK

Can anyone explain why the only access to the revised Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) handbook will be via the Internet? How many conveyancing solicitors are there that do not have such access?

Why do we not receive the full instructions from the client lender, including its part 2 requirements with the offer? Are we to check via the Internet every day to see whether the requirements of our lender have been altered? Can someone not produce the full printed version of the handbook with all part 2s and make this job a little easier.

At the same time, could the Law Society ask the insurance companies to produce a statement on all insurance schedules to confirm whether or not the policy complies with the CML handbook?

Spencer McGuire, Lister & Wood, London

JUSTICE POINTS

In common with much of the media, the Gazette is reporting that Maxine Carr has been 'accused of perverting the course of justice' (see [2002] Gazette, 30 August, 1).

I may be mistaken but as I understand it the position is that Ms Carr has been accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The distinction is not a fine one; it is substantive.

Roger Clarke, solicitor, Fleet, Hants

BROTHERS IN ARMS

I have read the letter from RA Humble-Smith regarding multi-disciplinary partnerships (see [2002] Gazette, 30 August, 12) with some personal interest.

I agree with what he says but that leads to the question about merging different arms of the legal profession, of which I am in favour.

The obvious mergers are between solicitors and barristers.

The impression from the bar is that this will never happen.

The other arm is that of legal executives and licensed conveyancers.

Having a wife who is a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives and a brother at the bar, I am naturally biased - but surely this compromise is the way forward.

Kash Mahmood, solicitor, Wirral

FIRST AMONG EQUALS

I see that Hilary Meredith of Donns Solicitors (see [2002] Gazette, 19 September, ) claims that 69% of partners at her firm are women.

Until two years ago, I was a 25% minority as the only male partner in Sprott Stokes & Tumbull, What is more, apart from the senior partner's dog I was the only male in the building.

My status attracted envy and pity in varying proportions among my friends, and it also attracted quizzical looks when I referred to my partners Bridget and/or Judith and/or Sandra.

My son enquired whether, on my retirement, Messrs Sprott Stokes & Turnbull would become Mesdames Sprott Stokes & Turnbull.

Since then a process of amalgamation and retirement and co-option has resulted in the male partners in Turnbull Garrard achieving parity in numbers.

Honesty rather than chivalry requires me to say that we are equals in numbers only.

Malcolm Mitchell, Turnbull Garrard, Shrewsbury

IN A JAM

Our small conveyancing practice recently received redemption instructions from Intelligent (sic) Finance stating, among other things, that 'the amount owing does not take any account of the way we connect the jars in the plan'.

Can I now expect jam to supplement my humble crust?

Bob Sage, practice administrator, Friis & Radstone, Stevenage

WORD GAMES

District Judge Pal Sanghera in his amusing (and instructive) article (see [2002] Gazette, 19 September, 44) translates 'a phrase often (but inaccurately) expressed by the phrase that possession is nine-tenths of the law.'

I believe that the original expression was that it was 'nine points of the law'.

I once heard someone recite the full list of 10, possession of nine of which would assure you success.

As I remember they included the judge, the jury and the right in the case, but I have not been able to find the list.

Judge Sangheera's translation of 'per incuriam' as 'through want of care' interested me.

I had always understood 'per curiam' to mean a point taken by the court and not raised in argument, and that 'per incuriam' meant the same, but that this court had decided that the other court got it wrong.

Have I been proceeding 'per incuriam' all these years?

Robert Venables, consultant, Bircham Dyson Bell, London

JOINT WORK

The answer to Mark Solon's question is in the negative (see [2002] 5 September, 17).

It will become a joint enterprise.

Peter Gildener, Peter Gildener, Penzance, Cornwall