Your recent article on part 11 of the seller's property information form (see [2004] Gazette, 28 October, 38), states that all solicitors operating the protocol should reply to the enquiries. The writer states there are three questions in practice and that solicitors should have no difficulty in responding to the enquiries.


Unfortunately, the position is not as straight forward as the writer suggests. For example, the firm may have acted 20 years ago on the sale of 1 High Street from A to B. A different member of the firm is now dealing with the same property on a sale from D to E. There is information on the old file that may be relevant to the current transaction, but the firm's computerised records only go back 15 years and there is no way that the current fee- earner will tie-up the two matters. The firm clearly holds relevant information, but is unable to give a categoric reply.


Similarly, on a sale of 1 High Street the fee-earner may be ignorant of the fact that another fee-earner was dealing with a boundary dispute on behalf of the owner of I North Street. There is nothing on computer to tie up the two matters, but in fact the properties share a common boundary.


Solicitors clearly should not give a categoric assurance in circumstances where they are unable to do so. This is the reason why most solicitors refuse to reply to part 11.


MD Rolfe, Hillman Smart & Spicer, Eastbourne