Ombudsman's casebook

A monthly column of examples from the files of the Legal Services Ombudsman

Conveyancing conundrums

Conveyancing and property-related complaints accounted for 15% of referrals to the ombudsman in 2001/2.

As the following recent cases illustrate, what starts as a 'routine' domestic conveyancing instruction can sometimes turn into a headache for the client and ultimately the solicitor.

Friends and neighbours

Ms H instructed solicitors to act for her in the purchase of a house.

She subsequently complained that the solicitors failed to carry out a 'follow-up' local authority search, with the result that she went ahead with the purchase while blissfully unaware that 204 high-density social housing units were about to be constructed next to her new home.

She was not impressed at the prospect of meeting the new neighbours.

The solicitors told the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) that they had done a local search on 20 January 2000, but that the search would not have revealed the planned housing development because it was not near enough to her house.

The solicitors sent the OSS a copy of their report on title, which they had posted to Ms H on 19 June 2000.

The report said that the local search covered planning proposals within 200 metres of her intended home, but the solicitors added that if there was any open land nearby 'it would be as well to check with the council that there are no proposals to develop this land'.

In a report prepared for the OSS adjudicator, the caseworker recommended a finding of inadequacy of service.

He said that, given the limited nature of a local authority search, the solicitors should have advised her more fully about the limitations and given her the option of renewing the search if she wished.

In due course, the adjudicator considered the report.

He noted that the local search was made on 20 January 2000 and contracts were exchanged on 23 June.

He doubted whether the housing proposals would have been picked up even if another local search had been done closer to exchange of contracts.

So he decided that the solicitors' service had been adequate - a decision upheld on review.

The ombudsman noted that the solicitors had advised Ms H to contact the council to check whether there were any planning proposals for the land near to her intended home.

However, the ombudsman observed that the report on title, which contained the solicitors' advice, was dated 19 June 2000 and sent by post to her.

That meant that she would not have seen the report until 20 June at the earliest - barely three days before the planned exchange of contracts.

There was no evidence that the solicitors checked that their client had had time to consider, let alone act on, their advice about contacting the council, nor was there evidence that they asked her whether she wanted to have another local search done - the existing one was five months' old when contracts exchanged.

The ombudsman recommended that the OSS reconsider her complaint.

Paperchase

Mr L's solicitors completed the purchase of his house early in September 1999.

He was to share ownership of the property on a 50:50 basis with the property developer.

He complained to the OSS in July 2001 that the purchase had still not been registered at the Land Registry, and that he needed to see the purchase deed to check the details of the monthly payments he was making to the developer.

He complained also that the hold- up with the purchase deed had prevented him from buying the remaining share in the house.

The solicitors said the delays had been caused by two factors - 'problems at the seller's end' and the long-term sick leave of a fee-earner.

However, in spite of these setbacks, the papers were now with the Land Registry and he would receive a copy of the long-awaited deed 'shortly'.

In fact, 'shortly' turned out to be an understatement.

After several unsuccessful attempts during October and November 2001, the solicitors were apparently no nearer to bringing matters to a conclusion.

The OSS told Mr L that the solicitors had the situation under control and that if he pursued his complaint further it would be open to the solicitors to end the retainer.

The ombudsman decided that it was insufficient simply for the OSS to accept the solicitors' repeated assurances that the outstanding paperwork was in hand so long after completion of the purchase - 26 months had now passed.

The ombudsman also decided that it was unsatisfactory that the documents had still not been provided to Mr L after all this time, and that the solicitors' explanation about the delays was inadequate and had not been investigated properly by the OSS.

The ombudsman recommended that the OSS reconsider the complaint.