Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


Will need to get to grips with this reported decision but O dear this is all deeply troubling and the article reveals a Court's misunderstanding of both PII and practice .

No mention made of the CQS protocol applying or its spirit (requiring Id checks etc see Section A).

The Judge's requirement of buyer's solicitor of seller's solicitor is otiose in my view - if we write to one another 'We act for X' or 'Our client X ' etc it confirms you act for X and that implies and carries with it you have established it is indeed X.

Our PII should not of itself be a default means of giving a remedy - sometimes there is not a remedy in life and here we have two firms who are not dishonest, not negligent etc . Bad or hard luck but we the profession can't underwrite the school of hard knocks.

There appears no definition of reasonable steps and there won't be no doubt- do we have to assess if the seller's solicitors steps are reasonable ? If the CQS protocol applies why can't we rely on that as confirmation of said steps (on both sides of the transaction).

Lots of questions remain. And yes with e-conveyancing et al and no velum or Land or charge certificates combined with the apparent ease with which some can produce convincing ID etc, its much easier for anyone to defeat even reasonable steps.

How far do we go now, who checks the checkers and who can guess what the next judge deems to be required ?

The appeal with correction can't come soon enough.

Your details