Report comment

I have a vested interest in this matter. Firstly as a Solicitor trying to uphold the highest of professional standards in difficult times and secondly as somebody who has spent his entire professional life (17 years) working alongside the major house builders; the last six acting for plot buyers and the previous six acting for the builders.

The problem here is not 'pet' (or to give them their proper name, 'panel') solicitors, it is bad conveyancers, bad conveyancing practices and bad management, training and supervision. These problems have been widely reported elsewhere on these pages. Some 'off panel' solicitors are excellent (they are the professional conveyancers), whilst others simply do not understand conveyancing at all, let alone new build. Acting for the builders, I would routinely receive 40 - 50 enquiries before contract and then have to explain basic property law or conveyancing procedure to the other side's 'conveyancer'. The answer to the vast majority of the numerous enquiries was usually, this information is provided in paragraph 'X' of our Information Sheet. Common enquiries include, we have your Section 106 Agreement dated ABC, but our search refers to a planning obligation of the same date, please provide a copy, or, we have the Section 38 and 104 agreements, but we insist on receiving the road and sewer adoption agreements as well.

Andy Hailstone is quite right (as usual) in that panel solicitors are on the panels because, they do act with integrity, they know their stuff and they get on with the job required by their clients (i.e. the plot buyers, not the builder). Clients soon complain and give the builders a poor rating if they feel let down by their panel solicitor, the solicitor is then warned and soon removed from the panel if they don't properly represent their client (the buyer). There is little that an ambitious sales / managing director hates more than a bad satisfaction rating being reported to their PLC's board.

In 12 years working in this area, on both sides of the fence, I have never known any of the builders that I have worked with either pay the solicitor or receive money from a solicitor for panel work. The comments about solicitor paying or receiving bribes is, in my vast experience, absolute nonsense in the house building industry, and is often an excuse or justification why some firms do not do well with their business development activities. However, I cannot speak for working with Estate Agents, which I do not do, as my firm refuses (and doesn't need) to pay referral fees. Where it does exist, it should quite rightly be stamped out.

Whilst I don't doubt that clients complain to Hart Brown that they weren't advised on a particular matter, I am sceptical that this is true. When I write to clients with my contract report, my half page covering letter specifically asks my clients in bold to send me their deposit of £ XX when they return their signed contract. The same request, in bold again, appears three times in my actual report, including in the very last sentence of the report. Despite this, clients frequently 'phone me or complain to the builder that they don't know how much to send or when. The same applies to ground rent / service charges / covenants etc which are clearly stated in bold in my report. Also, it is amazing how many clients claim that they were never sent copies of various documents, title, planning etc and demand that I send them immediately. As soon as a fee is mentioned, clients miraculously find the documents that they were 'never sent'.

Personally, I am not happy with leasehold houses, but as a Solicitor, my job is to advise my client and the lender on the documentation in front of me and their implications and consequences. It is not for me to comment on valuation or whether a person's dream home is or isn't a good investment. As a Solicitor, I am not qualified to do this. Nor is it to say don't touch a leasehold house, they're dodgy; clients (or their parents) are quick enough to spot this for themselves if they feel that this is the case. The problem is not so much the leasehold house, as the escalator used and the sale on to an investor without giving the home owner first refusal. Proper advice to the client and lender quickly overcomes the first issue; legislation could deal with the latter. Whenever I have referred leasehold houses (terms, ground rents and escalators) to lenders they have referred to their valuer who has universally advised that everything is OK.

Please do not assume that as a generalisation, panel solicitors, are anything but professional and independent. They are just like any other firm, some good and some not so good. Of course, irrespective of whether a solicitor is a panel member or not, there will always be errors made for a variety of reasons and causes. These need to be dealt with through training, supervision (internal and external) and, where necessary, appropriate, sanctions from our professional bodies and regulators.

Whilst some of Hart Brown's comments make a valuable contribution to the general debate about leasehold houses, I found their comments about 'pet solicitors', patronising, insulting, judgemental and down right wrong and ill informed. Their comments would have been better targeted at the conveyancing profession as a whole, which is grossly under-skilled for the work of this nature, that it then has to carry out at low prices. Please do not tar us all with the same brush as the few 'bad apples'. If you look back over the years, most complaints, charges of dishonesty, lack of integrity, bad advice etc are not founded in the 'new build' area, but apply across the board to all firms who carry out conveyancing. Most of us (like most readers of this article) are good, decent, honest, professional, hard working solicitors working under difficult circumstances to make a decent living and to give our clients as smooth a journey and as professional a service as possible.