Report comment

To my mind there are 2 distinct issues here:
1. A solicitor has a duty to act in the best interests of his/her client and cannot allow that duty to be compromised by a conflict - therefore if a "pet" solicitor is used the question is simply whether they are sufficiently independent of the developer. I would say that most (but potentially not all)are independent and therefore in principle provide appropriate advice generally to the buyer and to a mortgage lender.
2. Of rather more concern is the competency of the individual solicitor (whether "pet" or not) to advise their clients (both buyer and mortgage lender) of not only the wording of an escalating rent clause but also the effect that this could potentially have on the value of the property. This is what providing legal "advice" is all about. I rather suspect that this advice has been lacking - how many solicitors have suggested that the clause means that the client should not buy the property?

If I was still the managing partner of a law firm (thankfully now providing management advice to other firms) I would be checking all leasehold new-build purchase files over the last few years to decide whether to register a potential claim with my insurer.
Fortunately, due to the systems and procedures that we had in place - which included use of qualified and experienced conveyancing fee-earners and rigorous leasehold checklists (rent is fairly fundamental) I would hope that no notification would be necessary.