Report comment

Just another example of someone who has no idea what function lawyers provide. To say "Their main function is first to check that the seller owns the property and secondly that the title is OK," shows his ignorance. You don't need Blockchain to look at a Land Registry entry to see who the owner is.. But what about 'the title is 'OK"? There is no such thing as a binary OK or Not OK, it is a question of nuance judgement and experience in many (but admittedly not all ) cases. For example 'Blockchain' will have no idea what all those pesky rights, easements and restrictions are or whether you want to buy it at all without appropriate rights or covenants . Nor will it know what you want to use it for and whether the building regulations approvals, s.106 obligations, CIL, overage obligations, restrictions on alienation, planning permissions (or lack of it) means it is worthless. Blockchain will not undertake to pay off a seller's mortgage, take the risk of the transaction generally, or advice on whether the EPC, service charge provisions or break clauses or occupational leases. Even with residential property, the same considerations apply. The primary obligation of a lawyer is to use years of experience and nuance that cannot be replicated by a yes/no system. If all we had to do was change the registered proprietor by sending in a Tr1 you wouldn't need blockchain or any expertise at all. Any fool could buy a pig in a poke, as they repeatedly do at every auction where bidders buy property without any due diligence. Fools and their money are soon parted, especially at auctions and now it seems, using blockchain