Report comment

Mr Cooper. I wholly agree with your stance.

However, as I see it this case points up a not uncommon problem; who of several innocent commercially connected persons stands the loss when they fall among thieves? It mostly crossed my path in a series of transactions involving a stolen car and a series of innocent purchasers set against each other and the original owner.

Here the potential losers are the hopeful purchaser, his solicitor and the rogue “vendor’s” solicitor. Personally, I’d involve the selling agent but doubt that as matters stand that horse won’t run.

I think we can all agree that the hopeful purchaser should not be the loser. Which leaves us where? If not, then how do we advise him to cover himself?

The land registry has updated its guidance - see another story today. Maybe that will thwart the rogues.

The problem lies between (ignoring the potential negligence of the rogue’s solicitor which makes them not innocent) in the trustee position of the innocent purchaser’s solicitor’s duty not to part with his money unless he gets his bargain - and the exceptions to that - and public policy for a wide legal property services market.

I hope a solution acceptable to all can be found.

Spelling out a vendor’s solicitor’s duty of care would be useful.

I suspect that the total losses annually are relative to the market very small. A mutual fund raised by the profession might do it?