Report comment

Thank you all for your comments. This is incredibly useful feedback and thank you for taking the time to reflect upon how the use of a service like Shieldpay could impact your practices and the industry more broadly. Apologies for the delayed responses, but I will take these again in turn. This ended up a longer response than anticipated!

Please feel free to contact me on gdunnett@shieldpay.com, if you would like to explore any of these themes further.

@Colin Jones - We admire what Transpact has done over the years. I think the landscape is changing and that we will see a greater uptake of solutions like Shieldpay and Transpact.

We have created a solution specifically designed for solicitors and conveyancers, we call it our Enterprise solution. In addition to the Real Estate transaction this article mentions, our system is also already processing the funds flow for M&A deals, equity fundraises and pure corporate escrow for a number of national and international law firms.

In terms of fees, what you see on www.shieldpay.com are the fees for the consumer side of our business, peer-to-peer escrow for buying cars, boats or services from your local builder. Fees for the Third Party Managed Account solution are currently on a case by case basis according to the complexity of the deal.

@anon 2 June 2018 07:48 GMT - We offer a host of anti-fraud protections as part of the process and a looking glass for the client to see the status of their transaction (money) at anytime.

@Mike Bowen - Thank you for your questions: (i) We are working with lenders to validate the use of Shieldpay. In this first transaction, Barclays accepted that all funds be held by Shieldpay. (ii) I am working on a longer post on the impacts of Dreamvar and Shieldpay's place in a post-Dreamvar world (iii) blockchain may well have it’s uses in the future and in some fields, but we need to make incremental changes rather than sweeping ones on day one.

@anon 1 June 2018 12:49 GMT - Indeed. All systems can be vulnerable to attack, but we have fail safes in place to protect our customers. Our business is to protect these funds. If we don't, we don't have a business. A few bad apples only, but there have been enough instances of bad apples or cybercrime against law firms or their clients for this to become a problem worth investigating. According to a report published by QBE in the Financial Times, around £85m was lost from lawyers client monies accounts over an 18months period. That is many millions too.

@John Harvey - Anti-scam software? Shieldpay is designed to protect consumers and businesses from scams, phishing, interception and any other fraudulent or criminal behaviour around the payment.
The vast majority of law firms have very good risk management systems in place, but the cost of maintaining these systems in the face of increased attacks could become prohibitory for some. It will be for the regulators to decide when or if this becomes a serious concern to consumers.

@anon 31 May 2018 17:09 GMT - Thank you for your comments. Shieldpay aims to serve as a utility for conveyancers. We don't consider payments to be core business for conveyancers and with the backdrop of increased sophistication of cybercriminals, conveyancers are under ever greater threats. Shieldpay's business is to deal with payments and the security around that part of the transaction, so that conveyancers don't have to.

@anon 31 May 2018 15:38 GMT - Every little helps. There is a lot that can be done to improve the conveyancing process. It is great that the CLC is supporting tech companies who are trying to address some of the pain points.

@Ian Newbery - If you had the time, I would be very interested in talking with you about your experiences in trying to establish something similar. Please get in touch. The SRA's new account rules has opened up the opportunity for entities like Shieldpay to enter the market.

@anon 31 May 2018 14:34 GMT - Thank you for the encouraging cries!

@ Russell Conway - funds will still be held with the banks and associated with lawyers. The net aim is for everyone to benefit.

@anon 31 May 2018 14:20 - There should be no additional costs to the consumers, rather a replacement of existing TT and other fees. Streamlining the process and bringing efficiencies all round, should see the overall transaction costs reduced for the consumer. Time will tell.

@anon 31 May 2018 13:32 - (i) we have put in place some robust safeguards, but these will be continue to be monitored and revised as we develop the product; (ii) Chain transactions is indeed where we see great possible benefits and have a number of interesting features in development that will make that process far more efficient; (iii) We are working on a solution for the redemption element with certain lenders. Watch this space.