Skip to main content

The reason Why Professional Indemnity insurers are Asking About 'Right to Buy' Transactions

Did you spot the following question on your Professional Indemnity Insurance renewal form for 2014?

In the last 10 years have you carried out any “right to buy” conveyancing transactions? If yes provide full details on page 10 including total number of transactions each year, number from referrals (e.g. brokers or marketing professionals and number of direct approaches).

Did you ask the question as to why it was there? 

Many firms will soon find out the reason why as solicitors face thousands of claims for professional negligence over their involvement in ‘right to buy’ work.

The Master of the Rolls has recently published a new Practice Direction supplementing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 concerning Right to Buy claims. The new Direction provides for the transfer of existing and new claims to the Chancery Division and the appointment of a designed judge, Mr Justice Sales, for the purpose of further case management and trial or trial of issues arising from such claims. Read the Direction in full here (pdf).

Manchester law firm Tandem Law – which alone has around 6,000 cases on its books – is named in the practice direction as being responsible for maintaining a list of all claims.

These claims against the mortgage broker and/or solicitor will be for relatively small sums of a few thousand pounds. The larger claims against solicitors accuse them of failing to advise clients properly, both in terms of conveyancing and mortgage issues, with the close relationship between some mortgage providers and solicitors under particular scrutiny.  

On their website Tandem Law give some example of poor advice relating to council house purchases including:
  • Overcharging for professional fees 
  • A dereliction of duty of care towards the borrower, including not carrying out the required checks that are a standard part of the conveyancing process
  • An adviser failing to explain the additional living costs, such as buildings insurance, associated with being a homeowner
Mike Fong, Head of Technical and Legal Practice at Tandem Law, says, "Thousands of people, right across the UK instructed their solicitors to help them achieve their dream of buying their own homes - and those solicitors failed their clients."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FCA AML Audit: The SRA Is Out, the FCA Is In

For years, law firms prepared for AML scrutiny with one regulator in mind: the SRA. That era is over. The UK Government has confirmed a fundamental shift in supervision. AML and counter-terrorist financing oversight is moving from the SRA to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This is not a cosmetic change. It is a full regulatory reset. If your firm is still thinking in terms of an internal review, an FCA AML audit will feel very different, financially, operationally, and reputationally. What Makes an FCA AML Audit Different The SRA regulates professional standards. The FCA enforces financial crime controls. That distinction matters. An FCA AML audit is not designed to guide or educate. It is designed to assess risk to the financial system and determine whether enforcement action is required. This is precisely why firms can no longer rely on internal reviews alone. An FCA AML audit will expect to see independent challenge, most ...

How Often Should Your Firm Conduct an Independent AML Audit?

In the world of AML compliance, there is a significant difference between doing your work and proving that your work is effective. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance is no longer a "set it and forget it" task. For firms regulated under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR 2017), the requirement for an independent AML audit is a critical hurdle. But a common question persists among MLROs and Compliance Officers: How often do we actually need to do this? 1. The Regulatory Starting Point: "When Appropriate" The law (specifically Regulation 21 of the MLR 2017) states that a relevant person must establish an independent audit function "where appropriate, with regard to the size and nature of its business." While the legislation doesn’t give a hard calendar date, the consensus among regulators—including the SRA and the Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG)—is that for most firms, an audit should be conducted at least every 2 yea...

Argie Bargie over Home Information Packs

In response to a question from Conservative MP David Amess on what methodology would be used to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home Information Pack programme, Communities and Local Government Minister Ian Austin was involved in heated argument. The wording of the debate ( reported in Hansard ) makes interesting reading, so I thought I would share it with you : Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local...