Wednesday, 26 March 2014

IS Conveyancing Too Slow? and Why?

Situ stirred things up last week with a report that said conveyancing lawyers are moving too slow to meet increased demand from buyers.  A failure to recruit has left many conveyancing departments are understaffed, causing a delay in agreeing completions and heaping frustration upon buyers and sellers, says the property company launched by the leaders of five major agencies in the West Midlands.

And while they may be correct, another reason conveyancing is slow is that a deal gets stopped in its tracks when it’s discovered the buyer’s lawyers aren’t on the lender’s conveyancing panel.

Red light. Do not pass Go.
Agents have told Lexsure that more than 10% of their pipeline is slowed down significantly by the buyer having to appoint new lawyers as they discover that their lawyers are not on the panel (or having another lawyer appointed by the lender check the work with a view to protecting their interest).

This is something estate agents should be checking as early as possible. But until now, it’s been difficult to do.

Watch this space for how Lexsure propose to solve this.

Thursday, 20 March 2014

What’s Cheap is Dear: Transfer of Equity Conveyancing

Working in risk management and compliance often brings me to meetings with underwriters and claims handlers and discussion of cases and upgrades to our checklists. Out of one of those recent meetings comes the following sorry tale,  told by an underwriter of an expensive claim resulting from a particularly inexpensive conveyancing fee:

Following the breakdown of her previous marriage, Mrs. K, and her new partner decided to buy an apartment.  She already owned a house jointly with her estranged spouse. Her proposed lender on the new apartment, as one might expect, required her release from her current mortgage with her soon-to-be ex-husband by way of Transfer of Equity.  Mrs. K asked her solicitors (who were also dealing with the new purchase) to advise on  the Transfer of Equity for which they charged less than £250 inc VAT.
What could go wrong?

Mrs. K’s solicitors didn't explain that not only did the Transfer of Equity secure her release from the mortgage, it also transferred sole ownership of the house to her husband.  Soon after the divorce Mrs. K became painfully aware that she had given up all her rights to the increase in value to the property they had purchased a few years previously.  She sued her lawyers for her loss of entitlement.  

In case you are wondering ….she won!

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Lenders Continue Punching Away at CQS

Lender Panels are like London buses at the moment. Nothing for a while and then three come along at once.  

Hot on the heals of the Santander and Lloyds conveyancing panel  West Bromwich have announced the launch of a new panel as firms will be invited to apply through an online portal designed and operated by LMS.

This is yet another body-blow to CQS as lenders are taking tighter control over their conveyancing panels rather than relying on the Law Society kite mark 

According to on-line magazine Mortgage Introducer the new West Bromwich conveyancing panel and portal will allow the society to provide assurances to its members that all appointed conveyancing firms are credible, reliable and safe as each are subject to detailed and rigorous membership criteria and checking.

Huw Lewis, sales and marketing Director at LMS, said: “There has clearly been an increasing demand for a service of this nature and already we’ve seen a very positive response from the industry. We expect further uptake in future, as more firms see the benefit of being on a well-managed West Brom panel. 

“The new panel standards underpin quality, service and security; key principles fundamental to the LMS business model. Our new proposition offers first-rate quality, without the need for expensive joining fees, making it especially appealing to the mutual sector. Additionally it offers substantial benefits to intermediaries and law firms.”

With rumblings being heard of Clydesdale, Coventry, Paragon and Nationwide soon to announce new panel management intentions, look for more punches to CQS. None likely to be a knock out, but it makes me wonder how many body blows CQS can sustain.

Costly Oversight: Call of Duty

Research from TSB shows that around a quarter of first-time buyers are failing to take stamp duty costs into account when putting in an offer on their new home.

But the oversight is not limited to FTB's. Existing homeowners fail to factor in the stamp duty, with around 14% of those buying their second or third homes also failing to include the expense in their financial calculations.

Stamp duty can be expensive. TSB reveals that the average amount paid for stamp duty is over £5,000, equivalent to around 10% of the average deposit put down for a house purchase. For first-time buyers, stamp duty accounts for as much as 15% of the deposit, on average.

In the new regulatory world of 'managing client's expectations' it is essential that conveyancers do not take for granted that a buyer has calculated the relevant stamp duty.

Monday, 17 March 2014

We're on a Highway to Help.

Yesterday's Sunday Times may bring welcome news to conveyancers in the short term but may be pouring fuel on an already overheated property market. Such reckless and dangerous behaviour should be expected of Ozzy Osbourne rather than George.

Here’s the start of the Sunday Times story:

The Help to Buy scheme, designed to help people get on to the housing ladder, is likely to be extended in this week’s budget. George Osborne is expected to frame his budget around improving the lives of working-class voters in marginal Conservative seats by helping them to buy their own homes and pay less tax. It goes on to note the chancellor is tipped to increase the personal tax allowance to £10,500 and to extend the Help To Buy scheme beyond 2016.

Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap?

Let's not kid ourselves. The move is not some subtle attempt to start a 'conveyancers for conservatives' campaign but rather a flagrant example of the Tories' using taxpayers' money in an attempt to buy votes. With many experts suggesting that H2B should be scaled back, skeptics argue that any extension to the scheme can only highlight Osborne's intention to use help-to-buy as an election weapon.

What ever the motivations behind such a move, if indeed this does happen, conveyancers and estate agents will be happy to make hay whist the sun shines. 

Sunday, 16 March 2014

Expect ‘Flood of Changes’ to CML Handbook in line with consumer concerns

This winter’s rains and flooding have pushed floods to the forefront of consumer concerns when buying a home. In a recent BSA survey, half of those polled said that the risk a property might flood was an extremely important consideration, higher than the more traditional factors of a property’s location (49%) and neighbourhood (44%).

This concern stands in contrast from what I’ve taken away from recent conversations with search companies which indicate that flood searches are only being carried out in about 50% of conveyancing transactions. Whilst there is no specific requirements in the CML Handbook or BSA Mortgage Instructions to carry out flood searches, the winter’s harsh reality and consumer sentiment lead my to expect lenders will start making changes in the near future.

Some of the more recent changes - such as the HSBC change relating to Japanese Knotweed - are driven by new factors that can impact the resale value of the property.

The  BSA survey showed a significant variation in view between different types of buyers. For example, the risk of flooding was of less importance to first-time buyers, with just 30% saying it was extremely important. Instead, off-street parking, transport links and a garden were all rated as more important. Of course from a lender’s perspective they wish to cater for all potential buyers and therefore the motivation to make changes is high.

Friday, 14 March 2014

Client Care 101: Advising on What You Don't Advise On

The second part of Client Care 101 illustrates the importance of what you say in your retainer letter or in your ROT (or preferably both).

Solicitor Justin from firm ABC receives a call from Mr. Green who asks for a quote on a purchase. During the conversation Mr. Green talks about how it is his dream home but requires a lot of building work as they are intending to carry out a large double storey side extension.

Mr. Green mentioned that his advisers were in discussions with the council and had already had plans drawn up. Justin assumed therefore assumed that Mr. Green had an architect or planning expert on the case. Justin was proud of himself in winning the instruction  and sent Mr. Green the standard client care letter.

The purchase went through smoothly. But, imagine Justin’s surprise when six months later Mr. Green came back to him complaining that planning permission has been refused arguing that he would never have bought the house had he known that planning permission would not be granted.

Imagine if the retainer letter and Report on Title (ROT) had included something like, “I understand that you have planning experts and an architect to advise on the likelihood of obtaining planning permission for your proposed extension , and therefore this retainer does not include advice on planning matters.” or possibly a more generic catch all paragraph saying that the firms does not cover such advice.  Even in the unlikely event the client had still tried to bring a claim, Justin would surely have a strong reference that checking the planning aspect was not within the remit of his advice.

I am making mention here of the ROT as the scope of the retainer may change over the course of the deal and the ROT affords you that last opportunity to redefine the retainer. This is why some firms take the opportunity to resend the equivalent of ROT even on a sale file.  One needs to have a mindset of the retainer as a living document rather than an administrative job completed as soon as the physical file is created.

As if negligence claim is not bad enough the new regulatory regime of outcome-focused regulation where managing client’s expectations is so important means that, now more than ever, client take-on procedure and sophisticated retainer letters should be central to your risk management.

Never, never fall in the trap of thinking that your retainer letter is a static precedent.

Thursday, 13 March 2014

Why the Lloyds Conveyancing Panel Needs to Worry About Stamp Duty Land Tax Incentives

The Lloyds Banking Group - via Halifax- are offering (on qualifying mortgage applications made between 4 March and 6 May 2014 inclusive) an incentive relative to first time buyers. The offer repeats one that ran for part of last year. The Halifax said that last year, this offer helped 14,000 borrowers.
According to Lloyds they will pay a sum equal to the Stamp Duty Land Tax where the purchase is in the 1% SDLT Band (over £125,000 - £250,000) and a £250 cashback where the purchase price is below the 1% threshold (0 - £125,000). There is no incentive being offered for purchase prices exceeding the 1% band.
Lloyds have stated that the SDLT incentive payment will be made via CHAPS to the lawyer within 7 -10 days of the completion date. The problem here is that if the solicitor is relying upon the incentive payment to pay the Stamp Duty then that could result in the Stamp Duty not being paid until 10 days after completion which would cause difficulties.
In the circumstances the best way to proceed is for the lawyer on the Lloyds conveyancing panel to insist on receiving the SDLT payment upfront from the client/purchaser (to enable the Stamp Duty to be paid immediately after settlement) and thereafter to refund it to the client/purchaser only once it has been remitted to the solicitor/conveyancer by Lloyds.
Please note that the primary obligation is to ensure prompt registration of the title and mortgage and anything else to the contrary is assuming a risk that you are better off not taking.

Santander and Lloyds Conveyancing Panel Portal Costs Questioned by Law Society

The following statement was issued yesterday by the Law Society of Scotland to Scottish Solicitors with an interest in conveyancing. 
Dear colleague
I am writing to you about a serious and developing issue which is important for all firms carrying out residential property work.  I have written separately to all cash room partners, asking them to pass this information to those members within their firms which work in conveyancing.
Last autumn, we were advised by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) about a new conveyancing panel management solution facilitated by a company called Decision First. Decision First will provide a "gateway" between solicitors and banks involved in the scheme for the purpose of panel management.  The objective is to help lenders streamline the panel management application process for the benefit of both solicitors and lenders.
Decision First has now developed a single interface called 'Lender Exchange'. This system will allow panel firms to keep lenders up to date with any changes to their practice.  The scheme means that conveyancing panel members only need to provide their details and supporting documentation once to those lenders involved in the scheme.  Lenders will then use information from this database to make their own decisions about membership of their conveyancing panels.
We know that Decision First will charge panel firms a single annual fee for use of the Lender Exchange system. 
We are deeply concerned about such a charge which we believe presents an unnecessary cost to process information.  The Society already holds this kind of information about solicitors and we have openly expressed our willingness to provide this information free of charge to lenders.  This would save our members from having to process this material again and prevent them from having to pay the fee to Decision First.
Lloyds Banking Group wrote to the senior partners of all firms on its conveyancing panel at the end of November 2013. They advised that all firms on their conveyancing panel would have to provide the required information via the Lender Exchange interface by the end of quarter 1 2014 if they were to remain on the panel. Santander has also written in similar terms to firms on its conveyancing panel.
I would like to make it clear that we continue to have deep concerns about this new system of panel management.
We worked with our colleagues at the Law Society of Northern Ireland and wrote a joint letter last December to all UK lenders in which we stated our serious concerns about the proposed new conveyancing panel management solution and requested that lenders who plan to implement this solution delay doing so until they can be appraised of our concerns.
We also carried out an online survey of our members in November 2013. The main issues of concern raised were the clear increased administrative burden, increased costs and no guarantee that by participating in the scheme solicitors will get onto lenders panels.
We have recently received a copy of the draft Terms and Conditions from Decision First which members would have to agree to and comply with.  These were provided to us for our review on a strictly confidential basis with no promise of any views we have being taken into account.  We have been pressing Decision First for permission to share them with you and our other members in the interests of transparency. However, Decision First has refused to allow this.
I have been contacted by members over recent days.  It concerns me that an impression appears to have been given to suggest that the Law Society of Scotland has somehow approved or endorsed these terms and conditions.  This is not the case.
Whilst we have been given the opportunity to review the Terms and Conditions on behalf of our members we cannot approve them. The Terms and Conditions represent a commercial contract between Decision First and the relevant law firm in which we would have no locus. The Society has however highlighted concerns in relation to jurisdictional and data security issues to Decision First.
We strongly advise our members to be cautious in releasing commercially sensitive and other data to Decision First without sight of the draft Terms and Conditions. Decision First has advised that the latest version of the draft Terms and Conditions will be available at the end of this week.  We will publish these on our website once we are in a position to do so.
We are now issuing more regular updates on this and other conveyancing issues to those of our members who have indicated they are involved in residential property work.  I would encourage those within your firms who would like to receive these updates and who do not current do so to log on to the members section of our website, tick the appropriate box and ensure they have a specific individual email address on record.
Finally, if you or colleagues have any questions about this then please contact my colleague Alison Mackay from our professional practice team by telephone 0131 476 8353 or by email
With best wishes,
Lorna Jack
Chief Executive
Law Society of Scotland

Client Care 101

Let’s call this lesson “Client Care 101”.

It begins with the letter you send to clients at the beginning of a new instruction. Although not a regulatory requirement, lawyers are obliged to advise clients about complaint procedures, etc.  Retainer letters have been best practice for years now - although, much to my surprise, some firms open files even if the letter is not countersigned. Many firms will have their standard letter or terms checked by a risk consultant often being lulled into a false sense of security in thinking that this document need not be changed until the next time the risk expert takes a look at it.

But beyond the basics, the retainer letter should be a more sophisticated tool.

Unless you have a separate sales team, the likelihood is that as a conveyancing lawyer you will have at least some involvement in winning instructions or requoting an existing client. And chances are that you will talk about the the sale or purchase process and the virtues of retaining your firm's services. All the effort is made in converting the client into into an instruction. You are busy and not necessarily inclined to invest too much time finding out about the transaction in detail with a view to making it clear what you don't cover. At this stage it’s all about the sale.

It’s as if as conveyancers we are reluctant to explicitly advise clients what the retainer does not include. Based on numerous conversation with underwriters and claims handlers it this reluctance can actually cause negligence claims. One underwriter went so far as to tell me that the vast majority of claims stem from a risk that could have been picked up when the client was first taken on and combated by limiting the retainer.

It is such a simple thing in hindsight, but if there is a specific area that you don’t believe you are being instructed to work on, there is no harm at all in saying so in the retainer letter or in your ROT (or preferably both).

Will Broadband Soon be a CML Handbook Concern?

There’s a buzz growing around the effect on house prices of slow broadband. The Telegraph weighed in last week, claiming that slow broadband wipes 20% off house prices.  The article led Darlington’s solicitor James Swede to blog that “given the apparent importance and value of an internet connection, if a buyer’s solicitor does not make an enquiry about that (broadband speed), it is far from inconceivable that he or she could be accused of professional negligence, especially given the research published above.”
Search website Rightmove adds a broadband speed checker to all of its listings alongside factors such as quality of local schools and transport links. And estate agents say broadband speed is so vital that buyers are walking away from a purchase if they discover that superfast speeds are not available in that area. Lenders will not want the find that they repossess a property only to find that there is a 20% reduction due to poor broadband.
Another question could be GPS location connectivity. Some properties are almost impossible to find on a sat nav. If a buyer intends to run a business from home that, too,  could be a problem.  I once tried to visit a lawyer at his home and gave after driving around for an hour as the sat nav could not find the address and the mobile connection in the area was hopeless.
With fast internet access becoming as much of a “right” as access to clean water and electricity, it’s not long before broadband becomes a mortgage concern. Perhaps, even, incorporated into the CML Handbook.

Why did your client sell via a different conveyancer?

Have you ever been tempted to look at land registry data to check how many clients had sold their properties in the last few years and not used your services? That may seem like a futile endeavor as the cow has left that barn... Why give yourself the aggravation?

I suspect that most lawyers convince themselves that a client did not return purely because of price. After all, conveyancing can be purchased over the internet for under £100. Alternatively, one may blame the estate agent as having strong-armed the client into using their preferred lawyer in return for a brown-paper envelope. 

In fact, if a client uses a different lawyer for their next transaction it is with the intention of finding a ‘better’ lawyer. 

I have no doubt that there's a place in the conveyancing market for the “cheap-enough, good-enough” alternative, but I would like to think that sustainable growth and long-term loyalty come from being better.

If your conveyancing service doesn't measure up, the answer isn't to lower your fees or offer a refund to the disappointed client. You need to invest in improving your service. So much so, that they will tell friend and family or write reviews on-line. We’re in a word-of-mouth era of marketing, with your reputation directly affected by your client’s list of Twitter followers or Facebook friends..

Monday, 10 March 2014

The Lloyds Warning That is Equally Applicable to Conveyancers

Lloyds Banking Group has warned brokers that the increase in paper work associated with the Mortgage Market Review changes may increase the risk of fraud and they need to remain vigilant.

In the same way that brokers are faced with new administrative burdens the same is also true of conveyancers who in recent times face burdensome compliance obligations  and ever changing CML Handbook requirements. All this at a time of increased volume as the UK property market bounces back to pre-recession levels.

Criminals are stealing identities and using false documentation to take out loans using the victim's name and details. Also on the rise are cases of vendor fraud where the fraudsters have successfully sold other people’s homes. Their "modus operandi" is to get access to properties first by renting them and then acquiring fake documents in the real owner’s name and attempting to sell the flat or house.

Only this weekend I was talking to an owner of an estate agency in London who had come across two cases at his branch in the last year of vendor fraud where an absent owners identity was stolen and the property was sold to an innocent buyer.

But it’s not just vendor fraud on the increase. Fraudsters are expected to continue to produce more sophisticated fake documents while brokers and lenders embed changes brought about by the new regulations.

Peter Curran, director of strategic partnerships at Lloyds Banking Group said: "Spotting fraud is an ongoing challenge particularly in the face of increased paperwork."

He said: "Think about the plausibility, validity and authenticity of the documents - simply collecting paper will not help stop fraud."

Lloyds said brokers need to be mindful of the challenges presented by increased volume and must not get swept away by a rise in demand for mortgage finance if they are not able to effectively manage the risks it will bring. Surely the same is true of conveyancing.

Thursday, 6 March 2014

Concerns Raised by Law Society Over Lloyds Conveyancing Panel Conditions

Lloyds has upped the ante for its conveyancing  panel members and The Law Society of Scotland doesn’t like it.

What Decision First, the Lloyds Conveyancing Panel Manager, has done is made the simple act of acting for any mortgage lender in the Lloyds Banking Group an assumed acceptance of the lender’s Terms. Only nonacceptance required to be communicated along with return of any instructions. In other words, you’re in until and unless you actively opt out.
The Scottish Law Society is concerned that one of the conditions provides a right to Lloyds Banking Group to inspect all conveyancing documents and files relating to transactions carried out on behalf of any lender within the Lloyds group. The Society's concern is that this wording may set up a contractual obligation that might not otherwise apply. If a solicitor was to refuse access to all files where this term has been accepted there might be a difficulty in defending an action for access to the files either on a contractual basis or in terms of Section 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 even though separate files had been established as to what belongs to the borrower client as opposed to the lender.

Another concern is that the Terms require the provision of information about the firm and its employees as may reasonably be required by Lloyds Banking Group . This could prove problematic in relation to credit checks and searches against current employees. I would certainly be interested to hear from employment lawyers as to whether there are any employment issues here. The ex-lawyer in me would force me to take a close look whether a firm’s employment contract allows for such checks to be made in order to be on lender panels or accreditation schemes.
The conditions also allow for Lloyds Banking Group to change the Terms from time to time subject to at least 14 days' notice.
The Professional Practice Committee of the Scottish Law Society have urged all solicitors on the Lloyds conveyancing panel of the need to consider carefully the implications of the terms of membership, particularly given the assumption of tacit or implied acceptance.
Perhaps Lloyds need to consider the benefit of these onerous conditions with the cost of a smaller number of solicitors on its panel.

Latest HSBC CML Handbook Change will Have Conveyancers Tied up in Knots

What should otherwise be a simple ”yes-or no” question instead stands as just the latest example of how lenders use the CML Handbook to heap more complex and onerous obligations on their conveyancing panel lawyers.

But, since nothing is ever simple when it comes to CML Handbook compliance, the question “Does the lender want to receive environmental or contaminated land reports?” is the jumping off point for HSBC to shoehorn in obligations that encroach upon what would normally expect of a surveyor. 

So, rather than “yes” or “no”, HSBC’s answer reads as follows:

Japanese Knotweed - You will need to advise the Bank if you become aware that there may be Japanese Knotweed on or near the property and if not already done so we will instruct a valuer, who will follow the RICS guidelines to assess the risk where the weed has been identified on or near the property (generally within 7 metres) . Where Japanese Knotweed is identified we will only lend if there is a treatment schedule and a completion certificate that confirms the weed has been remediated with a guarantee in place for a minimum of 10 years. These documents need to be submitted to the Bank for consideration.

I am particularly alarmed by the potential broad meaning of the phrase ‘if you become aware that there may be Japanese Knotweed ’ .This is very large hook on which to hang a potential claim in the future if it can be argued that you should have been aware of the problem. Is it not too large a leap to say that a lawyer is now expected to ask the buyer a specific question in this regard if the new protocol forms are not used?

Whilst the TA6 Law Society property information form (3rd edition) does include a question about knotweed,  it is very common for the vendor to answer ‘not known’. By virtue of the seller saying ‘not known’ you fall within the trap of the Part 2 wording ‘there may be’. Surely in such cases conveyancers have to refer the  matter back to the valuer or lender?  

Lenders have previously looked to their valuers to address this issue. In recent years, building societies such as Skipton and Leeds declined mortgage applications on properties where Japanese knotweed was present. Others such as Barclays Bank and Santander, will decline them unless work is undertaken to remove it. Now the conveyancer has to focus his or her attention on knotweed as a CML Handbook requirement. The likelihood is that other lenders will follow HSBC’s move.

Monday, 3 March 2014

The Latest Battle That Seems Awfully Familiar

A battle is brewing as three lenders -- Lloyds, RBS and Santander -- are telling their conveyancing panel solicitors that they are required to register with the the respective bank’s panel management service via the Lender Exchange platform run by Decision First, the CML's chosen supplier.

It seems like deja’ vu of HSBC’s conveyancing panel cull in 2012, which ended with the lender backtracking. Now, the Law Society is challenging the CML and the Decision First process in the strongest terms. With battle lines being drawn, the Law Society is building what is shaping up to be a powerful campaign. In a recent communication to members, the Law Society has advised that it’s planning to raise its concerns about the Lender Exchange with the Government and mortgage companies. A briefing document has been prepared which states: "We are engaging with the CML and lenders to express our concerns about the lack of transparency, of published objective criteria, and of an appeals process, and to seek a sensible and practical solution, as we did with HSBC in 2012." As part of this dialogue, we are also engaging with the Government to secure the support of Ministers and civil servants to work with us and the mortgage industry to broker a long term solution that is in the interests of consumers, lenders and the profession’.

I would encourage readers to weigh in on this matter. A copy of a sample letter to be sent to MPs can be found here. For a copy of the briefing package contact your local Law Society or contact the Law Society’s Government and Parliamentary Affairs Unit on 020 7320 5858 or

Sunday, 2 March 2014

Bridging Lender Creates Conveyancing Panel for London Lease Extensions

Bridging packager Voltaire has just released a lease extension product for properties in London requiring a loan at a minimum of half a million pounds. 

The unique offering is part of a joint venture whereby the borrower is obliged to use the experts on the lender’s surveyor and conveyancing panel.

In an interview with online magazine, Voltaire director Andrew Hosford said: 
"We have been approached by a number of clients requiring finance for extending leases or purchasing property with short leases, with a view to extending. The structure for this is complicated and we decided that pulling together a 'dream team' of lender, solicitor and surveyor was the best way to efficiently assist our clients.
The firms that we have partnered up for this lease extension product are the best in the business and we are delighted to be working along-side them on what is clearly a high demand area, particularly in prime London."

Saturday, 1 March 2014

Monmouthshire Building Society Conveyancing Panel - Clarification on Planning and Building Regulation Time Limits

Monmouthshire Building Society have made a number of recent changes to their CML Part 2.
In particular the Society has clarified requirements in terms of time limits for planning and building regulation consents.
The Society have now made it clear to it’s conveyancing panel that no time limit should be applied in respect of conservation areas and listed buildings.
No investigation is required in respect of both planning and building regulation consent after 10 years has elapsed.
If the nature of the breach is such that indemnity insurance is recommended as a suitable protection this can be arranged on our behalf of the Society as long as they are advised of the situation. Alternatively if the advice is that the breach does not require indemnity insurance and is outside the statutory limits for enforcement action, the conveyancer may proceed on that basis providing the borrowers are aware of and accept the risk.
Other important changes were made to the CML Part requirements. Notably, the time frame required to request draw-down of funds has increased from 24 hours to 7 days. Ten sections were changed in total. Click here to see full details of the changes relevant to all lawyers on the Monmouthshire Building Society Conveyancing Panel.