Skip to main content

Conveyancing Proved Problematic in 2015 ...but it will be Easier than 2016

Conveyancing transactions in England and Wales got more complicated in 2015 as lenders more frequently introduced complex changes for conveyancers, a year-end review of The Council of Mortgage Lenders Handbook by Lexsure Ltd. shows.

The London-based software house helps solicitors better manage their firm’s risk via tools such as LENDERmonitor and COMPLETIONmonitor.

Even though the U.K. remains strong, mortgage lenders are being more cautious in their policies, regularly introducing changes that make it all the more important that solicitors are aware of particularly onerous terms that an individual lender may impose

According to Lexsure’s review, 75 % of CML lenders amended their Part II policies last year, with over 250 sections changed.  Some of the more frequent changes focused on problematic properties such as flying freeholds, properties with absentee freeholders as well as properties with short leases. Of notable concern is that 12% of lenders changed their minimum unexpired lease term with many now requiring 85 years remaining from the date of the mortgage .

Claims by lenders continue to account for around a quarter of all claims against the profession and my conversations with professional indemnity insurers reveal real concerns that conveyancing claims are not set to fall away. The increased complexity and frequency of changes is only going to boost the possibility of claims.

The Handbook was introduced in July 1999 and was proclaimed as a welcome consolidation of lender requirements, yet instructions don't stand still; they are constantly changing.

Experienced conveyancers may take it for granted; some new conveyancers may not have studied the handbook carefully, both options are dangerous. Solicitors should not assume they know what the lender’s requirements are from one transaction to the next - they should always check.

A copy of Lexsure’s Annual Market Complexity Report can be purchased here.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

Paperwork is not a shield: Why your SRA aml audit demands more than just a dusty manual

The Solicitors Regulation Authority continues its aggressive crackdown on financial crime with a recent fine issued against Whiteheads Solicitors (Staffordshire) Ltd . This decision serves as a stark reminder that the regulator is looking far beyond simple paperwork during an SRA aml audit . The firm was fined 2,584 GBP plus 600 GBP in costs following an investigation into its compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. While the firm had a firm-wide risk assessment and general policies in place, the SRA identified critical failures at the matter level. Key compliance failures included: Failure to conduct adequate client and matter risk assessments . The SRA found a consistent pattern where the firm failed to sufficiently assess client matter risk levels as required by Regulation 28. Inadequate scrutiny of source of funds . In one specific property transaction, the firm failed to properly investigate the origin of funds provided by ...

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 ...