HSBC Introduces Independent Advice Requirements for 'Unequal' Borrowers

In a recent change to their CML Handbook Part 2 requirements, HSBC have imposed new obligations on their conveyancing panel when it comes to advising joint borrowers.

One might expect Section 8.1 (‘Does the lender allow me to advise any of the specified third parties?’) to focus solely on 3rd parties. Not so in the case of HSBC who adjusted their requirements to read:

Yes, provided that you are satisfied that you do not have any conflict of interest which prevents you advising the third party fully. If this is not the case you must arrange for them to see an independent conveyancer.

Direct charges - We require any borrower who is a legal owner of the property but who will not personally benefit from the loan either at all or equally with the other borrowers to obtain Independent Legal Advice where either the amount or portion of the loan from which they will not benefit exceeds £5,000.

Indirect charges – Where a Mortgagor of the property is not a borrower, we require that person to obtain Independent Legal Advice.

All cases - You must strongly recommend to any person intending to execute a Letter of Consent and Postponement by Deed to the mortgage that they obtain Independent Legal Advice

I am particularly surprised with the wording ‘We require any borrower who is a legal owner of the property but who will not personally benefit from the loan either at all or equally with the other borrowers to obtain Independent Legal Advice where either the amount or portion of the loan from which they will not benefit exceeds £5,000’.

It would appear that when acting jointly for HSBC and borrowers, it is necessary for any borrower, where the inequality of contributions is £5000 or more, to seek independent legal advice.

There is nothing new about the particular issue in that lawyers encounter situations where couples buying homes are contributing in unequal shares. Lawyers often advise one of the joint owners (who may not regard the mortgage as being anything to do with them at all) of their personal liability to the lender in any event. I suspect that lawyers do not generally regard such situations as demanding independent legal advice for the party who was not benefiting from the mortgage, but would always make sure that there was careful, written advice to the effect that both parties are equally liable to the lender.

Albeit that many lawyers may recommend that one of the joint owners with differing contribution (or a non-benefiting borrower) to take independent advice, this new situation is distinct for the following reasons :

Although it is best practice to recommend that borrower with unequal contributions take independent advice, in this HSBC situation the firm's liability in this area extends to the lender rather than being limited to the borrower clients
Outside of the HSBC situation one might recommend that one of borrowers take independent advice (and you may have something countersigned by the client acknowledging that advice). I suspect that many firms would feel as long as they recommended that independent advice be taken that would suffice. In this situation HSBC require independent advice be obtained.
I have my doubts whether lawyers concern oneself with unequal contributions on a remortgage but this clause obliges the firm to go back to the original contributions.

Without wishing to overplay the impact of the change, I am concerned that the conveyancing lawyer acting is now be placed under an obligation to make even more detailed enquiries as to the relative contributions of joint owners. Hitherto, the very good lawyers would be careful in their advice about the ways in which property can be jointly owned, but have put the onus on the borrower clients to inform them if they feel that their relative contributions to the purchase price warrant something like a tenancy in common in unequal shares. I suspect that many lawyers had not considered it to be their duty to carry out a detailed investigation as to the contributions, but rather to alert joint owners to the options.

To see the latest CML Handbook Part 2 changes please click here

FCA AML Audit: Financial Regulator Takes Over Legal Oversight!

The UK government has dropped a regulatory bombshell that will fundamentally reshape your life, and yes, we are talking about the dreaded FCA AML audit. For years, you’ve been supervised by your legal peers, the SRA, but those days of relative comfort are drawing to a close. The big news? Responsibility for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CTF) supervision for the legal and accountancy sectors is being handed over to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA. That's right, the same folks who put the fear of God into the big banks are now coming for your conveyancing files. Cue the dramatic music. What does the FCA take-over actually mean? Forget the gentle nudge; prepare for the financial services full-body search. An FCA AML audit is likely to look a lot more like a detailed financial inspection and a lot less like a polite chat with the SRA. Think maximum emphasison: Ironclad AML documentation (no more "it's in my head" polici...

December 2025: The SRA’s AML Audit Crackdown Has Arrived

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) isn't sending Christmas cards this year. They're sending in the AML auditors. Despite the upcoming shift where the FCA will assume wider AML regulatory oversight, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is turning up the heat one last time. Forget a gentle warning—welcome to the AML Blitz of December 2025 . Let’s cut to the chase. SRA Chief Executive Paul Philip is clearly done with excuses. His public message is unambiguous: "We are still finding fairly basic deficiencies in AML arrangements within firms." Translation for the Partners: You might effortlessly navigate a complex, multi-million-pound merger, but somehow, you still haven't nailed your fundamental firm-wide risk assessment. The era of the gentle wrist-slap is officially over. The SRA has made it clear that fines are "continually going up." AML Compliance is no longer a 'nice-to-have'—it’s an expensive, enforced reality...

FCA AML Audit: Why Solicitors Time to Rethink AML Compliance

If you’re a partner or a compliance officer at a law firm, I want you to take a quick second and think about your last AML review. Was it a check the box exercise to keep the SRA happy? If the answer is yes, we need to have a serious chat. The regulatory landscape for solicitors is shifting fast . The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is stepping onto the field with a much more active role, and they play a much tougher game than we've seen in the past. Today, we’re breaking down why the FCA AML Audit is the new essential safeguard—and why "good enough" policies just won't cut it anymore. Why the "Old Way" of AML is Riskier Than Ever Historically, many of us approached AML compliance through a traditional SRA lens. But let’s be real: that approach is becoming a major liability. The FCA’s style is risk-based, evidence-focused, and—most importantly outcome-driven. They don’t just want to see your manual; they want to see your proof. ...

About CQS Conveyancing

Search This Blog