Friday 26th May and another Bank Holiday Monday looms. As usual we had a number of completions and you just know something is going to go wrong. On this day the Buyer's Solicitors had a problem with their mortgage advance. Apparantley, their change of status from partnership to LLP had been approved by the head office of the lender but someone forgot to tell the completions dept. The story is the completions dept. said earlier in the day that the advance would be sent and then changed their mind later so that the funds were never received. The Partner dealing with the matter was on leave, his experienced assistant went home at lunchtime and it appeared to me that the matter was left with the receptionist to sort out. Late in the day (4.30pm) the Senior Partner got involved and we managed to cobble something together to enable the clients to move into their new houses but this was around 5.00 pm. Much stress and tears from my client.
The motto of this story is to ask for your mortgage advance the day before completion and if it doesn't arrive you have time to sort out the problem before it becomes time critical.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Developers
I dont act for many developers and those I have tend to build the odd property or maybe a pair. I have a small development of four new houses for a builder client all selling for in excess of £500K and since day one the client has been on my back. The last plot is due to exchange and complete tomorrow and I received a fax this afternoon from the buyers' solicitors advising me that one of the previous purchasers has done a search of whole rather than in respect of the plot they were purchasing. The following points arise:-
1. The wrong search was in respect of the first plot sold and since then two others have completed. The searches of part of the two later completions must have revealed the earlier search of whole which has priority and on checking the day list it confers priority for a charge in favour of Coventry Building Society. Neither of the solicitors has raised a query about this.
2. I've told the client this afternoon as it may affect the proposed completion tomorrow and all he wants to know is who is going to pay him compensation if he doesn't receive the sale proceeds tomorrow and why this has arisen at the last minute.
Is there a lesson from this I don't know. The solicitor who lodged the search of whole is nearly as old as me so I guess he delegated the search to someone lower down the food chain who clearly didnt know what they were doing. Needless to say he is out this afternoon and will be in tomorrow at 10 a.m. when he will have to fax the land registry to cancel his search of whole and lodge the correct search of part unless he has already lodged his AP1 but I doubt that given the delays with SDLT if you dont submit the returns online. I will probably use up £200 of fee earning time sorting this out so the question is "who will pay me compensation" and the answer is nobody.
Roll on the weekend
1. The wrong search was in respect of the first plot sold and since then two others have completed. The searches of part of the two later completions must have revealed the earlier search of whole which has priority and on checking the day list it confers priority for a charge in favour of Coventry Building Society. Neither of the solicitors has raised a query about this.
2. I've told the client this afternoon as it may affect the proposed completion tomorrow and all he wants to know is who is going to pay him compensation if he doesn't receive the sale proceeds tomorrow and why this has arisen at the last minute.
Is there a lesson from this I don't know. The solicitor who lodged the search of whole is nearly as old as me so I guess he delegated the search to someone lower down the food chain who clearly didnt know what they were doing. Needless to say he is out this afternoon and will be in tomorrow at 10 a.m. when he will have to fax the land registry to cancel his search of whole and lodge the correct search of part unless he has already lodged his AP1 but I doubt that given the delays with SDLT if you dont submit the returns online. I will probably use up £200 of fee earning time sorting this out so the question is "who will pay me compensation" and the answer is nobody.
Roll on the weekend
High worth divorce
It's been many years since I practised matrimonial law. Those were the days when Wachtel v Wachtel and Lord Denning (who incidentally signed my admission certificate) were the buzz.I've just read the full decision of the House of Lords in Miller v Miller and McFarlane v McFarlane at Bailii.org and wonder why anyone with large capital assests or high income would want to enter the state of matrimony. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with a just division of assets on divorce but it seems to me that today there is little realistic prospect of marriage for life in many cases and the financial consequences for high earners are now so dire following these decisions I believe many will think twice before going down on bended knee.Perhaps the pre-nuptial agreement should be given legal force so that the individuals can set out what is to happen if the relationship ends with maybe differing outcomes depending on the length of the marriage rather than allowing the Judges to make that decision.
That said, my high street practice matrimonial clients rarely have a pot to piss in so it wont make a blind bit of difference to my matrimonial legal executive.
That said, my high street practice matrimonial clients rarely have a pot to piss in so it wont make a blind bit of difference to my matrimonial legal executive.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Converted Properties
I heard today of an issue raised with a conveyancer in another firm. She acts for a developer who has converted offices over a shop into residential flats with all appropriate planning and building regulation approvals. The flats are now being sold and the first purchasers solicitor has asked for NHBC, Zurich, Architect's Certificate etc. It appears none of these is available only the building regs completion certificate which is, of course, not a guarantee. A close study of the CML handbook reveals in para 6.6.3 that there is a mortgagee requirement for "newly converted property" to have one of the specified documents. In this particular case the proposed mortgagee has been asked whether they will proceed with the loan with only the building regs certificate and an answer is awaited.
I recently acted for a developer who converted a large victorian house into four flats and we sold them on new 99 year leases and none of the purchasers solicitors asked for any documentation pursuant to 6.6.3 of the CML handbook which was not available in any event.
Am I missing something or are most solicitors unaware of the CML handbook requirements?
I recently acted for a developer who converted a large victorian house into four flats and we sold them on new 99 year leases and none of the purchasers solicitors asked for any documentation pursuant to 6.6.3 of the CML handbook which was not available in any event.
Am I missing something or are most solicitors unaware of the CML handbook requirements?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Reneging Sellers
Once again I have today got to the point of exchange on a sale and purchase only to find that the one of the sellers has gone back on her word to vacate and now wants to synchronise her sale with a purchase but she hasn't even found yet. Its the usual story. At the outset we were told the Sellers were divorcing, Mr has already vacated and Mrs was going into rented. We argued about completion date on Friday last week and yesterday finally compromising on the 9th June then we hear this bombshell this morning.
Give me strength and also tell me how Sellers Packs will make any difference to this oft repeated scenario. The only saving grace is I dont do "no sale no fee" so I will at least get paid for all the wasted work.
Give me strength and also tell me how Sellers Packs will make any difference to this oft repeated scenario. The only saving grace is I dont do "no sale no fee" so I will at least get paid for all the wasted work.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Sole Practitioner Prejudice
Do you wonder sometimes if conveyancers actually think about what they are doing or whether they see a supplemental enquiry raised by someone else and think "that looks good, I'll add that to mine" without further thought.The particular enquiry that springs to mind is aimed at sole practioners and is usually along the lines of:
In view of the case of Patel -v- Daybells (2000) please confirm that you are authorised by the mortgagee to receive the redemption funds on completion.
This enquiry was deemed neccessary as in the absence of such confirmation and in the event the sole practitoner absconded with the funds or for some other reason failed to redeem the mortgage the buyers' solicitors could be held liable in negligence.In the circumstances a reasonable enquiry. However in 2001 the case found its way to the Court of Appeal from the original 2000 decision of Gray J in the Queen's Bench Division and as a result of the appeal decision the supplemental enquiry is otiose.
I recently debated this point with a partner in a local firm of solicitors and despite referring her to the appeal decision she still insisted on me obtaining a letter from the Lender saying I was authorised to receive the redemption monies on their behalf. This was impossible as I was not on their panel, a fact already known to her. I invited her to redeem the mortgage directly with the Lender on completion and offered to send her a copy of the redemption statement which was how the matter resolved in the end although she still insisted on obtaining a letter from the Lender addressed to her firm saying they agreed that she could redeem the mortgage (this was after she had consulted with her senior partner).
This exchange of letters took some three weeks and caused extreme frustration to both sets of clients, Estate Agents etc. The same enquiry still appears on their additional enquiries.
In view of the case of Patel -v- Daybells (2000) please confirm that you are authorised by the mortgagee to receive the redemption funds on completion.
This enquiry was deemed neccessary as in the absence of such confirmation and in the event the sole practitoner absconded with the funds or for some other reason failed to redeem the mortgage the buyers' solicitors could be held liable in negligence.In the circumstances a reasonable enquiry. However in 2001 the case found its way to the Court of Appeal from the original 2000 decision of Gray J in the Queen's Bench Division and as a result of the appeal decision the supplemental enquiry is otiose.
I recently debated this point with a partner in a local firm of solicitors and despite referring her to the appeal decision she still insisted on me obtaining a letter from the Lender saying I was authorised to receive the redemption monies on their behalf. This was impossible as I was not on their panel, a fact already known to her. I invited her to redeem the mortgage directly with the Lender on completion and offered to send her a copy of the redemption statement which was how the matter resolved in the end although she still insisted on obtaining a letter from the Lender addressed to her firm saying they agreed that she could redeem the mortgage (this was after she had consulted with her senior partner).
This exchange of letters took some three weeks and caused extreme frustration to both sets of clients, Estate Agents etc. The same enquiry still appears on their additional enquiries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)