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.
No comments:
Post a Comment