.jpg "Jumping over the conveyancing hurdle")
Talk to any purchaser or borrower about their conveyancing experience and you are likely to get plenty of feedback, not all of it positive it has to be said. Which is why I was intrigued by the recent announcement made by the Conveyancing Association, the trade body for conveyancing firms, about the conveyancing process and what needs to be done to ensure it is fit for purpose.
Many of our own panel solicitor firms are members of the CA and I think there is a general acceptance that in terms of the delays and obstacles that can be found during a case, there are plenty that need never actually arise. One of the major problems with conveyancing, as we have always stressed, is that we still have a situation where a huge number of firms undertake only a very small number of transactions. This means that this type of work tends not to be an everyday occurrence and their ability to cope and to be up to date with changes and carrying out the relevant checks, is not always there.
In an attempt to get round this, we continually urge advisers to ensure their clients are using the specialist conveyancers; the volume operators who can work on behalf of all lenders (a point often overlooked) and have the resources and experience to be able to complete that case quickly. Having said this, what happens if the other party in the transaction is not using one of these firms? Unfortunately, in conveyancing all parties tend to have to work at the pace of the slowest conveyancer which in a long property chain can mean the process taking many, many months rather than the 8-12 weeks it should take.
Jumping over this hurdle is easier said than done, and here is perhaps where the bulk of client complaints are generated. While the bigger firms operate case tracking system which can be accessed by both the broker and their client to see where they are with the case, the smaller firms will not do this. Neither are they likely to be committed to communicating with all stakeholders (estate agent, etc) on a regular basis to give a ‘running commentary’ on the case. We know only too well that it is a breakdown in communication which is likely to cause the most stress and this is when frustration kicks in and complaints are generated. Again, persuading clients not to use firms where this sort of ‘service’ is provided will be half of the battle.
What will also help going forward it a cross-market commitment to tackling the inherent delays that exist within the process. Standardisation of documentation across all lenders would be a big leap forward in that regard, indeed it should help cut out the question and issue-raising which can throw a spanner in the conveyancing works. In that regard, it is also positive that the CA is working with lenders in order to improve services standards and have a much more collaborative approach. Again it comes back to communication and not the old somewhat combative ways that have often existed.
This already feels like a pivotal year for the conveyancing market, not just in terms of the process itself and bringing it more up to date, but achieving a level of service that improves tangibly across all market players. Certainly, our panel firms are absolutely committed to delivering on this and, to that end, advisers who are actively recommending conveyancing firms to their clients, perhaps need to look no further than these resource-heavy, committed businesses.
