Top

Buying a house? Solicitor costs may be set to rise

Scotland could soon ban one solicitor acting for both the lender and the buyer in a property transaction, but it’s still the norm in the England and Wales.

The Law Society of Scotland recently voted that separate solicitors should act for the purchaser and the lender in property purchases – and this could become compulsory in the next six months.

Up to now the same solicitor has been able to act for both parties, and this is currently the case in England and Wales.

The decision to ban this ‘joint representation’ in Scotland is a controversial one, because there are strong reasons for and against using one solicitor to manage the whole conveyancing process on behalf of the lender and the buyer.

The case for separate representation

The Law Society of Scotland and many solicitors believe that separate representation, where one solicitor acts for the purchaser and another for the lender, is the fairest for both parties. Here’s why:

  • It avoids any conflicts of interest between the purchaser and the lender, meaning the solicitor is extremely clear whose interests they are representing, and less swayed by commercial pressures from one party.
  • There are now more complex purchase cases than in the past and these may require one solicitor concentrating their attention on the needs of just one party.
  • Lenders currently have great power over solicitors because they decide which firms they will allow to act for them. Under joint representation buyers cannot always use the solicitor they want, if it is not acceptable to the lender. Under separate representation the borrower’s interest is better protected, as they can choose whoever they want to represent them and are not restricted to using their lender’s preferred solicitor.
  • An increased risk of mortgage fraud in recent years makes it more prudent to have a different solicitor acting in the interests of the lender and the purchaser.

In favour of joint representation

However the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), which represents lenders across the UK, has condemned the move in Scotland, saying it will increase costs to consumers. Critics of separate representation argue that joint representation currently works well, and that there are only a few cases where separate representation is necessary:

  • Currently the purchaser pays the solicitor’s fees and the same solicitor usually acts for the lender, minimising the overall costs. In cases of separate representation the purchaser has to pay for the lender’s and their own legal costs, potentially doubling the fees. However the Law Society in Scotland argues that market forces will reduce costs and argue it is up to the lender if they want to pass their costs onto borrowers (though it seems a pretty fair bet that they will!)
  • The CML argues that this is a protectionist measure by the legal profession at a time when their profits, and business volumes, are reducing. Whatever you think about whether separate representation is better for consumers, it is certainly being welcomed with open arms by many Scottish solicitors.
  • At a time when a huge amount of investment is being made into kick-starting the mortgage and housing markets it might seem strange to increase homebuying costs in such a potentially significant way.
  • A solicitor acting under joint representation can ensure a smooth transaction as they are dealing with the entire purchase process. There is less to-ing and fro-ing. Separate representation could add delays to the purchase process, which isn’t going to help a stuttering housing market.

If separate representation soon becomes a legal requirement for buyers north of the border, there are clearly concerns that this could eventually become compulsory in England and Wales too.

Double legal costs for all?

It is unlikely that separate representation will become the norm in England and Wales, at least not in the near future. The CML – and the lenders it represents – are against the idea and view joint representation as the preferred option.

However, there has been a clear increase in separate representation transactions and this is expected to continue.

This is due primarily to the fact that lenders have culled their solicitor panels – that is the number of firms they are willing to allow to act for them.

Before the credit crunch it was no exaggeration to say that pretty much any solicitor firm could get onto a lender’s panel. But now they are forced to look a lot more closely at who they do business with. Frankly, it is easier for lenders to manage a small panel of solicitors that they can keep a close eye on, than to deal with thousands of small high street law firms.

As a result, solicitors are increasingly being kicked off lenders’ panels, and unable to act for them. If their clients still really want to use them, it will have to be on a separate representation basis.

In the vast majority of cases, buyers do not have strong feelings about which solicitor they use, as long as they do the job properly within an affordable budget. Plus, the interests of the buyer and the lender are usually aligned, so there is arguably no conflict of interest for one solicitor, approved by both parties, to do the whole job.

Finally, legal property work in England and Wales is also undertaken by licensed conveyancers, yet they don’t fall under the catchment of the Law Society, or the Solicitors Regulation Authority. If solicitors were banned from undertaking joint representation, licensed conveyancers would still be able to do it, and this would create an uneven playing field. The nature of the different system makes the change more unlikely in England and Wales, for now.

However, there are plenty of people who believe that separate representation is a better way of looking after consumers’ best interests, so it will certainly be interesting to see how it pans out in Scotland.

What do you think? Do you prefer to go for separate representation? Let us know your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below.

More on buying and selling property:

Last-time buyers: top tips for the over-50s buying their final home

The questions you must ask before you buy a house

What type of home survey do you need?

Dealing with estate agents

What's your property worth?

How to beat Stamp Duty

What to do when a home survey goes wrong

Most Recent


Comments



  • 06 April 2013

    This article is definitely about a solicitor acting for you and YOUR lender, and not a third party selling a house. I still favour working with a solicitor who also represents the buyer's interest, such as a panel solicitor. One reason for this was my last sale, which had to be conducted within seven weeks (although it finally took a little longer). The less chains in the link, the quicker things move. Remember that solicitors are notorious for dragging their feet when conveyancing, so having as few as possible is beneficial. Solicitors have been known to apply the brakes on a house sale purely to prove their point that THEY are in charge, and not us. Imagine everyone in a chain having to use two solicitors for their house purchase. Forget about an average of twelve weeks turnaround, because you could probably double or triple that figure. My own conveyancer, when it was time to go to exchange, had already drawn the money from the lender, ready for completion, yet if she was working with another solicitor representing the interests of the lender, would have been at their mercy. The ability of a single conveyancer to control a greater proportion of the buying process makes the system simpler. Add in another layer, and watch the system slow down. Now imagine a scenario where several parties are ready to go to completion, but a solicitor acting for a lender hasn't drawn the funds yet. What happens when the money transfer hits a brick wall? Who is to blame? The solicitor acting for the buyer or the solicitor acting for the lender. Both will have their excuses as to why funds weren't available, and it will cost the buyer to take this matter to a court of law. The old saying is that if it works, don't try to fix it. The system works, albeit rather slowly, so why make it more complicated, rather than simpler? Besides, as several have already commented, both the buyer and the lender are on the same side. If there is an issue with the purchase, they can both blame the same solicitor for failing to spot this during the searches etc.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 04 April 2013

    To be fair, the first line does say [b]Scotland could soon ban one solicitor acting for both the lender and the buyer ......[/b] or was that added in the last 3 hours?

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 04 April 2013

    @overtone, I think you have the wrong idea here. It isn't joint representation for the buyer and seller, it is joint representation for the buyer and mortgage provider. In this case it in the interest of both parties to find out everything about a property to check that it isn't going to be a dud. This could have been made clearer in the article though because it was only when I got half way down and they started talking about mortgage provider solicitor panels that I realised it wasn't buyer and seller. Generally in England one solicitor cannot act for both the seller and the buyer in a transaction. However, one law firm (not individual solicitor) can act for both buyer and seller if atleast one party doesn't have a mortgage.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.