Lenders preferred Solicitors

luckyfool

Small volume = not doing enough business to be fully au fait with that lenders processes and practices.

The fraud risk comes with sole practitioners or potentially smaller practices where a partner has freedom from supervision and can potentially be able to put through fraudulent/bogus transactions to assist a client + broker + surveyor to defraud a mortgage lender.

In terms of low volumes, there's also the consideration that a solicitor with very low conveyancing volumes might be financially struggling and more desparate for income/willing to bend the rules.

Finally, lenders basically do not want the hassle of having to deal with a huge panel of solicitors, including firms that dealt with a case for them 4 years ago. There is some work involved in managing and supervising a solicitor panel, and some lenders have taken the view that they can safely cut their's in size dramatically (allowing them to increase monitoring on the remaining firms) while still keeping on panel the firms that deal with 99% of their cases.

jpbamford

luckyfool wrote: »

Small volume = not doing enough business to be fully au fait with that lenders processes and practices.

So basically I have topay for the lender to be looked after at the expense of my needs, or pay double.

luckyfool wrote: »

The fraud risk comes with sole practitioners or potentially smaller practices where a partner has freedom from supervision and can potentially be able to put through fraudulent/bogus transactions to assist a client + broker + surveyor to defraud a mortgage lender.

There is always someone in any firm that is free from supervision, especially for simple conveyancing tasks. Firms of conveyancers do not have to use qualified solicitors either, so there is no ethical code of conduct required.

luckyfool wrote: »

In terms of low volumes, there's also the consideration that a solicitor with very low conveyancing volumes might be financially struggling and more desparate for income/willing to bend the rules.

What's more, the majority of small local firms of solicitors rely on a range of different types of legal work for their income, so a down turn in the housing market is much more likely to affect a firm of conveyancers than a solicitors - surely that's a bigger fraud risk.

luckyfool wrote: »

Finally, lenders basically do not want the hassle of having to deal with a huge panel of solicitors, including firms that dealt with a case for them 4 years ago. There is some work involved in managing and supervising a solicitor panel, and some lenders have taken the view that they can safely cut their's in size dramatically (allowing them to increase monitoring on the remaining firms) while still keeping on panel the firms that deal with 99% of their cases.

I think that there is a big distinction that needs to be made here, and that the lenders, perhaps, have not grasped. When I re-mortgaged some years ago, I simply used the lenders firm of conveyances - it was very straight forward and I'm sure that the interest of the lender were fully looked after. When I move house, on the other hand, I'm going to live there, for some time, and I want my solicitor to make very sure that my interests are looked after too.
I still maintain it is not fair, and restricts my freedom of choice without any benefit except to save the lenders money to my detriment.