Would you use a solicitor or a conveyancer?

Milky_Mocha

What is the difference between a solicitor and a conveyancer when it comes to house purchases? Is one generally more skilled than the other?

brazilianwax

Milky_Mocha wrote:

What is the difference between a solicitor and a conveyancer when it comes to house purchases? Is one generally more skilled than the other?

Conveyancers are solicitors - they are the ones that weren't/aren't good enough to practice any other kind of law!

If you can, ask people for reccommendations - there are so many bl00dy awful conveyancing solicitors it's not worth taking the risk (IMHO)

Claire

(Edited to say - other kinds of solicitors don't usually do conveyancing)

Madjock

Conveyancers aren't strictly speaking solicitors, and they aren't governed by the Law Society, they are governed by the CLC. Some lenders won't allow you to use a conveyancing co. Other than that, there's no difference.
And there are bloody awful solicitors out there too.
It's not really fair to say conveyancers aren't good enough to practice any other law, they haven't qualified for it, they've trained as conveyancers. And it's not true to say that other solicitors don't do conveyancing. It's standard practice for solicitors to do conveyancing, among all the other areas of law they cover!

Me_Myself_2

Let's make this clear.

A qualified solicitor can practise in any area of the law s/he chooses. Some may choose to be property specialists, which does not mean they are not clever enough to do other legal things, they CHOOSE not to.

A conveyancer, is someone who has passed exams in dealing with property, which are far easier to pass, as they do not cover any other area of law.

dexters_mum_2

I wouldn't mind either a qualified conveyancer or a solicitor. I'd be happy with anyone who was competant in thier field and could adequately deal with my case. I've used a solicitor and a convceyancer before (who was a leagl secretary who had passed her conveyancey exams) and the conveyancer was the better of the two, mind you, the solicitor we choose first off got struck off a year later!
Conveyancers may be cheaper than solicitors, if cost are an issue for you.

Daisies

I bought my first house six months ago, and didn't know what to do about getting the conveyancing done. In the end I rang three solicitors listed in the phone book (I think 2 were local companies, one a national with a branch here) and made my decision based on the quote they provided, plus how efficient they seemed on the phone and the information they supplied with the quote. One was the clear winner in my view - slightly more expensive, but asked sensible questions on the phone, rang back when they said they would, sent quote through promptly and provided a really useful information folder with the quote. They were a local firm, who had a conveyancer on their staff, and she was the one who dealt with my house. She was excellent, knew what she was doing inside-out and had already conveyanced half the houses on my street (some of them more than once!).

So, I don't think it matters whether conveyancer or solicitor (in some ways they're the same!) but definitely a conveyancer does an awful lot of this stuff and should really know what they're doing!

It wasn't an option for me, as I was moving to a new area and didn't know anyone already living here, but ask around for people who've moved recently, who they used and what they thought about them!

TJ27

I used a conveyancer last time I bought and she was absolutely superb. My guess is that they are better at their job than solicitors because they don't do other stuff. I would think that they might therefore be regarded as more specialist. I'm no expert though, that's just hypothesis based on common sense and experience.

Milky_Mocha

Thanks for your replies so far. I just wondered because the conveyancer we initially instructed was below expectations and the solicitor we subsequently instructed was charging twice as much but I don't know yet whether the service will be twice as good. The solicitor is charging £720 for a sale (all in) whereas the conveyancer was charging approx £380, although after reading your posts that probably did not include disbursements.

Another question: what are the benefits of using the same solicitor for the sale and the purchase? I would think it should be quicker as there'd be no need for correspondence between the two to update on progress but has anyone done this and found it to be beneficial?

welshcakes

I don't think the two parties can use the same firm - a conflict of interests.

DavidHM

Definitely a conflict of interest if both parties use the same solicitor, because if anything came up in searches (like subsidence or that the property was prone to flooding, etc.) he'd have to do his best for both parties - which could mean advising one to delay or pull out of the purchase, which wouldn't be in the best interests of the other. Clearly that can't be allowed to happen.

As for whether to use a solicitor or a conveyancer - conveyancing solicitors should be specialists who do little or nothing else and all their work ought to be concerned with some form of property law if they aren't pure conveyancers. Personally, in terms of there being a regulatory framework and requirements for standards of professional conduct and professional indemnity insurance, I'd feel safer with a solicitor.

Incidentally £720 seems pretty although it depends where you are in the country.

Madjock

don't think that's what Milky means. You can have the same solicitor deal with both your sale and purchase, and it is usually more effective.