HSBC - Approved solicotrs??

betmunch

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Doesn't mean that the business can't be turned around.

Having bought and sold on numerous occasions over the years. I found the quality of the solicitors the other party used to be extremely variable in quality. So selecting Countrywide out for criticism is unfair.

Conveyancing become easy money for solicitors during the boom times. Like other related parties in the property market they need to change their business models.

In all industries there are good and bad firms, in my opinion Countrywide are one of the bad firms.

This opinion has been formed through 3 years of having to refer to them, specific cases they have messed up, reviews written on ciao and here, and discussions with local solicitors. So I am afraid I cant agree that an criticism I send their way is unfair.

It is true that you can turn around a business, however I do not believe that they will, for me this has been demonstrated by a rather half hearted rebranding to Countrywide Conveyancing Services. That says to me that the CPL brand had gone beyond the point it could have been turned around.

The problem with rebranding is that if you do not change the mechanics of the business then the new brand will quickly fall to the same level as the abandoned brand.

I hope things are different for the sake of people forced into using them by HSBC, but I fear I will have plenty of chances to say "I told you so" as the horror stories start coming through.

kingstreet

The "conveyancing warehouse" idea as a whole has a pretty poor reputation, both in the industry and with the legal services consumer in particular.

Saying which, doing things on the cheap with too-few poorly trained staff is an absolute cert in this country.

I put it down to the comparison-site cheapest is best mentality we get stuffed down our throats by meercats, opera singers and cartoon blue-clad dancing fools...

Having a vent tonight. Enjoying it immensely. How the hell did Redknapp get off?

Horizon81

Well thanks to this post and the many phone calls that ensued, I've decided to give HSBC a wide berth as I need to complete quickly and as this is a new initiative (my solicitor hadn't even heard of it and thought they could still represent HSBC!) I can imagine it taking a long time to bed in, if ever it does. My nearest approved solicitor of the 43 was about 40 miles away!

GMS

kingstreet wrote: »

The "conveyancing warehouse" idea as a whole has a pretty poor reputation, both in the industry and with the legal services consumer in particular.

Saying which, doing things on the cheap with too-few poorly trained staff is an absolute cert in this country.

I put it down to the comparison-site cheapest is best mentality we get stuffed down our throats by meercats, opera singers and cartoon blue-clad dancing fools...

Having a vent tonight. Enjoying it immensely. How the hell did Redknapp get off?

Have to agree with your comments on the conveyancing warehouses. I have a case now, using a lender nominated firm. Client has been sent a 'team tree' showing how far off the branches and leaves his case owner is. Roots would be about the position! Nice of them to send him this yet not return his original documents. I have today had to go direct to the lender as the solicitors are making a total mess of everything so I have bypassed them. Unbelievable stuff. You get what you pay for is a very true phrase.

As for Redknapp why did they bother. £8,000,000 cost to the state. They need to go after the evaders who flaunt it, usually whilst sitting in the Lords or government!

Thrugelmir

betmunch wrote: »

In all industries there are good and bad firms, in my opinion Countrywide are one of the bad firms.

This opinion has been formed through 3 years of having to refer to them, specific cases they have messed up, reviews written on ciao and here, and discussions with local solicitors. So I am afraid I cant agree that an criticism I send their way is unfair.

It is true that you can turn around a business, however I do not believe that they will, for me this has been demonstrated by a rather half hearted rebranding to Countrywide Conveyancing Services. That says to me that the CPL brand had gone beyond the point it could have been turned around.

The problem with rebranding is that if you do not change the mechanics of the business then the new brand will quickly fall to the same level as the abandoned brand.

I hope things are different for the sake of people forced into using them by HSBC, but I fear I will have plenty of chances to say "I told you so" as the horror stories start coming through.

Be interesting to know HSBC's experience of solicitors. As of course solicitors represent their interests too.

kingstreet

GMS wrote: »

As for Redknapp why did they bother. £8,000,000 cost to the state. They need to go after the evaders who flaunt it, usually whilst sitting in the Lords or government!

Pour encourager les autres, you might say. There's been a number of the "brown envelope" club in the football world casting a nervous eye in the direction of London this week. They'll be breathing a sigh of relief now.

Thrugelmir

kingstreet wrote: »

They'll be breathing a sigh of relief now.

With the agreements in place with Lichenstein and Switzerland there are fewer havens to hide ones money.

GMS

kingstreet wrote: »

Pour encourager les autres, you might say. There's been a number of the "brown envelope" club in the football world casting a nervous eye in the direction of London this week. They'll be breathing a sigh of relief now.

Ironically they chose not to charge the main recipient of brown envelopes, a certain manager with a liking for alcohol in the town of Robin Hood. He was deemed to be too frail to stand trial.

Precedent is now set. Impossible to prove why any money is paid. Until the revenue close down the loopholes in the law tax will continue to be evaded. No loopholes means no excuses means no evasion. too simplistic an approach but would save throwing 8 million down the swanny each time. I am sure Harry would have settled out of court on day 1 for the cost of the tax he didn't evade.