Countrywide Conveyancing/HSBC - avoid like the plague if you want to complete

simcfc73

We have a 3 week old baby and are living in a house full of boxes. The moving date has been set for over a month now and all the monies have been transferred to our solicitor to buy our house. Unfortunately the people buying our house are using HSBC so today.. on the moving date that eveyone knew about... Countrywide decided they needed a bank statement from our purchasers... ON THE MOVING DATE !!!!!!.
So the day passed and we have no idea if we will be moving tommorow.
So here is what we will do, we will phone our solicitor and instruct them that we need to get this sorted tommorow. Then we will phone her solicitor and tell them we need to complete tommorow. Then we will phone Countrywide on every phone we have and pester them all day.
I haven't booked a van for tommorow but it shouldn't be an issue but we need to move, our solicitor has our money from the bank.
I have never been so annoyed at someone in my life, how can a professional company be so incompetent.... oh and the rest of them aren't much better... when they say they will phone you back they should phone you back.

hotpot1000

Im really sorry for you simcfc
my buyer had countryidiots and my move date was set twice and then they wouldnt speak to us throughout so the dates passed and we did move on the 3rd date set.
It shouldnt be allowed & we should have a better system to protect us

jonas123

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/16/hsbc-ditches-controversial-conveyancing-panel?newsfeed=true

thank god! :beer:

Yorkie1

jonas123 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/16/hsbc-ditches-controversial-conveyancing-panel?newsfeed=true

thank god! :beer:

Did you miss the 2 previous posts on this from 5 days ago? :A

jonas123

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Did you miss the 2 previous posts on this from 5 days ago? :A

Evidently

Proxy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012...?newsfeed=true

sorry, had to do it

af2909_2

They are absolutely useless, they are near on uncontactable and if it wasnt for my conveyancer we would have missed the SDLT relief

AdamS_CivilServant

Hi all,
I posted on this forum several months ago, when we were looking for a house. We have now completed, and actually had an excellent experience using one of HSBC's panel firms, so thought I would post, even though I know the process has recently changed.
We made an offer in mid-April, which was accepted by the vendor immediately. We are first time buyers, living in London, and it was a simple purchase (the vendors had no chain either). We went to HSBC for our mortgage since they offer the best rates. We had read on this forum about the nightmare experiences that people have with CW, and so asked to use one of the panel solicitors. We were allocated a solicitor in London, but had not heard of them, and weren't too impressed by their website etc. So we asked to be instructed by first property lawyers (who we knew were also on the panel) and this was accepted without hassle. FPL are an online solicitor, which was really useful at times (nearly everything done by scanning/emailing, which saves loads of time). Their customer relations aren't perfect (our solicitor wasn't the most charming of ladies) but we went from offer to exchange within 24 working days (which I understand is pretty damn fast). Everything was pretty smooth, and we didn't have to deal with CW.

Now that the rules have changed, if one chooses a solicitor that is not on the panel (i.e. a CQS member but one not on the panel), should it be an easy process like we had? Or will it still go through CW (with the nightmare stories like on this forum), with the only difference being that the £160 plus VAT charge is now waivered? (and it will remain that only the panel firms don't need to work with CW). I'm not 100% sure from the Guardian article, although it sounds like the former. I note that the HSBC mortgage website hasn't been updated, and still talks about panel firms or £160 + VAT for a non-panel solicitor.

Yorkie1

adamshlong wrote: »

Now that the rules have changed, if one chooses a solicitor that is not on the panel (i.e. a CQS member but one not on the panel), should it be an easy process like we had? Or will it still go through CW (with the nightmare stories like on this forum), with the only difference being that the £160 plus VAT charge is now waivered? (and it will remain that only the panel firms don't need to work with CW). I'm not 100% sure from the Guardian article, although it sounds like the former. I note that the HSBC mortgage website hasn't been updated, and still talks about panel firms or £160 + VAT for a non-panel solicitor.

The rules haven't changed as far as HSBC is concerned. All that has changed is that the number of firms on its panel will increase from 43 to the c.1500 firms with the Law Society CQS accreditation (with another 500 or so applications to gain accreditation in process). All CQS firms will be on the panel.

So if you don't instruct one of the 2000 or so firms, then yes HSBC will still instruct another firm to act on its behalf and I've seen nothing yet to indicate it wouldn't be HSBC, nor that the charge would be removed for the separate representation.

Richard_Webster

The rules haven't changed as far as HSBC is concerned. All that has changed is that the number of firms on its panel will increase from 43 to the c.1500 firms with the Law Society CQS accreditation (with another 500 or so applications to gain accreditation in process). All CQS firms will be on the panel.

This change isn't going to be effective until August. I'm hoping I get my accreditation under CQS by then!