Do First Direct use Countrywide Conveyancing like HSBC

SuzieSue

I am helping a (extremely credit worthy) friend to choose a mortgage and the best rates are from First Direct and HSBC.

I am not going to recommend HSBC because of the recent threads on here about the problems with Countrywide Conveyancing, but do First Direct have the same issues?

Thanks

G_M

What is your logic?

Tell your friend to choose a mortgage based on the best mortgage product available, and then choose a conveyancer based on.... the best conveyancer available.

SuzieSue

G_M wrote: »

What is your logic?

Tell your friend to choose a mortgage based on the best mortgage product available, and then choose a conveyancer based on.... the best conveyancer available.

There have been a few threads on here about HSBC such as this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3840017

I just want to know if First Direct have the same problem.

DVardysShadow

G_M wrote: »

... Tell your friend to choose a mortgage based on the best mortgage product available, and then choose a conveyancer based on.... the best conveyancer available.

I think the question is more about what you do if the lender with the best deal insists you use the conveyancer with the worst reputation. Of course, being made to use Countrywide would be enough for me to reject any mortgage lender.

casper_g

I wouldn't use Countrywide. Fortunately I don't think First Direct has this requirement. Give them a call and ask - I'm sure they'll be happy to advise.

G_M

I know of no lender, including HSBC, who 'appoint' solicitors unles asked o do so by the borrower. They have a panel. The borrower/purchaser can appoint whichever conveyancer they wish provided they are on the panel.

So - appoint your own conveyancer but ensure they are on HSBC's panel.

The thread you link to? I seriously question whether HSBC appointed Countrywide.

and our purchasers mortage provider, HSBC, for reasons known only to them, have appointed Countrywide Conveyancing

The seller would not know whether CC were appointed by the buyer or their lender. But if CC were acting for the buyer and his lender (for whatever reason) then the seller would have no option but to deal with this.

That is not the same as saying every HSBC (or Direct Line) borrower must choose to use CC.

SuzieSue

G_M wrote: »

I

The thread you link to? I seriously question whether HSBC appointed Countrywide.

I have looked on their website and if you don't use CC, then HSBC charge an extra £160.

DVardysShadow

G_M wrote: »

I know of no lender, including HSBC, who 'appoint' solicitors unles asked o do so by the borrower. They have a panel. The borrower/purchaser can appoint whichever conveyancer they wish provided they are on the panel.

So - appoint your own conveyancer but ensure they are on HSBC's panel.

The thread you link to? I seriously question whether HSBC appointed Countrywide.
The seller would not know whether CC were appointed by the buyer or their lender. But if CC were acting for the buyer and his lender (for whatever reason) then the seller would have no option but to deal with this.

That is not the same as saying every HSBC (or Direct Line) borrower must choose to use CC.

There is more to it. As I understand it, HSBC have appointed CC to oversee conveyancing. While you are free to choose your own solicitor, even if they are on HSBC's panel, CC will still oversee the purchase on behalf of HSBC. I don't know what the significance is of being on HSBC's panel - except possibly that these solicitors may not charge for submission of documents to CC. If you choose your own solicitor, you end up paying CC for their work on behalf of HSBC and you pay your own solicitor extra for preparing papers for CC.

As seller, I would go straight back to market if I knew CC were involved, having dealt with them once as my seller's solicitor. I can't help thinking that they will inadequately prioritise mortgage supervision where the seller chooses another solicitor.

I can see a lot of sense in lenders specifying exactly which solicitor they will use - an analysis has probably flagged up lack of diligence by the buyer's choice of solicitor as a factor in poorly performing parts of their mortgage portfolio. However, it raises some serious competition issues and puts far too much power in the hands of CC [and their ilk if other lenders follow suit], to the detriment of people like Richard Webster and timmy. And ultimately to the detriment of everyone if our only choice is CC and 1 or 2 other conveyancing factories.

In the long run, I feel that if lenders do specify their own solicitor, then this solicitor should not be permitted to offer to act for the buyer.

G_M

Yes.... and no.

you can choose your own solicitor or conveyancer to represent you. If you do, we will use a firm from our panel to represent HSBC. This will cost £160 + VAT, which you will have to pay in addition to your own solicitors fees.

In this situation, your chosen solicitor is representing only you (to do the conveyancing) and therefore will not charge you to also represent HSBC (to set up the mortgage) - thus saving you, perhaps £160?

HSBC appoints whoever they wish to represent themselves, and passes that fee (£160) on to the borrower - you.

So you end up paying (more or less) the same either way.

However - I take your point. It appears HSBC do insist on being represented by CC, so CC will be involved, although as I said earlier they do not/cannot insist that you are also represented by CC.

Richard_Webster

I contacted First Direct and put the point to them and they said that (as a sole practitioner) they would appoint me to act for them if I was also acting for the borrower, providing the loan was no more than £349,999!

A larger firm would not have the issues with the size of loan (which in any event in my area is rarely a problem for me). Therefore for all practical purposes there will be few conveyancing solicitors who cannot act for First Direct - which makes HSBC's decision all the more stupid!

SuzieSue

Richard_Webster wrote: »

I contacted First Direct and put the point to them and they said that (as a sole practitioner) they would appoint me to act for them if I was also acting for the borrower, providing the loan was no more than £349,999!

A larger firm would not have the issues with the size of loan (which in any event in my area is rarely a problem for me). Therefore for all practical purposes there will be few conveyancing solicitors who cannot act for First Direct - which makes HSBC's decision all the more stupid!

Many thanks.