Do solicitors make commission from insurance they sell?

Richard_Webster

That's done, though, and my objection is being compelled to take out the insurance in the absence of any indication that the lender requires it.

A lender is not going to spell out in a formal mortgage offer all the myriad of things that it wants its solicitor to check. For example, the property could be the subject of unknown covenants dating back to 1886 and he might say that there was no way they were ever going to be enforced so if his seller refused to pay for an indemnity policy he would say that he didn't see why he should because the lender hadn't said so. There are lots of other things that could come up.

My complaint is with lenders for not really thinking through the issue and saying in clear terms whether they are concerned about it. Most major lenders are not concerned about Enviromental Search "failures" yet, although the risks there are usally very small, they are probably higher than the Chancel Repair Risk where it does seem they are concerned.

In this case his solicitors should have asked the seller to pay for the indemnity insurance. They do often refuse. If a buyer's solicitor asks me to recommend my client pays £120 for a policy I tlel them they cna have my block cover for £10 and if they don't like it, tough.

I do think Ijrwre has a legitimate complaint as to why his solicitors bother spending £10-£20 on a search and then require more expensive insurance, when they could get insurance more cheaply and not bother with the search at all.

Quote:
The thing that annoys me the most about chancel liability is that it is hardly in the "christian spirit" that the church preaches about is it
Yes it's been terrible PR for the Church. Of course in reality only that one case actually occurred in modern times (and in very special circumstances) and nothing since. The Church even wanted the whole thing dismantled some time ago because other sources of funding are being denied to them while it remains a possibility.

It is a PR disaster for the Church, whio should have campaigned for outright abolition rather than the half-baked result of the 2002 Land Registration Act in this connection.

On this separate point if they can't raise the money a Church is probably better to meet in the local pub or school, or if they can afford it, buy a warehouse somewhere, and leave English heritage to worry about a medieval building which is nothing to do with Christianity - my eldest daughter was married in a warehouse in Sheffield - there are wedding photos where you can see the roll-down doors in the background!

ijrwe

I just got off the phone with the lender and after escalating it three levels we still had found no one who had heard of CRL. They went off to speak to their legal team and came back to say, as mentioned here before, that they will basically do whatever the solicitor tells them.

So here we have the situation that the lender, in the absence of any recommendation from the solicitor, doesn't care about CRL insurance. And the solicitor, in the absense of any clarification from the lender, assumes they do care. And that in turn makes the lender want it.

How utterly absurd.



the lady on the phone even gave me the whole "ye but wot if da church roof falls in?!" thing. How !!!!ing stupid are these people? I need to get into the insurance business, unlimited money to be made on anything.

zzzLazyDaisy

Oh well, never mind, at least you can have a long conversation with your solicitor about how you are right and he is wrong. Your solicitor will bill you for that time. So you have probably spent more than £50 arguing the toss. Having said that, I am sure it is the principle of the thing that matters. And of course your solicitor can always cease acting for you (and the lender) on the grounds that the essential relationship of trust and confidence between solicitor and client has broken down. But you will have proved your point.

Good luck!

ijrwe

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Oh well, never mind, at least you can have a long conversation with your solicitor about how you are right and he is wrong. Your solicitor will bill you for that time. So you have probably spent more than £50 arguing the toss. Having said that, I am sure it is the principle of the thing that matters.

My final invoice and completion statement has no such quantity so far so I doubt any will be forthcoming. It would be an interesting way to do things, though - insert obvious problems and issues in their work so that the client has to challenge them, then charge them for the extra time.

"Pay me £50 now, or I'll charge you more than that for explaining why :money:"

And of course your solicitor can always cease acting for you (and the lender) on the grounds that the essential relationship of trust and confidence between solicitor and client has broken down.

Can you explain this part?

Good luck!

Thank you.

zzzLazyDaisy

ijrwe wrote: »

Can you explain this part?



Thank you.

The law society rules require that a solicitor must cease to act for a client, if it becomes apparent that the client no longer has trust and confidence in the solicitor.

ijrwe

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The law society rules require that a solicitor must cease to act for a client, if it becomes apparent that the client no longer has trust and confidence in the solicitor.

Since when has anyone had trust or confidence in any solicitor? :rotfl:

"no offence"

Thrugelmir

Richard_Webster wrote: »

My complaint is with lenders for not really thinking through the issue and saying in clear terms whether they are concerned about it. Most major lenders are not concerned about Enviromental Search "failures" yet, although the risks there are usally very small, they are probably higher than the Chancel Repair Risk where it does seem they are concerned.

A question for you Richard. If a client was to subsequently incur a liability. Could there be a comeback on a solicitor if the indemnity insurance was not recommended?

ijrwe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A question for you Richard. If a client was to subsequently incur a liability. Could there be a comeback on a solicitor if the indemnity insurance was not recommended?

For Richard to answer I'd like to expand "recommended" to mean:

a) recommended, but not insisted upon (many kinds of insurance and further checks were recommended to me, but I was able to decline them)

and, separately

b) insisted upon, the solicitor not proceeding without it

Yorkie1

ijrwe wrote: »

Since when has anyone had trust or confidence in any solicitor? :rotfl:

"no offence"

Frankly I think this whole thread has been showing offensiveness to your conveyancer.

You've accused him/her of profiteering and deliberate inflation of a bill so far.

ijrwe

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Frankly I think this whole thread has been showing offensiveness to your conveyancer.

They're too busy to answer my emails half the time so probably don't have time to read forums.

You've accused him/her of profiteering and deliberate inflation of a bill so far.

I already edited my first post to summarise my findings so far to newcomers to the thread and as you can see I don't now think that direct commission is very relevant in this case.