Seller doesn't have a solicitor

astopy

I'm buying a property (offer accepted, valuation done, just about to start searches, etc.), and I've just been informed by my solicitor that the seller is acting in person instead of hiring their own solicitor. Apparently this is a big problem for my solicitor, as they are refusing to deal with the seller directly, claiming that it would be dangerous for them (and me) for them to do so.

Has anyone dealt with this kind of situation before? The estate agent says the seller is experienced at selling property and simply doesn't need a solicitor, but my solicitor says this is very unusual and they've never dealt directly with a seller.

The way I see it I have two options, either find a new solicitor or find a new property. I'd prefer to continue with the purchase of this property, but not if there is actually a greater risk if I do so (as opposed to my solicitor just being paranoid).

pjread

actually I would have thought it was more dangerous for the seller than the buyer.

Surely your solicitors kung-fu is stronger, so you should get everything your way and maybe he can get the silly seller to break the chain of indemnity through the seller's ignorance... (or maybe I'm just an a**hole )

G_M

Find a new solicitor.

But then I am biased as I often act for myself.

There is no reason why an individual who is competant needs a solicitor.

Just as there is no need to use a garage if you are competant at car maintenance (I'm not - we all have different skill-sets).

Your solicitor should just get on and do his job in the normalway.

Either instruct him to do so, or find a new one.

starbarboy

Buyers and sellers can conduct their own conveyancing however unfortunately for you if your solicitor is not willing to deal with them that is their choice.

Your only options if your current solicitor will not reconsider is to appoint a solicitor at your side who is willing to deal directly with the vendor or ask the vendor to appoint a solicitor of their own - they may agree if they think it will lose them the sale.

Best wishes

Stephen

maninthestreet

Dangerous? In the same way a loaded gun is dangerous?

pjread

Actually a good friend of mine is a partner at a conveyancing firm, I'll ask him if he'd be worried, since it is quite interesting to me that your solicitor said that...

martinsurrey

maninthestreet wrote: »

Dangerous? In the same way a loaded gun is dangerous?

And how will the exchange deposit work?

These normally go to the vendor’s solicitor who holds them in a client account until completion. These client accounts are regulated and covered by the firms insurance.

The vendor wont, I assume, have client bank accounts set up, won’t have insurance, and if he gets declared bankrupt before exchange and completion, it would be one mighty mess!

Kayalana99

Tell him he needs a solictor or your backing out...I am not 100% sure but I've heard things that if one side doesnt have one the solictor costs your side go up as they have to do alot extra work to compensate...not sure if this works both ways though.

He'll probally come round and get a solictor

testpilot4321

I have heard of this happening before and successfully. I have to say I can't blame him for trying to avoid the often huge fees charged by solicitors for doing what is often very little work very slowly!

I am currently purchasing a property and all my problems and delays have been down to solicitors not doing their job properly and I have in fact done most of my solicitors work for her. There will be a review of her charges when the bill needs settling.

chappers

martinsurrey wrote: »

And how will the exchange deposit work?

These normally go to the vendor’s solicitor who holds them in a client account until completion. These client accounts are regulated and covered by the firms insurance.

The vendor wont, I assume, have client bank accounts set up, won’t have insurance, and if he gets declared bankrupt before exchange and completion, it would be one mighty mess!

That is a good point, but i think that could be sorted by it being held in trust by the buyers solicitor.
The biggest problem I see for the buyer is as Kayalana says, the buyers solicitor will have to do more work as they will have to verify all the documents and information sent to them. They can do this on trust from another solicitor, but have a duty to you as their client and to your lender to carry out the transaction under due diligence.

G_M

chappers wrote: »

.....l have to do more work as they will have to verify all the documents and information sent to them. They can do this on trust from another solicitor, but have a duty to you as their client and to your lender to carry out the transaction under due diligence.

Due diligence. Indeed.

they have "to verify all the documents and information sent to them." whether from the seller or the seller's solicitor!

They can NOT " do this on trust from another solicitor". Indeed, that's why you are paying them! To 'verify' everything, whoever happens to send it to them.

The alternative is to dispense with your own solicitor and verify everything yourself- ie DIY.

One key question: you do not say if the seller currently has a mortgage on the property? If he does, then he does have a problem. The mortgage will need to be paid off before Completion (ie before the seller receives the purchase funds). This is because he will not be able to rely on solicitors' "undertakings" to pay off the mortgagepost Completion.