Seller doesn't have a solicitor

chappers

G_M wrote: »

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.

Yes they can and they do, solicitors do this all the time, not just in conveyancing.

For example verified copies of documents, your solicitor doesn't have to actually see the original as the other party's solicitor swears that it is a true copy.
If the other solicitor is found to be derelict in his duty or lied then there is a set procedure to follow for recompense, together with recourse through his indemnity insurance.
Whilst you still have the same recourse with a layperson the procedure is not only more tortuous but there is also the risk that you would never see any recompense awarded to you.

Since we last argued on this point I have spoken about it with lawyer members of my wife's family and they all agreed that dealing with a layperson creates more work, maybe not in a send me those documents , thankyou, kind of transaction, but when questions need answering a layperson may not be aware of the legal implications of their response. Also at best the process is usually slower.

kingstreet

G_M wrote: »

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 mortgage post-Completion.

Yep. My point, made eloquently.

G_M

Obviously in acting for yourself you need to understand the legal implications of a response- that goes without saying! If you don't, then don't DIY!

I's a bit like saying when doing your own car maintenance you need to understand the mechanical implications of worn brake shoes!

I find the speed of the conveyance is held up by the other solicitor, not me.

I am dealing with one conveyance. When I receive a letter/document/query, I deal with it same day. Maybe add 24 hours if I need to check, read up, research first.

The other side's solicitor has 10? 20? conveyances on the go. When he receives something from me, it goes on his 'to do' pile and is dealt with ..... in due course.

But I think we'll have toagree to disagree - there are clearly those who think DIY conveyancing is risky, troublesome, beyond the capabilities of any non-solicitor/conveyancer, and those who think that some lay people are capable.

I acknowledge there are probobly some in a middle camp who beleive they are capable when in fact they are not.

Thrugelmir

testpilot4321 wrote: »

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!

Straight sale transaction doesn't incur a huge fee.

DIY for purchase without a mortgage is understandable.

As others have pointed out. Who holds the deposit monies paid on exchange?

Buyer will incur additional costs as well.

DominicJ_2

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 was my thought, except you had the specifics.

Not only that, the estate agent works for the seller.
The solicitors act on their behalf, he'd slap you if you said he worked for you. There is simply too much money flying around for me to trust someone directly. Sure, solicitors could do a bunk with your money, but its not as likely as the seller doing it.

Thrugelmir

DominicJ wrote: »

Sure, solicitors could do a bunk with your money, but its not as likely as the seller doing it.

Solicitors will have professional indemnity insurance.

astopy

G_M wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure if he does or not.

It sounds like I might just be better off backing out if he doesn't get a solicitor. If he's competent then there might not be any problem, but I don't really have any way to know if he actually knows what he's doing.

I guess I'll take one more shot at getting him to hire a solicitor, then it's back to rightmove for me if not.

pjread

spoke to my mate, he said it wouldn't necessarily put him off acting, just need a bit of delicate handling around transfers etc.... doesn't sound completely unheard of or off the wall.

ValHaller

G_M wrote: »

.... 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 mortgage post Completion.

I don't see that this has to be a big deal. The buyer could effectively buy the property with seller's mortgage security in place and buyer's solicitor clears this with buyer's mortgage and deposit - effectively the same process as a remortgage.

Whether or not solicitors would actually do this, I don't know. Needs Richard Webster or someone else in the know to answer this.

chappers

yep don't see why the buyers solicitor couldn't make an undertaking to pay off the vendors mortgage