Lender conveyancing panels

Creaturecomforts

Hi all,

I'm in the process of buying a flat, and I'm having massive problems with the solicitor I had to use because of my lender panel requirement.

There's no chain - I'm a first time buyer, and the seller doesn't live in the flat, and its not leased at the moment. We're both keen to move quickly. I've already got my mortgage offer and the only thing we're waiting for is the legal side but its been dragging.

I'd originally got a really good lawyer from a well known firm to act for me. Unfortunately, I found out the lender had a panel requirement, and the firm I wasn't on it despite the fact that its one of the top property law firms in the country. I looked into a couple of other recommended lawyers but none of these were on the panel, so I just ended up using a random panel firm - big mistake!

I've needed up with a paralegal running the matter who was on holiday for the first week, and since then has been slow and unhelpful. She doesn't update me, doesn't answer the telephone, and it took her over ten days to answer some of my emails (and that was only because my sister kept calling until she reached her, and specifically told her to respond). I've had to double check advice she's given me because it isn't accurate and when I've pointed that out (politely), she doesn't apologise or acknowledge this - generally super defensive and unhelpful. I'm a first time buyer and this is all new to me so I've asked for her to outline steps for me so I know what's happening and when. I've also explained that if this drags on, we may well lose the property - we got the flat at a good price in a great area because the seller though we could and would move fast, but we know other buyers were interested. Her response was to say to be patient and she'd just send me the contract when it was ready - I ended up looking up the process online and setting out the next steps as I understood them to her (including the basic fact that I'm supposed to see the searches, info on the flat and the draft contract, and feed in before she finalises the contract). I've asked her to confirm this and give me a sense of timelines - no response so far.

I don't want to switch to another law firm now as it will just slow things down again, so am just going to keep chasing her, and if she doesn't improve soon raise it with the complaints partner at her firm. The basic problem for me is that I'm really angry about the panel requirement - how does it make sense that I'm being forced to use a crappy, poor service firm instead of a reputable property firm? And, the fact that this firm is on their panel means that regardless of how they are with me, they're going to get more work in the future. How are these panel firms selected? And how can I influence that? I called up my lender early on to complain and was told by the mortgage team that the panel selection was not done by them, so they couldn't help or advise on that. I'd just have to write into head office generally (and it sounded as though this was unlikely to go anywhere).

Any advice?

Thanks

Richard_Webster

What is the name of the lender? Can't be very well known for none of the solicitors you contacted to be on their panel.

Creaturecomforts

The lender is Santander - apparently they've cut down their panel heavily so a lot of the firms that were on there (including the firm I'd originally instructed) have come off. Not clear to me though how they've made their choice - not sure if they've looked at law firm reputations, quality of service at all.

ACG

Firstly, you wernt forced to use that firm. They have a panel, meaning you could have used any one off there.

Your complaint really is with the solicitor doing the work (solicitor and legal exec are the same things, the name difference is in relation to whether the exams were passed in uni or the work place... i only learnt that a few weeks ago)... or her employers.

Ask them for their complaints process and follow it. Once you have an outcome, you can then refer it on to santander for their records but your actual complaint isnt with santander.

Yorkie1

ACG wrote: »

Your complaint really is with the solicitor doing the work (solicitor and legal exec are the same things, the name difference is in relation to whether the exams were passed in uni or the work place... i only learnt that a few weeks ago)... or her employers.

Actually, they are not the same thing. A solicitor is a fully qualified lawyer with full rights of audience. They are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. They may have gained their exams either through the university route or through a work-based route.

A legal executive is regulated by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. There are several grades of membership. The highest, a Fellow of CILEx, is a CILEx lawyer; this is in some circumstances as acceptable a qualification as a solicitor, but not all and not automatically. Lesser grades of membership are in no way equated with a solicitor.

Then there is a Licensed Conveyancer, which is different again and is a specialist in conveyancing only, regulated by a third regulator.

ACG

Really?
I know a legal exec who works for a large well known firm of solicitors. According to her she is just as qualified as any solicitor out there having just passed some exam and her job title is a legal exec.

I stand corrected.

Yorkie1

As I said, for some purposes, Chartered Legal Exec lawyers have the same powers as solicitors. To be fair to your friend, the range of purposes for which a CILEx lawyer is equally qualified as a solicitor is increasing.

But they are legally not the same and for some professions only a solicitor or barrister is qualified - it's to do with the definition in the Legal Services Act of a "general qualification". A CILEx lawyer does not fit this definition and therefore is not qualified for those, increasingly limited roles.

For conveyancing, a CILEx lawyer will in all likelihood have the same powers and rights as a solicitor or licensed conveyancer.

Creaturecomforts

Thanks for the replies. As I said, I do know that I need to take things up directly with the firm and I'm doing that already. I've already checked on the complaints procedure, and I've got details of the partner responsible for complaints who I'll be contacting this week.

I do think the panel restriction is really problematic though. I'm paying for the lawyer (or legal exec or whatever), not the lender. If they want to set restrictions to make sure that I don't use someone dodgy, fair enough, but that isn't what they're doing. If lenders are going to use panels, then I'd expect the firms independently rated to have the best property practices in the country to be on these panels automatically. Instead, it looks as though they stick on firms which will do loads of transactions for them, rather than firms that will actually do their job properly, and I think that puts people like me in a really difficult position.

I want to know what criteria they've used to set these panels, and to make sure that they're fair and appropriate to property purchasers who have to use them.