Forced to use a solicitor?

skintbex

Will try to be brief.

Ex buying me out of flat. He and his wife have a remortgage agreed which will pay off existing mortgage and also buy me out. All good so far.

Their remortgage is with the Halifax. THey use Enact to do all their remortgage and conveyancing work. They have told my ex I must have a solicitor.

Four separate solicitors have told me I do not need a solicitor, as there is nothing for them to do, other than check the transfer form, and they can do that as and when. One actually suggested I contact the Ombudsman but as I'm not actually their customer, there's nothing they can do.

Halifax are having none of it, but they can't tell me why I must have a solicitor, they won't tell me or my ex, and this has caused a 2 month delay, which is costing us all money.

No solicitor will act for me in good conscience until they have an actual reason from Halifax, so we are at a stalemate.

They did consider getting a different mortgage but suspect no other (reasonably reputable) lender would entertain them.

I went into my local branch and the lad behind the counter told me they need a solicitor to write to, and they wouldn't write directly to me as I'm not legally qualified... (neither are most of the staff at Enact but still...)

So..what on earth can I do?

Senior_Paper_Monitor

This is a transfer of equity - any lender will require you receive independent legal advice so that you cannot claim in the future that you were unaware of the implications of the transfer.


I have no idea what - and why - you are being told by the solicitors you have been speaking to.

dunstonh

Four separate solicitors have told me I do not need a solicitor, as there is nothing for them to do, other than check the transfer form, and they can do that as and when.

The transaction doesnt need a solicitor but the lender wants you to use a solicitor to reduce the chances of having any liaiblity in a future complaint.

One actually suggested I contact the Ombudsman but as I'm not actually their customer, there's nothing they can do.

The one that suggested that clearly doesnt know what the ombudsman does. You cannot go straight to ombudsman like that.

No solicitor will act for me in good conscience until they have an actual reason from Halifax, so we are at a stalemate.

That doesnt make any sense. The solicitor is there to make you aware of the legal ramifications of the transaction. You can employ a solicitor to do that with any document you sign.

and this has caused a 2 month delay, which is costing us all money.

So, it would be cheaper and quicker to do what they ask then.

skintbex

I understand this, it's ore the fact the bank will not give us a straight answer as to why they insist it's a legal requirement that I have a solicitor, nor why four separate solicitors have told me I don't need one., and that it would be a waste of money.

I don't object in principle to getting a solicitor, but what would they actually do? I'm well aware of the legal ramifications.

I just feel as if the bank is not listening to either of us - we asked a perfectly simple question, and they won't give a straight answer.

kingstreet

The legal transfer documents will be passed from the other party's solicitor to yours.

Yours will go over them with you, explaining the implications of signing them.

Once signed, your solicitor will pass them back and the transfer of equity will be finalised.

The lender will be satisfied you know what you have signed and be indemnified against future action by you.

dunstonh

it's ore the fact the bank will not give us a straight answer as to why they insist it's a legal requirement that I have a solicitor

It is not a legal requirement you have a solicitor. It is their requirement that you use a solicitor for the reasons mentioned above.

nor why four separate solicitors have told me I don't need one

You don't need one in law. However, the lender needs it.

and that it would be a waste of money.

A relatively simple transaction for a solicitor and should be low cost. Probably less than what you have incurred so far by waiting.

I just feel as if the bank is not listening to either of us - we asked a perfectly simple question, and they won't give a straight answer.

The staff on the front line are not trained to understand why something is required. Those days are long gone (as consumers wont pay for that). They are told what is required and not why it is required.

andyfromotley

Just bite the bullet bex,

your bill should be tiny in this case. yes they're being a bit pedantic but hey ho. Accept it and move on.

Thrugelmir

skintbex wrote: »

I understand this, it's ore the fact the bank will not give us a straight answer as to why they insist it's a legal requirement that I have a solicitor,

It's not a legal requirement. It is the banks own requirement. That you seek independent legal advice. This is to ensure that there is no recourse to the lender at a future date. The bank has the right to protect it's own interests.

As simple and straightforward as that.