Buyer's solicitor unethical behaviour - should I complain?

neilio

Posting this nearly three months after completion.

When I sold my flat last October, the buyer’s solicitor requested that the lease be amended to remove a clause prohibiting wood or laminate flooring, which I originally discussed on this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5527878

We eventually agreed to an indemnity policy, exchanged contracts and completed on the sale. However, the day before exchange, my solicitor informed me that the buyer’s solicitor had bypassed us to approach the freeholder directly to request that the lease be amended. Fortunately, the freeholder did not respond to this request and instead informed my solicitor of what had happened. When I found out, I was furious, given that informing the freeholder of such a request could’ve nullified any indemnity. Not wanting to derail the whole thing, I let it go.

Whilst the emotional rollercoaster of conveyancing is over, I’m still angry at the buyer’s solicitor’s behaviour, and I want to complain about it to his law firm and/or the Solicitors Regulation Authority and/or the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. His behaviour was unethical and risked derailing the sale, especially as my solicitor had already made it clear to him the reason that clause exists in the lease and that the freeholder would never remove it.

If he had nullified any indemnity policy and the sale fallen through, would this have stayed with me and prevented me from ever obtaining an indemnity policy with a different buyer? It’s important that I understand this to support my complaint.

Would I be doing the right thing by complaining? The last thing I want is to be pursued by some angry lawyer who finds some reason to void the whole transaction, or something. I’m not intending to gain anything from complaining, other than showing up his unethical and negligent behaviour, and hopefully stopping him from doing this to someone else. I asked my solicitor at the time but she avoided having anything more to do with the matter.

I’m tempted to name and shame him here as well.

david1951

This does sound annoying, but, personally, not something I would lose sleep over. Move on!

steampowered

To be honest I don't think you can complain about this because it wasn't your solicitor.

The buyer's solicitor owes a duty of care to the buyer, not to you.

It is also possible that the buyer's solicitor was instructed by the buyer to approach the freeholder.

neilio

steampowered wrote: »

To be honest I don't think you can complain about this because it wasn't your solicitor.

The buyer's solicitor owes a duty of care to the buyer, not to you.

It is also possible that the buyer's solicitor was instructed by the buyer to approach the freeholder.

And that is where me and my solicitor come in. There would be no reason whatsoever for the buyer's solicitor to approach the freeholder directly about my lease on my flat that was still mine and could very well have always remained mine if I'd decided not to sell to them - Hence why someone at the freeholder organisation recognised this as improper and told him to do one. So what you say makes no sense.

neilio

steampowered wrote: »

To be honest I don't think you can complain about this because it wasn't your solicitor.

Yes I can absolutely complain about this because the moron put the sale under threat and bypassed the legal channels that were already established.

What I want to know is, as I put it, could his behaviour have precluded any future indemnity against this clause with future buyers? Because of the answer is yes, then he was in wrong and I would've had to live with that indefinitely.

If that isn't grounds to complain, I don't know what is.

Doozergirl

neilio wrote: »

And that is where me and my solicitor come in. There would be no reason whatsoever for the buyer's solicitor to approach the freeholder directly about my lease on my flat that was still mine and could very well have always remained mine if I'd decided not to sell to them - Hence why someone at the freeholder organisation recognised this as improper and told him to do one. So what you say makes no sense.

They are right though.

I spoke to my solicitor and the SRA years ago about the conduct of a vendor's solicitor when we were buying and there was nothing we could do. You cannot make an official complaint about a solicitor that you have not instructed.

Why are you letting this eat you now? It's gone. In the nicest possible way, if you stop thinking about it, it won't upset you any more.

agrinnall

You could write to the Managing Partner at the solicitors, who may ignore it or may send you a letter admitting nothing but politely fobbing you off. As you have no contractual relationship with them a complaint to the SRA will go nowhere, as Doozergirl points out.

As none of the things you have concerns about actually happened it would be better for your blood pressure to put it behind you and move on.

steampowered

neilio wrote: »

Yes I can absolutely complain about this because the moron put the sale under threat and bypassed the legal channels that were already established.

What I want to know is, as I put it, could his behaviour have precluded any future indemnity against this clause with future buyers? Because of the answer is yes, then he was in wrong and I would've had to live with that indefinitely.

If that isn't grounds to complain, I don't know what is.

The point is not about whether the buyer's solicitor acted badly. The point is that the buyer's solicitor only owes a duty of care to the buyer. He/she does not owe any duty of care to the seller.

I don't think it matters whether the buyer's solicitor put the sale under threat, bypassed legal channels or put your indemnity policy under threat. The buyer's solicitor does not owe you any duty of care to protect those things. The buyer's solicitor could be the most negligent solicitor in the world but they still wouldn't owe the seller a duty of care.

Unless you had a legally binding non-disclosure agreement preventing the buyer or their solicitor from contacting the freeholder, they did not break any law by contacting the freeholder.

I'm afraid that the Legal Ombudsman do not investigate complaints about someone else's solicitor. The only person that could complain to the Legal Ombudsman about the buyer's solicitor is the buyer. There is a leaflet setting out what the Legal Ombudsman will investigate here: http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Factsheet1-Here-to-help1.pdf.

agrinnall wrote: »

You could write to the Managing Partner at the solicitors, who may ignore it or may send you a letter admitting nothing but politely fobbing you off.

I think the Op would simply get a fob-off response citing confidentiality.

The key point to remember is that the buyer's solicitor owes a strict duty of confidentiality to the buyer. He/she acts on behalf of the buyer and cannot reveal any confidential details about their instructions to the seller.

For example, it is possible that the buyer's solicitors were specifically instructed by the buyer to contact the freeholder. In that situation the buyer's solicitors would have had to contact the freeholder whether they wanted to or not. However the buyer's solicitors could not tell the seller they had been instructed to do that, unless the buyer agreed to that disclosure.

G_M

If he had nullified any indemnity policy and the sale fallen through, would this have stayed with me and prevented me from ever obtaining an indemnity policy with a different buyer

I don't see why the sale would have fallen through. You could still purchase an indemnity policy and pass it to the buyer. If, subsequently, the buyer made a claim on the policy and the insurers declined to pay out, citing the new owner's approach to the freeholder prior to purchase, that would have been the new owner's hard cheese.

The sale would only have fallen through if the buyer, or you, withdrew.

However, yes, I believe the approach to the freeholder could have prevented you from ever obtaining a valid indemnity policy with a different buyer.

Or could have alerted the freeholder to the lease breach and led to enforcement of the lease on you.

But as others have said, it's now water under the bridge, and furthermore you have no contractual relationship with the solicitor involved.

And I'm not sure there is anything preventing a buyer, or their solicitor on his instructions, from approaching a freeholder. The freeholder can, of course, ignore such an approach (having no relationship with the buyer) but that does not mean the buyer cannot try.

I frequently recommend buyers to knock on the doors of neighbouring properties, partly to see what the neighbours are like and partly to glean information about the proposed property/street/ neighbourhood that the seller might 'overlook'.

Those neighbours can ignore me. But that does not stop me asking. The same goes for the freeholder in this case.

AdrianC

neilio wrote: »

However, the day before exchange, my solicitor informed me that the buyer’s solicitor had bypassed us to approach the freeholder directly to request that the lease be amended.

Right, and?

When I found out, I was furious, given that informing the freeholder of such a request could’ve nullified any indemnity.

<shrug> And? You could never claim on that anyway.

His behaviour was unethical

How?

and risked derailing the sale

But it didn't, even though the freeholder didn't reply.

especially as my solicitor had already made it clear to him the reason that clause exists in the lease and that the freeholder would never remove it.[/quote]

Umm, that's not your solicitor's job - nor can your solicitor actually speak on behalf of the freeholder.

If he had nullified any indemnity policy and the sale fallen through, would this have stayed with me and prevented me from ever obtaining an indemnity policy with a different buyer?

Whether it did or not is irrelevant, because you didn't have to. The buyer's solicitor didn't have to ask you for an indemnity in the first place - he could have just gone straight to the freeholder.

Would I be doing the right thing by complaining?
I’m not intending to gain anything from complaining

Seems like a right ol' waste of time, effort and blood pressure, then.

G_M wrote: »

Or could have alerted the freeholder to the lease breach and led to enforcement of the lease on you.

As, of course, could have happened from simply seeing the RM photos showing the offending floor coverings.

Ken68

It could be , Neil, that any complaint to the Managing Partner is not the first against the solicitor. You may not know the eventual outcome, but if it helps to get rid of a bad 'un, all to the good.