Challenging solicitor abortive fees

Tomtad

We hadn't got very far into the process before I told them one of my transactions into my bank of £6.5k was from crypto.
The next morning they said they can't act for us because it goes against their internal policy (which they couldn't show me)
We tried to explain that we didn't need that amount for the deposit and we could prove source of funds without it and I was happy for them dig further but they didn't want to. 
Then they bill us £355, of which £250 was an abortive fee. 
So we feel a bit hard done by, especially because there was nothing in their t&cs about crypto transactions. Granted I should have probably kept that seperate but I was just being honest. 

Do you think we've got a case?
Which route should I use to complain
Should I dispute the deposit we paid to the solicitor with my bank (purchased with credit card)? 

jlfrs01

Bit of a cheek - the abortive fee should only apply if the client aborts, not if it's their decision. The best route to complain is probably through their own channel. If they don't explain how to make a formal complaint on their website or in their paperwork then a phone call is probably in order. I think you've outline the reasons in your opening post as to why you won't be settling this bill.
I'm not sure a Section 75 claim will apply in this case but there's nothing to lose by speaking with your card provider about it. I'd probably do that first because if they refund your card then the firm will probably want an explanation which is effectively your complaint and with the money already refunded, you're calling the shots.
If your card issuer declines then it's the formal route and failing that, the Legal Ombudsman.

propertyrental

Since it it them that is ending the contract, send them an invoice for your time and costs.

TheJP

propertyrental said:

Since it it them that is ending the contract, send them an invoice for your time and costs.

Not really how contracts work. Unless the OP put this in the contract then its na uh. Its likely the solicitors have this buried in their contract and will likely prove it. OP challenge them to provide where in the contract you are liable for abortive fees if they cancel due to this issue.

Tomtad

jlfrs01 said:

Bit of a cheek - the abortive fee should only apply if the client aborts, not if it's their decision. The best route to complain is probably through their own channel. If they don't explain how to make a formal complaint on their website or in their paperwork then a phone call is probably in order. I think you've outline the reasons in your opening post as to why you won't be settling this bill.
I'm not sure a Section 75 claim will apply in this case but there's nothing to lose by speaking with your card provider about it. I'd probably do that first because if they refund your card then the firm will probably want an explanation which is effectively your complaint and with the money already refunded, you're calling the shots.
If your card issuer declines then it's the formal route and failing that, the Legal Ombudsman.

Good point about it being them that chose to abort. We will challenge them on that.

 The only thing I can see in their t&cs is "Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, a transaction falls through.  In these cases, depending on the amount of work we have done, we will charge you a fee for the work carried out"
So very vague and nothing about an abortive fee specifically.

Also when I spoke to the estate agent, he had been told that they aborted and he knew it was to do with crypto which seems like a breach of confidentiality and could have jeopardized the whole purchase.

Luckily he was very understanding. 

TBG01

Not sure how "we will charge you a fee for the work carried out", is very vague.

nyermen

TBG01 said:

Not sure how "we will charge you a fee for the work carried out", is very vague.

I would have thought “work carried out” needs to have element of “value to the customer” if they are the ones to abort (eg. Partial delivery of service rather than we did a load of stuff internally that delivered nothing to you but it still counts as our time).
But lawyers are a law unto themselves, and no doubt they’ve drafted a pretty good contract for themselves…

doodling

Hi,

I would be responding with a formal complaint, following it up with a complaint to the SRA if that doesn't result in a grovelling apology. (I assume that these people are solicitors and not conveyancers?).

Providing that you have adhered to your side of the contract (check that this is the case - is there anything in their terms of business which makes reference to the source of funds or unusual financial arrangements?) then I believe that you are entitled to the following:

1. Return of all of your money. 
2. Reimbursement of any reasonably forseeable losses arising as a rest of their failure to adhere to the contract.
3. Compensation for their failure to keep your dealings with them confidential (a significant failing for a solicitor!).

In reality I would settle for your money back plus £50, unless you have any consequential losses you can prove.

TBagpuss

Most terms of business will have a clause allowing them to withdraw - and the AML rules add complications because of the rules against tipping off etc.

They haven't done anything wrong by declining to continue to act and unless the terms of business specifically say that the fee for the work is only payable if it is you who withdrew then I cannot see any reason why you would not have to pay it. 

doodling

Hi,

TBagpuss said:

Most terms of business will have a clause allowing them to withdraw - and the AML rules add complications because of the rules against tipping off etc.

They haven't done anything wrong by declining to continue to act and unless the terms of business specifically say that the fee for the work is only payable if it is you who withdrew then I cannot see any reason why you would not have to pay it. 

Those two factors (the ability to decline to act) and a requirement for you to pay them if they do are not compatible in the world of consumer contract law.  A lot depends on the precise contract between the OP and the solicitors however.

It should be noted that the idea of solicitors withdrawing, leaving their client in the lurch is frowned on within the legal profession.  Withdrawal is expected to be for a good reason and I'm not sure that "the client doesn't comply with our internal policies which we didn't tell them about" is a valid good reason.

The breach of confidence to the EA is also quite frankly unforgiveable.

I would be making a formal complaint to the solicitors about the withdrawal and about the breach of confidence.  If that doesn't yield results then I would complain to the SRA, I can see several clauses in the SRA code of conduct which may be relevant here.

user1977

doodling said:

Hi,

TBagpuss said:

Most terms of business will have a clause allowing them to withdraw - and the AML rules add complications because of the rules against tipping off etc.

They haven't done anything wrong by declining to continue to act and unless the terms of business specifically say that the fee for the work is only payable if it is you who withdrew then I cannot see any reason why you would not have to pay it. 

Those two factors (the ability to decline to act) and a requirement for you to pay them if they do are not compatible in the world of consumer contract law.  A lot depends on the precise contract between the OP and the solicitors however.

It should be noted that the idea of solicitors withdrawing, leaving their client in the lurch is frowned on within the legal profession.  Withdrawal is expected to be for a good reason and I'm not sure that "the client doesn't comply with our internal policies which we didn't tell them about" is a valid good reason.

The breach of confidence to the EA is also quite frankly unforgiveable.

I would be making a formal complaint to the solicitors about the withdrawal and about the breach of confidence.  If that doesn't yield results then I would complain to the SRA, I can see several clauses in the SRA code of conduct which may be relevant here.

Withdrawing from acting for a buyer at a very early stage in the transaction isn't any sort of "lurch" to be in (in the context of a transaction which typically drags on for months anyway), so I wouldn't think that relevant, and (even if not spelled it in terms of business) it's inevitable that the solicitors have to be entitled to withdraw if they're not satisfied about the source of funds. If their policy is "we don't touch crypto" than it would be nice to have that highlighted at the start, but it's still quite a niche point.