Challenging solicitor abortive fees

CSI_Yorkshire

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

Tiglet2

Solicitors can decide not to act for you if they are not happy with various aspects of the transaction.  I wouldn't expect them to charge you for declining to act on your behalf though, except if they have already undertaken a fair portion of the work before they were aware that some of the funds were coming from cryptocurrency.

This is from the Law Society, which might help OP understand why AML checks on the sources of cryptocurrency are much riskier and time consuming and, hence, why some firms don't want the extra work involved here:

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/helplines/practice-advice-service/q-and-as/can-my-client-use-bitcoin-to-purchase-property

Divorcing_Dad

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

TBG01

Divorcing_Dad said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

But crypto was involved.

OP may be all above board, but further flags are going to be raised when going from using crypto to all of a sudden not needing it.

CSI_Yorkshire

Divorcing_Dad said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

They cannot be sure of the origin of funds.  Saying "it's ok, I won't use the bits that you have already noticed are untraceable, honest" is unlikely to satisfy anything.

Just to be clear, your opinion is that the solicitor should be forced to provide services in this case?

housebuyer143

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Divorcing_Dad said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

They cannot be sure of the origin of funds.  Saying "it's ok, I won't use the bits that you have already noticed are untraceable, honest" is unlikely to satisfy anything.

Just to be clear, your opinion is that the solicitor should be forced to provide services in this case?

Well, when we moved we couldn't show a pension statement to show to source of £20k in my mums account. She had thrown it away and was gifting us the deposit. The lawyer just said it was fine as she had enough money to give us from traceable means. 
So yes, clearly it's not a problem for everyone.

doodling

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Divorcing_Dad said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

They cannot be sure of the origin of funds.  Saying "it's ok, I won't use the bits that you have already noticed are untraceable, honest" is unlikely to satisfy anything.

Go back and read the OP, that isn't what they said.  If you are saying that the solicitor has to be able to prove the source of all funds going back to the OPs first bank account then I don't think anyone would ever be able to buy a house, the obligation is to be able to demonstrate the source of funds for the transaction (and the solicitor is no doubt under an obligation to report any financial irregularities which might indicate money laundering, irrespective of the specific transaction).

Just to be clear, your opinion is that the solicitor should be forced to provide services in this case?

My opinion is that at this stage in the proceedings it is reasonable for the solicitor to withdraw but not at the OP's cost.  Had the transaction got to within a few days of exchange then it wouldn't have been reasonable.for them to withdraw.

CSI_Yorkshire

doodling said:

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Divorcing_Dad said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

They cannot be sure of the origin of funds.  Saying "it's ok, I won't use the bits that you have already noticed are untraceable, honest" is unlikely to satisfy anything.

Go back and read the OP, that isn't what they said.  If you are saying that the solicitor has to be able to prove the source of all funds going back to the OPs first bank account then I don't think anyone would ever be able to buy a house, the obligation is to be able to demonstrate the source of funds for the transaction (and the solicitor is no doubt under an obligation to report any financial irregularities which might indicate money laundering, irrespective of the specific transaction).

I read the OP.  The solicitor has said that they are not comfortable dealing with the transaction when there was an untraceable £6.5k deposit from crypto.  They've said this on the first working day following when the OP told them about the deposit source.

Insisting that a solicitor completes a transaction of this nature when they are not comfortable with the legal undertakings they could be required to give is completely mad.   "I do crypto" is not a protected characteristic, so they are absolutely allowed to suspend offering services for that reason.

housebuyer143 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Divorcing_Dad said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

They cannot be sure of the origin of funds.  Saying "it's ok, I won't use the bits that you have already noticed are untraceable, honest" is unlikely to satisfy anything.

Just to be clear, your opinion is that the solicitor should be forced to provide services in this case?

Well, when we moved we couldn't show a pension statement to show to source of £20k in my mums account. She had thrown it away and was gifting us the deposit. The lawyer just said it was fine as she had enough money to give us from traceable means. 
So yes, clearly it's not a problem for everyone.

One solicitor willing to take the risk, the other isn't.  That's a business decision that they are free to make.

doodling said:

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Divorcing_Dad said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I think the vitriol on this thread is slightly misdirected - I would expect people to be taking issue with the abortive fee (charging that when the company has decided to withdraw services is completely ridiculous in my opinion), but instead most posters appear to be suggesting that the solicitor should not be allowed to withdraw services for any reason?

I think that "we cannot be certain about the source of your funds, and therefore we cannot perform the legal undertakings required to progress a purchase using those funds" is a completely legitimate reason for the solicitor to withdraw from acting on the OPs behalf.

They shouldn't be charging at that point though, especially not any additional fees.

I don't think it is.

I think people are quite rightly up in arms that a solicitor can cite "internal policies" for refusing to continue, whilst asking for money. Particularly when it's been pointed out that the crypto money is not in any way being used to finance the purchase.

I have a feeling the reason they're not willing to share is because the solicitors are implying that someone isn't a trustworthy person if they deal in crypto, drug dealing or shady savings or whatever.
If HMRC and the Government are happy to deal with crypto, I'm not sure why a solicitors wouldn't.

I think we all know this wouldn't stand up in court - a judge would laugh it out.

Just to be clear, your opinion is that the solicitor should be forced to provide services in this case?

My opinion is that at this stage in the proceedings it is reasonable for the solicitor to withdraw but not at the OP's cost.  Had the transaction got to within a few days of exchange then it wouldn't have been reasonable.for them to withdraw.

Correct.  It should not at the OP's cost - hence why I suggest that is the direction arguments should be in.

The solicitor has internal policies about which customers and transactions they are willing to take on.  On the first day after they discover that this transaction is against their policy, and that the 'breach' is not a protected characteristic, they decline to act on the OP's behalf.  Nothing wrong with any of that.

The only problem is the nonsense 'abortive fee' (and it would be a decent gesture to waive the rest of the bill).

Tomtad

Good news! After a formal complaint, they gave us our money back and things are progressing well with a new solicitor. Thanks for all of your input