We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Solicitor for buying property dropped us because of the age of the property
Comments
-
Yes, I was wondering as well if OP had got the wrong end of the stick.
1 -
With my recent purchase, I was asked to pay up front for ID checks and searches and was informed that this was non-refundable. Even if things went wrong beyond my control I knew I wouldn't get that money back.
The solicitors are entitled to refuse any custom they don't want, for whatever reason, I guess. But they could and should make things clear to the client from the start. They could have found out about the age of the flat by asking the OP a couple of simple questions, and turned them down immediately and not further down the line once money had changed hands. Unknown whether this was a stupid mistake or a money-grabbing con…. if they were doing this to a lot of people, I'm sure trustpilot ratings would reflect that.
1 -
Yes, nothing in T&C's. They say it's an internal company policy. That sounds like a bs excuse
0 -
So what do you think the real reason is? It sounds plausible that they don't want to get involved with Building Safety Act complications (though no idea why they don't filter out such cases at the very start).
0 -
As it's clearly not internal company policy, given that it involves the customer, I'll firm up on my initial assessment that they are idiots.
0 -
Because the flat is 5 years old. I have looked around the web and no idea why this would be an issue. The building only has 4 floors.
0 -
That was my initial thought but the Act shouldn't apply as the building is not that high. Also, why not just say it's due to that instead of the age of the property? It's all very strange, but maybe they think the Building Safety Act might apply and can't be bothered
0 -
Indeed. They do seem to be idiots
0 -
The LA searches are a case in point, if these are part of the 'standard checks' which have been started. The OP will need these regardless of which solicitor they end up using. As a disbursement the cost isn't something the solicitor is making a profit from.
Disinstructing and insisting on a full refund would likely relieve the solicitor of any obligation to pass the search results on to the OP when they come through, meaning the OP's new solicitor would have to start from scratch, potentially adding delay to the purchase. Agreeing to pay the first solicitor for the searches already commissioned would give the OP's new solicitor a head start, subject to the two solicitors agreeing this arrangement. The first solicitor's failure to identify the OP's purchase as one they can't deal with may result in some goodwill, which might evaporate in response to a request for a full refund. Hence, "It all depends on the details."
Given the level of regulation in the legal profession it is unlikely to be a "money-grabbing con"… human error is probably more likely.
1 -
I too think it very unlikely that it's a con, they would soon get found out.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards