Mortgage Solutions reported earlier this year that conveyancers were concerned around what they were being asked to do with high rise cases, with legal firms subject to varying requests from different lenders as well as being asked to cover areas for which they were not qualified.
This concern has evidently led to some conveyancers declining cases involving such properties altogether.
Chris Barry, director of Thomas Legal, said he was aware of several legal firms outright refusing to take on cases involving buildings of above five storeys.
He explained: “This is because the law firm has to satisfy building eligibility, qualifying leases and work around growing lender requirements. Professional indemnity insurance providers will be asking law firms how many properties they are transacting that are subject to the building safety act upon renewal.”
Barry suggested that a “lack of clarity” around what happens in certain scenarios was also leading to a “wait and see approach” from some legal firms.
We aren’t qualified
Jamie Lennox, director of Dimora Mortgages, said one of his clients had suffered from this recently, with a local law firm stating they would not deal with leasehold properties since they are not qualified to confirm if the property complies with the legislation.
Hannah Bashford, director of Model Financial Solutions, said her firm had been advised that there were now a host of conveyancing firms who would not take on high-rise cases, as a direct result of concerns around the Building Safety Act, while those that are will charge an extra fee for doing so.
She continued: “My concern with this is twofold: one, conveyancing firms are already stretched so how are they going to deliver decent service levels and not delay remortgages and purchases?
“And two, as an adviser it is going to become more difficult to recommend a remortgage over a product transfer as once you add in a further charge for this work it may be cheaper for them to simply product transfer.”
Struggling to meet demand
A host of local law firms were refusing to take on all sorts of new cases, and not just those with cladding issues, said Justin Moy, managing director of EHF Mortgages.
He explained: “Many firms are struggling to recruit sufficient conveyancers to keep up with even a muted level of enquiries, so we are utilising a number of trusted solicitors and conveyancer firms to help our clients with both remortgages and purchases.”
Scott Taylor-Barr, financial adviser at Carl Summers Financial Services, said that conveyancers feel uncomfortable at the way they have been made responsible for establishing compliance.
“It is not their area of expertise and many feel the surveyors and lenders have sidestepped making the decision and simply passed it ‘down the line’, in this case right into the lap of conveyancers who are left to explain to the customer the whole sorry mess.
“I’m not at all surprised to hear of some conveyancers turning this sort of work away, or charging a higher fee for the extra risk they are then carrying by doing it.”
Last month, the Conveyancing Association launched new guidance for conveyancers taking on cases with high rise properties.
