Lawyer / Lender stalemate

[Thatisrice]

I wonder anyone can help or share experiences - it’s a bit complicated, and weird so please bear with me...

We’re buying a new house partly funded through a mortgage and partly through remortgaging a but-to-let. The remortgage of the buy-to-let was disclosed on the application and both mortgages were approved. So far so good.

However the conveyancer for the purchase now says they can not legally go any further unless they get written confirmation from the lender for the new house that they are aware of the BTL mortgage. The lender says they will not provide written confirmation as its covered in the application and there is no need to do so.

We have already been around this cycle once. The conveyancer wrote to the lender about it and the lender took this to mean a 3rd undeclared property and cancelled the mortgage offer. We appealed and got the offer reinstated.

The coneyancer is now saying the can’t move forward without resending the mail that caused the issue the the first place. The lender says they won’t answer it - and there’s a chance someone will again misunderstand and again cancel the mortgage offer.

Mortgage broker and conveyancer have now fallen out over this after major slanging match (how professional!!!!). The broker says in 25 yrs he’s never heard of a lawyer requiring this, and the lender also says it’s not required. Conveyancer says it’s standard practice.

So - it’s a total stalemate and we’re in danger of losing our dream house. My gut says broker and lender are right - but if the lawyer’s right then moving to a new lawyer (with the delay and expense) doesn’t move me forward!

Anyone had any similar experience or thoughts either way????

I Think The lawyer is r ight; it's been a while since I did conveyancing, but I think it's standard mortgage conditions.
Ask the lawyer to forward a copy of the relevant part of the conditions to the lender.

The lawyer is (I think) acting for you? Are they a solicitor, or a licensed conveyancer?

I’m a solicitor (not a conveyancer though) and this is how I’d approach it.

I would ask them to tell you the precise legal requirement which means they have to have this (eg section 11 of the Law of Property Act - made up of course!) then tell that to your mortgage provider/broker, see if they agree or can make sense of it.

If your lawyer can’t give a satisfactory explanation then there is no basis for them to hold up the transaction.

I would then make a formal complaint to the firm if they don’t start to move things forward.

I’m currently trying to purchase some land and am dealing with a numpty solicitor on the other side - the sort that gives the profession a bad name!

Thanks both.

I did ask 4 times or more what the legal basis for the requirement was (regulation / legislation/ case law) and for what purpose and all they would say was that it was standard practice and they had to work on behalf of the lender too (which seemed odd given I’m the one paying!!)

The problem is that the other property is not mentioned in the mortgage conditions which the lawyer says is odd, and the lender says ‘so what!’.

I think I’ll maybe give them 24hrs to sort and threaten to go elsewhere. Hopefully they won’t call my bluff - but I guess if it’s not moving, I’ve nothing to lose (except the new house )

Not a property lawyer but, your lawyer might be correct that this something that needs to be disclosed, in which case in the circumstances can they send a more carefully worded letter disclosing it to the lender.

It's common for your lawyer to act for both you and your lender and for you to pay the bill. Accordingly the lawyer has duties to both you and the lender as joint clients. I'm surprised you weren't aware of this

I had to sack a set of conveyancers for this kind of ridiculousness (online bunch.. office in Cheltenham). (in my case, around a right of way at the back of the house, that wasn't even needed, and didn't affect the value of the property)

This is why I only deal with local solicitors these days. Is it too late to change conveyancers?

Oh, and half my deposit for the last place we bought came from extending a BTL on another property - no issues at all, no declarations required (it was my money after all, the BTL mortgage had nothing to do with the new mortgage). The only thing that caused any issue was DP's parents having to say that they were gifting DP's part of the deposit.