To ask....do solicitors f***ing realise how there shit work Impacts on real peoples lives

[Mightbemiddleaged]

....because I have been sobbing my heart out all day as the house we have been desperately waiting to move into for five months has now fallen through due to the complete ineptitude of all the solicitors involved.

There was a small legal issue to resolve wrt our sale and it can and should have taken no longer than a month.

Four months later and now no-one wil even respond to our requests for updates or try to hurry the fuck along on our behalf. The vendors of the house we should be buying have lost patience and pulled out, wo can blame them.

It's taken 15 months to get this far from putting house on the market and I literally cannot face the thought of going through this again. I actually feel desperate today and like I'm on the edge of some sort of breakdown.

I actually hate and despise these people the lazy heartless bastards

MrsS - Solicitors are not allowed to just keep interest. As I said my firm pays any interest over £20.00. The cashier does an interest calculation before the distribution of the funds is made and separate cheque/s is/are then raised for the interest due.

In the case of your friend and his cousin I would ask to see the client account print out for the house sale and ask for a separate interest calculation from when the money was received by the solicitors up to and including the date that the money was paid to them.

I have to say though, even on relatively high sums, say £200,000 and over, that the interest paid by the bank whilst the money is on client account is usually a pittance. The interest rates paid are not great.

I did some conveyancing in my traineeship, and I know that if my firm was acting on behalf of a buyer of a property with a dispute as to title or boundary, its quite likely they would have advised the client not to buy, or refused to act for the client if they insisted on going ahead. It varies, and there are ways of dealing with it, but generally the solution is to get the title sorted before putting the property back on the market.

Ditto getting two mortgage lenders to agree to a revision of the boundary on the title deeds during the sales process - increases difficulty in an already highly unconventional sale.

Its like where a survey reveals a problem with the construction of the property or bad damp or similar, and the mortgage lender won't lend on it, so the whole thing purchase is cancelled.

Lack of communication of the difficulty to the client is inexcusable though. Have you really had no letters or phone calls from them explaining what is happening OP? If so, definitely make a complaint.

Its innacurate to say that solicitors don't follow the standards of other professions, when it is one of the few professions to require its members to hold professional indemnity insurance to compensate aggrieved clients, its members can be struck off by its governing body for malpractice, and it does not let its members set up as public limited companies which can go bust and leave unpaid debtors trailing in their wake.

OTOH if a software engineer, teacher or HR professional is incompetent, you don't have any access to such protection and your only remedy would be to sue them in court..

"I did some conveyancing in my traineeship, and I know that if my firm was acting on behalf of a buyer of a property with a dispute as to title or boundary, its quite likely they would have advised the client not to buy, or refused to act for the client if they insisted on going ahead. It varies, and there are ways of dealing with it, but generally the solution is to get the title sorted before putting the property back on the market."

Really? How bizarre. If there is a problem that can be resolved, surely the advice would be 'we can resolve this but it will cost £x and take Y amount of time, do you want to go for that solution or pull out of the purchase?' I have only done odds and sods of conveyancing type work in the context of probate (plus the compulsory training at law school, obviously) but this doesn't sound right to me at all. It may well be that the sensible option for the client is to pull out and seek another property to buy, but as a solicitor it would not be your job to tell them to do this - just to present the options to them with clear information about the implications of each one.

Refusing to act for a client who wishes to make a purchase about which they are fully informed doesn't sound correct to me. Declining to act would normally only happen where either there is a conflict of interest or some other issue with the client relationship. Simply feeling that the client isn't getting a good deal isn't a reason not to act. Very very strange.

^what they didn't tell us was that it was being repossessed as the father of the family had murdered the mother and then committed suicide (in the house). We were new to the area and had no idea.
Solicitor withheld the info, then our solicitor fudged it.^

but you were not paying either solicitor to tell you about local new stories - and its not their job to do that.

mind you a quick google early on - and you could have found the information. and many other local problems.

Ours was great. The solicitor acting for the house we were buying was atrocious.

The solicitor's job is to tell you about legal issues that affect the property - the history of the house in terms of murder/suicide is irrelevant. I don't think there is any professional way in which a solicitor could tell a client, 'Ooooh you don't want to buy that house, there was a murder there!' They probably assumed that you knew - and if you didn't, it wasn't any of their business to tell you. I can see why you would be upset to buy a house that you don't know the history of, but it really is not something the solicitor is responsible for. If you buy a house in an area that is unfamiliar to you then this is part of the risk - and it's not a risk that legal advice can protect you from.

Re solicitors hanging on to money from an inheritance. I thought there were strict rules governing this. I don't think many of them move quickly.

Most complaints I've head about solicitors relate to conveyancing. My belief is that this is often down to the tiny margins which conveyancers have to work to. It's the one area of law where people tend to go for the lowest quote, and where the market has driven down prices. Pay peanuts etc. Lawyers simply can't offer the level of customer service which is expected when they are working to fees of a few hundred pounds.

emsyj Really? How bizarre. If there is a problem that can be resolved, surely the advice would be 'we can resolve this but it will cost £x and take Y amount of time, do you want to go for that solution or pull out of the purchase?' I have only done odds and sods of conveyancing type work in the context of probate (plus the compulsory training at law school, obviously) but this doesn't sound right to me at all. It may well be that the sensible option for the client is to pull out and seek another property to buy, but as a solicitor it would not be your job to tell them to do this - just to present the options to them with clear information about the implications of each one

Yes, I was a bit shocked by it, but I remember quite clearly in one purchase, I was asked to look over the title deeds, report back on them to a partner, who then scrutinised them himself and told me to compose a letter to the client advising them not to purchase. They also turned down a couple of employment law clients because they didn't like the issues they presented. In general, the mantra was "only accept remunerative work which is easy to fee and likely to succeed". Quite a posh, small - medium sized firm.

I can't see a problem though in a solicitor advising a client not to proceed with a purchase of a property with a serious title dispute. It is surely acting in the best interests of the client.

Then again, I know of one partner in one firm who gives outdated advice, particularly relating to neighbour disputes, giving his clients false hope of success should it end up in court as it sometimes does, and makes lots of fees out of it.

Simply feeling that the client isn't getting a good deal isn't a reason not to act I don't think it was a question of the client getting a good deal, but of not being able to correctly convey the title of the property in question to the client thus giving good title. There are of course ways round this by obtaining relatively cheap indemnity insurance policies and creating a good title when conveying the property which will (hopefully) be "cured" by the prescriptive period in time, but I don't think all solicitors would do that. At least I don't think its negligent not to. Perhaps it is because some firms work on a budget cost fixed rate price for conveyancing based on straightforward work, and simply do not have the resources to handle complex title disputes.

We got our solicitor and our buyer's solicitor into a competition, so they both wanted to be the one to be ready to complete first. 6 weeks.

I'm a conveyancing solicitor, and the issue for me is communication. Ours is a local service mainly, although having said that I deal with stuff all over the country on a reasonably regular basis.

Locally, I encourage my clients to come in to the office if they want to, and if time allows, I always see clients who "pop" in, though it sometimes drives me mad. It's just quicker in the long run, and fosters genuinely good relations.

Further afield, it's all about emails and phone calls. I used to be in Litigation, and I had far less client contact there than I do now. But I have learned that contact is what people want when buying or selling their home, so that is what they get.

You must shop around for a good lawyer. Don't believe all the BS that some estate agents come out with when they tell you that you must use their nominated solicitor blah blah. This is likely to be untrue.

All conveyancing solicitors charge a fixed fee. If you return to me, and many do, you will get a discount for coming back. Hell, you'll get a discount if I like you . The margins are very very tough, and conveyancing departments used to make fair money in the dim and distant, but not so now. And I apply exactly the same standards to a smaller value sale as I do to a higher one..

I would simply not be able to get away with BS or delay, and why would I want to? I don't need the stress of dealing with an unhappy client. If any of you have complaints-get complaining! Write a letter of complaint to the firm, it has a complaints procedure that it must adhere to, and if it doesn't respond, it is already in breach of the professional rules!!

In my opinion, good local firms have been undercut to the bone by large organisations who employ "fee earners/case handlers" under the guidance and supervision of a qualified solicitor, whilst not being qualified themselves. They are generally in a town or city many miles from where you live and are buying/selling, and they know jack all about the local situation, which can sometimes make the difference between a quick or slow sale.

So, choose carefully, don't be embarrassed about questioning costs, or anything else you're unsure of. Use local solicitors wherever possible, and don't be smooth-talked about the law by an estate agent. They know nort about it!!

I make mistakes, but I never cover them up. If I did that I would lose my practising certificate, and therefore my livelihood. All firms have insurance, that's what it's there for. Obviously better not to make those mistakes but, well, do I need to say it?!

but solicitors do SELL you houses in Scotland, not just do the conveyancing, and they DO have a duty to disclose facts which might affect the value of the house, ie, a mine nearby, a modern commercial property about to be constructed, a notorious double death...

but as the buyer you are not their client, are you? they are not representing you but they are representing the seller. whose best interest is you don't find any problems.

Peppermint - Couldn't agree more. Our firm charges £400.00 plus VAT for a sale and £450.00 plus VAT for a purchase, plus disbursements obviously (freehold). If it's leasehold then the fees go up by around £100.00 plus VAT for the extra work. These fees are fixed and do not go up or down depending on the value of the house.

When I see what estate agents charge for selling, anywhere between 1.5 and 2% of the sale price it makes me laugh! I used to work at an estate agents and trust me I know who does most of the work on a property transaction. It shouldn't be the estate agents who get the high fees. They aren't the ones who will get sued if the property is defective in some way.

Conveyancing is high risk for any firm of solicitors. Not only are you acting for the client but you are also acting for the lender, which clients often do not realise. Lenders can and will request conveyancing files if they believe that the solicitor is not following protocol, especially if that property has now been repossessed and they are looking for someone to blame.

I think this is a real case of the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you phone asking for updates and estimates when the next stage will be reached things are much more likely to go to schedule. If the solicitor isn't answering your calls then a complain is in order. There may be genuine issues for the delays but you have a right to be kept informed about what these are.

pindora sorry you have had a hard time but caveat emptor does seem to apply www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/7836/0/

I imagine the Neilssen case was so notorious that this was why it was mentioned. However, there is no legal requirement to do so, at all.

As for the latter case, I may have missed it upthread, and I'm not overly familiar with Scottish Law, but did you complain?

I have only ever dealt with solicitors when buying houses and that is stressful enough, recently though I have had much more dealings with them as they are dealing with my decreased grandparents' estate. Dear God I regularly want to bag my head against brick wall, they are so slow and its been over 3 years.

Sorry about your house

Oh just read your post ithaka sounds familiar

pindora, it's no longer the Law Society of Scotland who investigate complaints. It used to be (and presumably was when you made yours) but is now the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

I'm not sure a solicitor would even know the history of the property (beyond what was in the Title Deeds etc) let alone be required to advise clients on it.

Your second case does sound iffy. I wonder if what the Law Society were getting at was that it was not competent for them to make a finding of professional negligence? They can't, it's not in their remit. Professional negligence must be pursued through the courts. What the Law Society used to be able to consider was Inadequate Professional Service or Professional Misconduct.