A Tory MP has said that the Government must accept the fundamental need for complete change in the conveyancing system.
Will Quince, who represents Colchester, Essex, yesterday led a Westminster Hall debate on conveyancing, ahead of the call that the Government is due to make for evidence on the house buying and selling system.
Quince opened by declaring two interests – first, that Spicerhaart, headquartered in Colchester, supplies printing for him, and second that he is a former property lawyer.
He said that there was an argument for estate agents to supply information about a property at the point of marketing.
He made the suggestion without reference to Home Information Packs.
He also said there was an argument for estate agents to be licensed, so that others in the process would be more likely to respect them.
A further suggestion from him was to make any buyer or seller who pulled out pre-contract but after the offer had been accepted forfeit a sum of money.
He said the current process was stressful for consumers and beset with problems and delays, including chains, gazumping, particular delays when transacting leaseholds, and fall-throughs.
Quince said there should be minimum standards for leasehold owners and managers to send back information.
He said that particular problems for conveyancers included the drive to reduce fees, which meant less quality.
Quince highlighted the move towards “factory conveyancing with its ridiculously low fees”, meaning that other conveyancers had to compete on price, taking on more work to do so and potentially exchanging volume for quality.
Kevin Hollinrake, chairman of Hunters and now an MP, said that any changes to the system must be considered in conjunction with the whole industry. His point was accepted by Quince.
Comments (11)
Most Estate Agents are lazy when selling leasehold properties. If you look on Rightmove 99% of adverts have no leasehold information at all. The online advert or printed sales particulars should at a minimum state the length of the Lease , how many years remain and the current years service charge, ground rent & any other charges applicable to the property. I accept this is information which will become apparent when Solicitors become involved however why not be upfront with the information at the time of marketing ?
I agree, we do this along with stamp duty cost for resi and investment, council tax and potential yield on every property.
Problem is half of vendors do not know so agents do not bother to chase it up.
The other problem is, potentially if we get it wrong we can be financially liable. I can see why some agents would not want to put themselves in this position.
Half the corporate staff will go from “Estate Agents” to “Viewing Guides”
Hes right about respect
Ladies and gentlemen. Above is the view of a man spouting generalisations without any idea of what he is trying to say.
Bring back the deposits that we used to take years ago at the time the sale was agreed, but this time on the basis that they would be lost if the buyer withdraws or tries to reduce the sale price (more often used than the vendor gazumping !). As Typhoon alludes, the public are selfish and although there is much criticism about the system, I suspect the status quo is preferred by the majority. Most involved in agency today will almost certainly agree that conveyancing standards have been diminished, due to the pressure on solicitor’s fees and incompetent conveyancing factories.
Regarding the first comment ‘that the property has a report on it’s condition prior to marketing!’. This statement simply reinforces the idea that many agents are unprofessional.
I work as a surveyor, providing building surveys only, and I frequently come across unprofessional estate agents, and I receive from both buyers and sellers about the poor service provided, and that is not due to unreasonable demands of a buyer, it is down to the poor standards of agents.
A condition survey at marketing does work, it is successful in Scotland, with the sellers pack, but in England, the market has dragged behind. There are some vested interests that prefer the way that the system is in England.
There would be a lot more buyers, if the process were tightened up. Many potential buyers are put off due to the fears of the process stalling, and this is in part encouraged by some agents.
There are some very good agents around, which I do deal with, who handle buyers with respect, and do not criticise a survey, as I have had one independent agent do recently, which led to the buyer going elsewhere.
The fees all round need to be higher, agents should not work on a commission of the sale price, but a fixed price, and to concentrate on the standard of their service to all interested parties.
That post is certainly going to generate some replies Neill30. I suggest you put your tin hat and flak jacket on.
“Regarding the first comment ‘that the property has a report on it’s condition prior to marketing!’. This statement simply reinforces the idea that many agents are unprofessional.”
No, it doesn’t Neil! It’s a tongue in cheek comment from a person who was heavily involved in the original HIPs and HCRs
I have always believed that providing a sellers pack together with a condition report which can be relied upon by sellers, buyers and mortgage lenders,prior to marketing, would greatly improve the post ‘sale agreed’ process and lead to faster and more transparent transactions.
Of course others with vested interests would do all they could to prevent this, as they have done historically!
Will Quince is a youngster and would do well to look at the 20 years of consultation which led to HIPs and the subsequent opposition, particularly by his own party which brought about their downfall.
I’m confused, the Government said that HIPs were holding back the housing market because sellers were having to “fork out extra cash”, yet possibly “forfeiting a sum of money“ won’t have the same effect? Most HIPs cost less than a few hundred pounds and some of that was recoverable (search fees) later on. A drop in the ocean compared (in most cases) to SDLT and other fees.
It would certainly help matters if all lenders had similar requirements and the CML Handbook (or any alternative) was standardised.
Agreed protocols and procedures would also help. There are so many issues that individual conveyancers can currently ‘take a view’ on, for example when a copy Planning Permission or Building Regulation approval should be requested and provided and when a legal indemnity policy is or isn’t required etc.
Collecting some useful information whilst a property is being marketed would seem sensible. I agree that HIPs weren’t the panacea the Government had hoped for but they should never have been scrapped overnight. There should have been a suspension, followed by an investigation into what did and what didn’t work, and then a decision should have been made as to the way forward. A huge wasted opportunity that cost a lot of people (who invested in the HIP process) time, money and unnecessary stress.
Without doubt, the way managing agents/freeholders provide information should be standardised, speeded up and, in most cases, made cheaper.
Low fees and high volumes if not handled correctly, can lead to delays, fall throughs and even claims. However, it is not only (some) volume conveyancers who cause delays, but also a number of high street firms who haven’t yet reached the 20th century, let alone the 21st century.
The first thing that should be done however, is to drop the ridiculous notion of privatising the Land Registry.
The second thing is that the Government Policy paper; A better deal: boosting competition to bring down bills for families and firms; might need reviewing, especially the bit that says the Government wants to make conveyancing cheaper.
Agents to be licensed? An interesting idea.
I welcome this initiative if it eventually results in a conveyancing/home buying and selling process that is better for all concerned.
You can have as many reports, laws penalties whatever. But the public are fundamentally selfish and they will do what suits them and if it messes someone else up they don’t care.
We in the industry wrestle with this public selfishness every day.
I doggie we believe sellers surveys would help sellers combat unfair and unreasonable price drops placed upon them by buyers usually close to the brink of exchange when they think their sellers will be under pressure.
‘He said that there was an argument for estate agents to supply information about a property at the point of marketing.’
Hilarious!
Next he’ll be suggesting that the property has a report on it’s condition prior to marketing!
ROFL