Conveyancing firms could give home movers instant quotes on their websites.
This follows new guidance from the Council for Licensed Conveyancers on how practices can display their fees ahead of rule changes being introduced later this year.
From December 6, CLC practices will be required to make cost information, including whether they have referral arrangements, readily accessible on their website and in alternative formats on request.
They will also have to disclose the services they provide, key stages in the delivery of them and indicative timescales.
The CLC has said firms can decide how to display their own fees, but has suggested that examples of fixed fees based on specific values or a range of values of properties could be given, or hourly rates of staff and indicative timescales could also be provided.
The guidance also suggests licensed conveyancers could provide an estimate generator on their website or via a third party website, but warns that the results should be instant and not require a user to provide contact details or to request a callback.
The CLC template suggests firms should show their own fees as well as Land Registry search costs and likely Stamp Duty.
The regulatory body said it would monitor estimates and final costs shown by member firms.
Sheila Kumar, chief executive of the CLC, said: “The new rules are due to come into force on December 6, and those we regulate need to start working now to help potential clients make a better informed choice of lawyer.
“We have been consulting and talking about these changes for two years now and so we do not believe that this will cause firms undue difficulty. The guidance will help practices understand what is required, while the benefit to consumers could be considerable.
“I hope those we regulate will see these new rules as an opportunity to really differentiate themselves in what is a highly competitive market and so better appeal to clients on grounds other than just price.
“Helping consumers understand the value of the service they offer, the benefits of how they offer that service and the experience the client should expect, will help the consumer make a more informed choice.
“Our approach has long been to set transparency requirements, so we trust firms will see this as an extension of what they have already been doing.
“We work with the practices we regulate to support their compliance, and along with the guidance we publish today we will be providing a range of support. We would urge firms to take advantage so they can meet our expectations and better serve their clients.”
Comments (7)
Only conveyancers can explain, as only we know what is involved.
Poor CLC – the guidance is certainly ‘involved’.
I thought Veyo was the most absurd idea I had heard, before it fell apart, but this whole publishing prices in advance, this is scary stuff – for the public. The public already have almost no method to secure a decent conveyancer, but to have all conveyancers push price to the forefront of their own web presence is foolish, and suggests price is a relevant factor to choosing a decent conveyancer. It couldn’t be further from the truth.
Cheap pricing is cheap for a reason.
Solicitors are already obliged to inform clients of the legal fees before they are permitted to charge them, and to do so right at the start….so I would suggest the idea is scrapped BUT that firms are simply obliged to guarantee on their website whether they will not charge extra for certain things:
– filling in a stamp duty form (of course not)
– unregistered title (of course not)
– raising more enquiries (or per enquiry) than a set amount (of course not)
– less than 7 days between exchange and completion (not usually
– as lawyers get paid more quickly)
– discharging a mortgage (of course not)
Very very rare to charge anything extra.
Should any public stumble across this, this link (on this topic) shows an example of a completion statement that has exactly the charge we’re talking about applied.
http://moversandstorers.co.uk/2018/03/08/profiting-from-truly-poor-practice/
I agree with Matt’s comments – there are some firms local to me who do charge extra for less than seven days between exchange and completion which puts unnecessary pressure in an already stressful situation. when dealing with those firms, I am extra cautious but I may be only one in a chain of lawyers and the other firms will not know what goes on in relation to the costs of others….. and why should I be the one to explain not only to my own clients but also to other lawyers and the agents (who invariable have recommended the firms….) that we have to have a shorter time between exchange and completion because it enables greater fees to be charged elsewhere in the chain
when providing a quote to clients, I ask them to bear in mind that on the face of it , I may appear more expensive but that is because my quote is clear, transparent, easy to read and is written in a way that the client understands. in the same way that Matt meets clients so that he can give an accurate figure , it is important for conveyancers to establish the initial rapport with a client so that you can understand their reason for moving house and if there are going to be any stress trigger points – that is not possible from a quote provided on a website
We go out, assess and provide a fixed quotation. It is up to us to ensure we get it right at the outset and stick to it. There are many people in our line, and indeed EA’s and most certainly solicitors who know full well that certain firms are always the ones who delay exchange at the last minute. It is just coincidence it’s the ones who apply that fee. We’ve taken to warning customers early on to renegotiate with their conveyancer this fee or simply switch conveyancer to a firm that is not offering themselves a financial incentive to cause undue stress. Because that is what it is. You can dress it up any way you want. The truth is it is open to manipulation and when the fee for it is often @25% of the basic conveyancing fee it offers significant financial reward for making damn certain a last minute query delays the exchange.
Our local hand car wash insists on inspecting any vehicle before quoting for a wash. If the car is full of sand and dog hairs for example, the price goes up, more work involved.
Conveyancing quotes are usually given on the price of the property and the tenure (freehold or leasehold). Until the contract etc is received it is very difficult to be certain how much work will be involved. Surely it is fair to increase fees if something (unforeseeable) unusual or time consuming crops up?
In my opinion, very few if any, conveyancers deliberately delays a transaction in order to have a shorter period between exchange and completion. A short period between exchange and completion is the last thing most conveyancers want.
How do you quote for a removal job Matt?
I agree with your comment about fee inflation, Matt – this is a truly outrageous “bait and switch” tactic that we see far too often.
As ever, the devil is in the detail – the use of the word “quote” is SO misleading because, that’s just what it is, as in “builder quote”.
The issue I have with this initiative, is that price transparency is not high on consumers’ agendas when it comes to issues in the house buying and selling process. I’d like other fee issues to be sorted first, such as when agents are forced to break the law on bribery by recommending lawyers through panels in the full knowledge they are recommending a substandard service. I guess next year’s initiative on fee-transparency for agents might go someway to clarify the position there…
Will they display where they charge an additional fee for ‘exchanging and completing within 5 days’ along with the ‘basic’ fee quote? Moreover, if they do will they publish data for how often they come up with bulllpoo ‘queries’ very late which deliberately delays exchange from 7-10 days before down to a magic 4 or 5?
If consumers are to have fairness, and stop being ripped off and needlessly stressed out then charges like this which inflate a conveyancing fee to the client by anything up to @25% should be stamped out or at least displayed in public so the practice can be judged.