An “experienced” conveyancer who had practised for almost five decades has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) and ordered to pay costs of over £45,000 after admitting a series of failings relating to three conveyancing transactions.
In five allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the tribunal heard that Simon Langford, the owner, manager and sole solicitor at Sayers Solicitors in Harrow, had failed to register a property (Property B) with HM Land Registry (HMLR) between June 2019 and April 2024 and provided “false and misleading” information to the client; failed to assist with or respond to requisitions from HMLR in respect of a second property (Property C); failed to perform or discharge an undertaking given to the solicitors acting for the purchasers of a third property (Property D); failed to cooperate with the SRA’s investigation into the complaints.
In April 2019, Langford – who was admitted as a solicitor in 1979 – was instructed in respect of the purchase of Property B. He informed his client, Mrs A, the purchase had completed in June 2019.
In mid-2020, Mrs A noticed the property was not appearing on sold property price websites and raised her concerns with Langford, who promised to make enquiries. He failed to respond to subsequent enquiries in January and June 2021. Between November 2021 and November 2023 Langford gave Mrs A assurances about the status of the registration, including that applications “have been lodged”.
In April 2023, HMLR informed Mrs A no further application had been filed since the original application was rejected in August 2019.
In 2022, Langford acted for the sellers of Property C, a leasehold property, which completed in December 2022. In May 2023, HMLR raised a requisition with the solicitors acting for the buyers which could not be answered without information from Langford.
The buyers’ solicitors sent six emails between May and November 2023. In the sixth email, they informed Langton the matter had been reported to the SRA, at which time he requested a copy of the requisition.
In 2023, a lease extension was requested as part of a transaction being handled by Langford on behalf of the purchasers of Property D. By additional clauses added to the contract, Langford undertook to register the lease extension within three days of completion.
The sale completed on 15 December 2023. Between 20 March and 4 December 2024, the solicitors acting for the purchasers emailed Langford 26 times, telephoned 22 times, and wrote twice. Langford did not register the lease extension and the matter was reported to the SRA in October 2024.
During the SRA’s investigations into each matter, Langford failed to respond to a total of 28 attempts at contact made between February 2024 and January 2025.
The tribunal found all five allegations of breaches made against Langford by the SRA to be proved: Principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and Paragraphs 1.4 and 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors in respect of Property B; Principle 2 in relation to Property C; Principles 2 and 5 and Paragraph 1.3 in respect of Property D; and Principles 2 and 5 and Paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 in relation to the SRA’s investigation.
In mitigation, Langford – who represented himself – said his business partner had died unexpectedly in 2017 and he had “not been prepared” for the loss but felt a responsibility to his staff to continue practising.
He expressed remorse and said he was “distressed” at the problems he had caused for his clients and other solicitors involved and was “truly sorry” for the outcome of his inaction.
Although he accepted the only realistic sanction the tribunal could impose was that he would be struck off, he told the hearing he did not attend to apply for a further practising certificate and had been considering closing his practice and, the tribunal noted, “would have wished to leave the profession without this stain upon his character”.
Rejecting the request, the tribunal found both culpability and seriousness to be high, having been “deliberate, calculated and repeated”.
“There was nothing in the Respondent’s personal mitigation capable of amounting to exceptional circumstances”, the tribunal noted.
The tribunal ordered Langford to be struck off the Roll and pay the costs of the investigation, summarily fixed at £45,630.
