HM Land Registry have confirmed that the automation work that has been piloted to date, to speed up Land Registry applications (by cutting down the number of checks that caseworkers conduct) will not shift liability on to conveyancers.
The Land Registry have been piloting a ‘lawyer assured information’ process requiring legal professionals to provide assurance that their applications are true and accurate. Being assured that certain ‘completion facts’ are correct means caseworkers do not then need to check the information.
Roger Holdom, Land Registry’s market strategy lead, commented:
“One notable change made after feedback is that our approach would leave it up to the individual RLP [regulated legal professional] to choose how they obtain the confidence to assure their firm’s applications. This may, for example, be by checking each individual application. Or alternatively they may only need to check a sample of their firm’s applications, as they have enough confidence in the processes and assurance checks in place. Any steps taken by the RLP must give them a reasonable belief that each application being submitted to HM Land Registry is true and accurate.
And we’ve been able to address concerns, such as around the perceived shifting of liability. It is not our intention to change the relationship between HM Land Registry and our customers. This will not put any increased risk on personal financial liability on those assuring us of the applications’ quality, nor do we see any change in PI insurance.”
Roger Holdom is aware that these automations or developments to the way the Land Registry works, can only be done by partnership with conveyancers. He stated that the Land Registry needed to establish how different conveyancers work and how they (the Land Registry) could effectively change the way work is undertaken.
In piloting some of these new approaches, the Land Registry decided to start with four high-volume firms: Enact, Eversheds Sutherland, Optima and O’Neill Patient. The rationale behind doing so? The Land Registry believed that working with these four firms with their high volumes provided enough example cases for them to quickly understand how things could work. To date their focus when it comes to automation has been on applications to register new charges, because “they’re relatively simple to register, and they make up a sizable proportion of our work”, says Roger Holdom.
Roger added:
“Through this initial pilot stage, we’ve learned a lot – both in terms of what works and what doesn’t – and we’ve seen some real benefits.”
This is all part of a wider piece it seems, as The Land Registry have been working on learning how firms can technically provide assurance on each application’s quality and whereabouts that assurance can be ‘stored’ within the organisation
Do leave your comments below on this as we would like to hear your thoughts? Is this more inconvenient? How do you feel about providing this assurance?
