Amity Law, a property law firm specialising in residential conveyancing, has completed its first digital purchase transaction using PEXA. The transaction marks an important milestone in the adoption of a digital completions process in the UK property market, the companies said.
The transaction saw the Bolton-based firm experience the live completion environment via PEXA’s FCA-regulated digital completions infrastructure. The case completed following a controlled onboarding and training process that enabled the Amity team to progress from progress the transaction through to completion in a pre-selected 8.30am slot, exchanging funds and digitally lodging the title application with HM Land Registry, all within the PEXA platform.
The transaction was a cash purchase and formed part of a property chain, with Amity acting on the purchase of a property.
Sarah Ryan, head of legal practice, finance and administration at Amity Law, said: “At the beginning, it is fair to say we all wanted change but still felt some apprehension about what that would mean in practice. Operationally, we knew the process via PEXA would work, but it still felt like a significant change. Once we were in the workspace and could see things in action, that apprehension disappeared. The process was easy to navigate and showed us what digital completions can mean in practice.”
Jenny Randell, the senior licensed conveyancer who handled the case, described the experience as a turning point in being able to provide a more certain experience for clients. “It was awesome,” she said.
“The idea of being able to have completions done and dusted before you have even logged on in the morning is genuinely mind-blowing. It completely changes what completion day can feel like for conveyancers and clients.”
Joe Pepper, UK CEO at PEXA, said: “This is a brilliant milestone for Amity Law and another positive step for the adoption of digital completions in the UK. Amity’s experience shows that while change can understandably feel significant at the outset, the right infrastructure, onboarding and support can give firms greater confidence and control at completion.
“Digital completion is not about replacing the expertise of conveyancers. It is about giving firms better tools to support their clients at one of the most important points in the transaction.”
Amity Law will continue to work with PEXA to identify further suitable cases and share its experience with other law firms, introducers and industry stakeholders. As more firms begin to explore digital completions, PEXA and Amity Law say they are keen to work with like-minded law firms that want to understand the process and help shape how digital completions works in practice and encourage interested firms to get in touch.
4 responses
Sounds very promising.
No explanation however of what this means for each transaction above? Reading between the lines here it’s clear Amity were acting for the bottom of the chain.
Is it possible to have this become automated through the rest?
Article says started at 8:30 and also done before work started. Does that mean it was less than thirty minutes?
There’s 35000 removals operatives for whom the success of digitisation and therefore key release times being sensible. Would have a massive quality of life impact.
Hence these details and answers really do matter.
If this is as slick as the article suggests then – Well done and Marvellous news’
Hi Matt
Yes it was 8.30am. The completion slot was set up two days before. At 8.30am it moved – no waiting, it was instant.
The client was delighted they could collect the keys at the time we had agreed. It gave the client certainty rather than sitting in a removal van praying funds would be received and completed before the end of the day.
It would be great to catch up, show you the system in action and answer your points.
To add some balance to what is, ultimately, a very positive article about Pexa’s own platform, there are a number of important practical questions that remain unanswered.
Firstly, Pexa owns Amity Law. This was not two independent firms adopting a new process and demonstrating how it works across the wider market; it was a transaction completed within the same corporate group. That context is important when considering how representative this example is of a typical conveyancing transaction.
Matt raises a good question about the rest of the chain. The article focuses on a single transaction, but property transactions rarely exist in isolation. The real test is not whether one linked transaction can complete and register quickly, but whether the process works efficiently across an entire chain involving multiple firms, lenders, estate agents and other stakeholders who may not be using the same systems. The article does not address this.
There also appears to be an assumption that moving money more quickly automatically makes the overall transaction more efficient. In reality, the critical question is what happens when something goes wrong. Chains regularly experience last-minute issues, delayed mortgage funds, title problems, lender requirements and client-related complications. If one transaction in a chain cannot proceed, what happens to a system designed around simultaneous completion and registration? The article does not explain how exceptions are managed, despite exceptions being a routine part of conveyancing practice.
Cost is another factor that has been largely overlooked. Law firms will be expected to pay to use the platform, with industry discussion suggesting a potential per-case charge. Firms will also need to dedicate time and resources to either integrating with Pexa or maintaining data within a separate system. Those costs will ultimately need to be absorbed by firms or passed on to clients.
More importantly, there appears to be no corresponding transfer of liability. The professional risk remains with the conveyancer. Law firms are being asked to adopt new processes, additional technology and potentially additional administration, while retaining the same legal responsibility for the transaction.
The article also presents simultaneous registration as an unqualified benefit. In practice, registration can only take place if all registration requirements have been satisfied. In straightforward transactions this may simply require information to be prepared earlier. In more complex matters, however, it may require notices to be served, certificates obtained and restrictions complied with before completion can occur. Many of these requirements involve third parties such as landlords, management companies and other organisations that often operate to their own timescales.
The result may be that completion happens more quickly on the day itself, but only because work that currently takes place after completion has been moved to an earlier stage. For some transactions that may be beneficial. For others it may simply mean that completion takes place days or weeks later than it otherwise would have done, with additional cost and administration along the way.
The wider question for conveyancers is whether this genuinely removes friction from the transaction process or simply redistributes it. Faster movement of money and earlier registration are attractive headlines, but they are not, in themselves, evidence that transactions will be quicker, cheaper or less risky for clients.
Innovation in conveyancing should be welcomed. However, before the profession embraces a new model, it is reasonable to ask for evidence not only of what works in a carefully controlled demonstration, but also of how the system performs in everyday transactions involving multiple firms, complex titles, difficult third parties, broken chains and the countless practical issues that conveyancers deal with every day.
Great points Mark and I would be delighted to sit down and talk through all. Let’s get around a table and show the system, let’s get more firms involved in chains.
You are right let’s put the hard stuff through and the volume.
I completely appreciate the article doesn’t address all your points but more than happy to catch up and discuss.
We’ve both been in this industry for an age, we’ve seen innovation and systems come and go. This is different – yes we are part of the Group, but that doesn’t change my regulatory position, the independence, the positive impact to conveyancers and what’s in the best interests of the clients.
Let me know when is best for a catch up.