I had a transaction this week where on the sale of a standard semi detached house, I received fifty (yes, fifty, 5 – 0) enquiries.
The word to describe my reaction was disbelief. With all that I see on LinkedIn about enquiries, is this still really happening? Are firms still asking me if I have verified identity? Are firms still asking me for the seller to confirm that the filed plan is accurate? Are firms still asking me to confirm that the fittings are not encumbered? Well, yes they are!
When thinking about how transactions can be quicker, I often decide that one of the reasons is the volume of unnecessary queries. There is always the “people” element and the “chain” scenario, but let’s face it – enquiries delay things. Firm A ask me to confirm I have verified identity; I ask them why they are asking me that as I am using the CQS Protocol and am complying with the Code for Completion; they tell the agent (and usually their own client, the buyer) that I have not answered the query.
The agent then tells my client that I have not answered the question…. Well, we all know how that goes, and however much we protest that such enquiries should not be asked, we end up having to answer them to keep everyone happy. How can that be right? So I note that the latest CQS course offering is about Additional enquiries – very interesting and it gives reasons why the questions should not be asked.
I intend to use those reasons in my answers, but this does not get over the issue of agents and there needs to be some education for agents as to what questions should and should not be asked. This would mean that they could see whether Firm A should be asking those questions.
And as a result, delaying the transaction. It is not the fault of the seller’s firm if there are delays due to unnecessary enquiries. The sellers’ solicitor does not need to answer them, but if you, like me, just find that it is quicker to answer them rather than get into an argument where we are shown as the unhelpful and obstructive party, what can we do?
2 Responses
I suggest that CQS compliant firms create replies to standard enquiries and consider what other enquiry may be asked and give the reply as part of a Buyer’s pack.
Also, with regard to estate agents, it would help if they’d keep out of “the legal bit”. Given speed, as opposed to accuracy, is apparently the most important thing, interfering and requiring unnecessary enquiries to be replied to SLOWS THE TRANSACTION DOWN.
Only when a Seller is required by law to produce a Buyer’s pack before a property is marketed and only when a Buyer may ask enquiries that are relevant will true “speed and accuracy” be achieved.
First, it would be nice if the law society supported solicitors in property transactions. The TA6 and TA10 are out of date and are not fit for purpose. I have suggested amendments to these in the past and either these suggestions are ignored or they state that changes are under discussion. They seemingly do not happen. Second, where I receive such enquiries, they are now being returned unanswered and it’s time that everyone took that view. Only where there is a general consensus on how to deal with such nonsense will firms change what they are doing. Sadly, some firms think it is ok to merely hit forward to their client to answer such nonsense and they do not realise what liability they are placing their clients at. Do firms do CPD anymore? as this comes up regularly.