The Law Society have been accused of creating ‘uncertainty’ over its decision to extend the dual use of both the 4th and 5th edition of the TA6 Property Information Form, with the withdrawal of the form the ‘wishes’ of its members say pressure group the Property Lawyers Alliance.
Following much consternation from the legal profession regarding the length and detail of the 5th edition, which incorporated many of the material and up front information queries required to be completed by estate agents under the Consumer Protection Regulations (CPRs), the Law Society announced it would conduct a full consultation on the proposed form.
An initial deadline of 15th January 2025 was established to enable firms to continue using the 4th edition, or switch to the 5th edition. That deadline was extended to enable the professional body to “(work) through the volumes of feedback” it has collected through the consultation. No exact date has been provided on the length of the extension.
Now, an open letter to the Law Society CEO has accused the body of creating uncertainty in extending the deadline and ‘kicking the can down the road.’
The letter has been published by the Property Lawyers Alliance, formerly the Property Lawyers Action Group, who were largely responsible for the calling of a Special General Meeting earlier in the year to voice concerns about the de-facto introduction of the new form, and hold a vote of no confidence in the leadership.
It suggests PLA members have attended the various consultation opportunities and considers the outcome clear; the ‘profession does not support the 5th edition of the TA6,’ citing polls held throughout the consultation sessions in which respondents said they would continue to use the 4th edition if they could. It goes on to say the extension of using both the 4th and 5th editions has created uncertainty and is ‘detrimental’ to the profession’s reputation.
The PLA have therefore called on the Law Society to withdraw the 5th edition.
But striking a conciliatory tone, the letter concludes saying the PLA is prepared to work with the Law Society on finding an acceptable alternative.
A spokesperson for the Law Society of England and Wales responding to Today’s Conveyancer’s request for comment said
“We are grateful to all those in the profession who have engaged with the TA6 property information form consultation. We are now working through the volumes of feedback received and will provide an update to the profession in the New Year.”
Property Lawyers Alliance – Open Letter to Law Society CEO Ian Jeffery
Dear Mr Jeffery,
We note that the consultation over the 5th edition of the TA6 has reached its conclusion.
We are grateful to the Law Society for engaging in a lengthy and substantive consultation on an issue that many conveyancers consider to be of vital importance. So much so a Special General Meeting of the Law Society was convened earlier this year. The leadership of the Law Society survived the motion proposed at the meeting. Many attendees took the view that the Law Society’s announcement prior to the meeting, that it would consult on the TA6, swung the vote in the Law Society’s favour.
The various rounds of the consultation have been attended by PLA members. It is clear from the feedback that our members witnessed (not only from other members but also from other participants in the consultation) that the profession does not support the 5th edition of the TA6. For example, in a session held on 23 October 2024, the question was posed “Do you intend to continue to use version 4 (if permitted by protocol/CQS?”. 80% of respondents answered “yes”. 14% were unsure. Only 7% answered “no”. These answers mirror polls carried out informally on LinkedIn prior to the consultation.
PLA members and the wider conveyancing community have put their faith in a genuine and open consultation undertaken by the Law Society. The consultation has concluded, and the outcome is clear. We cannot, to quote the vernacular, continue ‘to kick the can down the road’ on this issue. Two versions of the TA6 have created uncertainty, which is detrimental to the profession’s reputation.
So, we respectfully call on the Law Society to withdraw the 5th edition, in line with the wishes of its members. Alternatively, if despite the wishes of the profession, the Law Society feels unable to comply with this request, the Property Lawyers Alliance is willing to collaborate with it to agree on an acceptable alternative.
Yours sincerely,
The Property Lawyers Alliance
6 responses
Whilst I agree that the new TA6 could be improved (and in my opinion probably will be), this letter seems a little premature. We should let the consultation run its course until the beginning of next year to see what the Law Society decides to do then.
It would appear that the majority of Bold Legal Group member firms are currently working with their preferred version of the TA6 without too much difficulty.
The Law Society is already well aware that I and/or the BLG will provide every assistance required to ensure that the eventual outcome is one that suits the majority of property lawyers.
And the preferred version of the form for most BLG members is?
The Law Society has already done tremendous damage to its own reputation with the 5th edition. Withdrawing the form now at least demonstrates that it still possesses the humility to recognise something obvious, that it made a tremendous mistake. Nobody will think less of TLS for conceding the blatantly obvious. The longer this goes on however, the worse it will get for TLS. Is there anyone left who thinks that it is even remotely plausible for the 5th edition as it is currently drafted to become mandatory? Not in January, not ever.
It is clear that no one in the conveyancing profession embraces this form. Why the Law Society is being so obstinate is anyone’s guess, but in my view it is futile to keep kicking the metaphorical can down the road. The profession have spoken, they have rejected the form so the Law Society should accept that they were wrong on this and then gracefully plan the next steps. We all know the fourth edition form could do with an update so why not grasp the olive branch being held out by the Property Lawyers Alliance and work collaboratively for the greater good of the profession? I do not agree with what Mr Hailstone is saying, most firms are NOT using the new form in my opinion. It is the Property Lawyers Alliance that has been at the forefront of this request to reject the changes imposed on us by the new TA6, not the BLG I’m afraid.
I agree with the Property Lawyers Alliance. It’s about time the Law Society stopped being bullied by government (or whoever else is sponsoring them to put through MI).
The 5th edition is incorporating questions the NTSEAT says must be answered because they relate to material information (see: The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008). Sellers are not within scope of the CPRs; are conveyancers? If they are not, there is no need to frustrate the conveyancing process by adding these questions to the current TA6 – they are questions for estate agents to ask sellers upon instruction; not conveyancers after a sale has been agreed.