The Law Society has come in for criticism for its handling of updates to the property protocol forms. The forms have been updated to include more information about the property that can be used for compliance with National Trading Estate and Letting Agency Team (NTSELAT) guidance on material information. At the time Law Society president Nick Emmerson suggested that the updated forms would ‘help facilitate the flow of information from marketing a property by estate agents through to the legal process’ and encourage vendors to instruct legal services at an earlier stage of the transaction.
But the update has come in for criticism around the conveyancing sector, not least because the form now runs to 32 pages in length. Conveyancers and representative bodies have also taken umbrage at the lack of consultation; the Society of Licensed Conveyancers has expressed its disappointment with Chairperson Simon Law saying:
“We are disappointed to note that the forms have been amended without consultation with. The addition of material information to these forms has drastically increased the size of the forms and information required. It is further disappointing to note that this was not used as an opportunity to review the wording for the forms.”
Comments have been shared on Today’s Conveyancer’s coverage of the matter with one contributor saying
“I see questions are included about the area surrounding and abutting area and material defects of the property. I thought we were only interested in the legal title to the property and the land on which it stands! Great work law society.”
Another posted:
“The TA6 form now is non compliant with (The Law Society) CQS standard in relation to property specific questions. Mobile phone signal and property construction are issues for surveyors and estate agents to answer not to be contained in conveyancing forms. An estate agent local to us has a questionnaire for clients marketing for them with these types of questions in. That’s what should be done then there be no blurred lines.”
Law Society President Nick Emmerson has used an article in The Law Society Gazette to address concern raised, saying
We have heard your feedback and want to explain in more detail the reasons behind the changes to the form, which was developed by a working group of conveyancers with a wealth of experience of working on the transaction forms.
Our aim with the new TA6 is to help solicitors and consumers implement the NTSELAT material information guidance as seamlessly as possible, which it does in two main ways.
First, it enables solicitors to be of greater help to prospective sellers from the outset of their proposed property sale (as encouraged by NTSELAT) and not only after marketing by an estate agent has produced an acceptable offer from a buyer.
If a TA6 is completed by a seller, with their solicitor’s help, at the same time as the seller’s estate agent starts preparing the sales particulars, a copy of the completed TA6 can be given to the estate agent to enable their property listing to include the material information from the seller, which the estate agent may not be able easily to obtain from other sources (such as HM Land Registry). We know that some estate agents will obtain the information directly from sellers themselves and they have a number of different means of doing this. If the estate agent encourages the seller to go to their solicitor and use the TA6, this can then be used in the conveyancing process once an offer from a buyer has been accepted (subject to contract).
Second, the new form will help to ensure that, once the conveyancing process is under way, the information disclosed by the seller to the buyer through their solicitors in the transaction forms will match what was disclosed by the seller’s estate agents in the marketing. This is desirable even if the TA6 was not completed for marketing purposes. If the TA6 covers the same material information that was required for disclosure in the marketing, it will reduce inconsistencies and allow any inadvertent errors in the marketing information to be corrected before contracts are exchanged.
The article can be read in full here.
He added that The Law Society will continue to gather further feedback and encourages the profession to get in touch via forms@lawsociety.org.uk.
In response the Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) has weighed in with its own concerns giving notice of their intention to seek a vote of no confidence in The Law Society unless the updated TA6 is withdrawn. In an open letter to the Law Society President, PLAG spokesperson Colin McWilliams says
“I have read your article in the Gazette…. and it is disappointing to put it mildly…. It is not your function to concern yourself with the interests of estate agents nor other stakeholders in the property sector. Is is the Law Society’s duty to represent solicitors and to protect us. In this regard, it is not only failing, but acting against our interests.
Unless the 5th edition is made voluntary for CQS purposes I will be pushing as many of my fellow solicitors as possible to move towards a note of no confidence in the Law Society. I am also liaising with my local Law Society to discuss this matter with them.”
The email is provided in full below
2 responses
Colin Williams has said what seems all experienced solicitors in private practice have said to me ,and I have over 30 years experience.
What is even more alarming is that the Law Society President has repeatedly failed to answer the question if the TA6 (5 edition) exposes solicitors to criminal liability, nor have any of his staff so far despite repeated assertions that criminal liability will exist. This is appalling to expose solicitors to criminal liability without appropriate warning so effective protective measures cannot be undertaken.
I would welcome a no confidence vote, and I am sure many others will also as maybe then The Law Society may undertake appropriate measures to truly represent their members and clients.
For me, the article in the The Law Society Gazette was quite dreadful. First, it contained an inordinate amount of ‘waffle’ and clearly does not get to the point. To me it read like someone was trying to defend their position and role without actually understanding what their position and role is. Second, it shows a distinct lack of understanding from The Law Society as to the Conveyancing process and what we as Conveyancers actually do. Third, it read very much like to me that we are solely there to assist estate agents in the selling of houses and to try and stop so many of their sales going abortive. Fourth, it read to me that The Law Society does not support Conveyancers and does not consult in a correct and proper manner. I agree with the above, a no confidence vote in The Law Society is one which I would support.