The Law Society have said they are ‘grateful’ for feedback from conveyancers following the uproar that ensued after the release of the updated fifth edition of the TA6 Property Information Form
A new practice note and ‘frequently asked questions‘ (FAQs) was published by the Law Society this week, providing guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the implications for conveyancing firms. In the FAQs, published on the same day as the practice note, The Law Society recognised members had been “surprised” by the extent of the changes to the form, adding ‘(w)e have understood from the feedback we have had that members would have preferred us to consult and be more transparent as the forms were developed.’
One of the charges levelled at The Law Society is the lack of practitioner representation on the review panel. In response The Law Society say
“Those engaged in the development of the latest edition of the TA6 and TA7 forms included practitioners from across the spectrum of the membership – small, medium and large firms – as well as professional support lawyers and academics. Many members of the working group have a wealth of experience working on the transaction forms.”
The regulators have come under fire from property practitioners in the wake of guidance produced by National Trading Standard Estate and Letting Agents Team (NTSELAT) outlining property professionals’ obligation under the CPRs. The TA6 protocol forms have been updated ‘to help provide prospective buyers with the information suggested (in the guidance) and help the ‘profession to take a lead on how this new guidance is introduced, so this is achieved in a way that works best for solicitors and their clients’ say The Law Society.
Although the CPRs will be superseded in due course by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which received royal assent on 24th May 2024, the new legislation makes broadly similar provision. And the Law Society have argued that the legal position of conveyancers post-NTSELAT guidance is unchanged, but acknowledges CPRs remain largely untested in a court of law.
The (2016) practice note made clear that infringements of the CPRs by solicitors are potentially offences punishable:
- on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum,
- on conviction on indictment to a fine, or
- by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years
There is unlikely to be an omission of “material information” (and a solicitor will not, therefore, be in breach of the CPRs) if a solicitor fails to disclose information which:
- is confidential, or
- falls within the caveat emptor principle
The legal position does not appear to the Law Society to have changed.
The expanded information sought by the amended transaction forms fits into the two categories that applied before the forms were amended, that is, concerning:
- potential physical defects
- defects as to legal title
The amendments do not extend civil liability for solicitors acting for either buyers or sellers for either category as a result of having to provide more material information under the CPRs.
The Law Society has however acknowledged that it could have communicated and sought feedback for the proposed changes earlier, and affirms its commitment to do so in the future. CQS accredited firms are obliged to use the updated TA6 forms from Tuesday 25th June 2024 and there may yet be updates to the Conveyancing Protocol to account for the updates, albeit the Law Society have indicated they intend to review how the implementation of material information guidance is delivered before finalising any changes.
Some have taken to social media to air their frustrations, with conveyancing trainer and outspoken critic of the updated forms Stephen Desmond describing it as ‘one of the saddest days in the history of Conveyancing, as the Law Society, in effect, conveys the impression that it does not care about the opinions of its Conveyancer members’ adding, ‘our profession will adapt and cope, but I fear we are less likely to forgive or forget this shocking betrayal.’
The Property Lawyers Action Group has taken further steps following its threat to call a vote of no-confidence in The Law Society, publishing their own statement saying
‘In accordance with Law Society Bye-Laws, the Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) has initiated the procedure for a Special General Meeting (SGM) for the purposes of holding a vote of no confidence in the Law Society CEO Ian Jeffery, and President Nick Emmerson.
100 signatures are required from solicitors to call for the SGM. Thereafter, there will be a further vote to determine the motion as set out in Appendix B of the requisition.’
Today’s Conveyancer has approached the Law Society for comment.
3 responses
As usual, Stephen Desmond, the real and only conveyancer’s champion, is exactly right.
For me, the issue is the total lack of consultation and the lack of transparency.
Who sits on the “working group”? Why aren’t they named?
Who represented The Law Society and Conveyancers when the NTSLEAT created MI guidance?
Beyond that, The Law Society and the Conveyancing and Land Law Committee have been MIA and allowed the Conveyancing Association to fill the space. Conveyancers have been abandoned.
The Law Society have been far too quiet on this matter and not transparent enough.
I agree with the comments from David Weeks and Arthur Michael Robinson.
The statements made by the Law Society on this matter have been very poor for a number of reasons a) Lack of transparency in terms of who actually is making these decisions and amending these forms b) The lack of thought due care and attention on their members who have to deal with the practical day to day realities c) The seemingly forcing through of matters to benefit estate agents at the point of sale d) The confusion and lack of understanding of what conveyancers are meant to do i.e. are we surveyors, are we valuers or should we only be dealing with the legal title e) Despite the previous statement which I hold no confidence in the Law Society in, how are we protected against being sued for incorrect information and what negative impacts with this have on our indemnity insurance f) How are clients and Conveyancers to be protected against the rising costs with the additional support that clients will need.
I would support a no confidence vote in the Law Society and would call for the resignations and replacements of Ian Jeffery and Nick Emmerson as a result of their handling of this matter. Further, I would call for a boycott of these protocol forms until this matter is correctly dealt with. If all Conveyancers stick together here, the Law Society would have no choice but to act.