Conveyancers unite against stress and frustration of dealing with management companies

29 Apr 2014|Feature|Add your comment

Answers from parliament provide a platform for our campaign to help the industry and its clients, says Eddie Goldsmith

It can take management companies up to eight weeks to respond to requests for
the information conveyancers need to progress a sale. When you consider that 200,000 leasehold transactions take place every year, it’s an awful
lot of waiting time.

Members of the Conveyancing Association wrote to their local MPs last October highlighting these issues, which led to a number of meetings.

We outlined how a legal change that required management companies to deliver information in a set time – and at a set cost – would make
a huge difference to transaction handlers and homebuyers (see www.solicitorsjournal.com/node/18982).

Ian Mearns MP kindly agreed
to table some parliamentary questions to find out more
about the problems experienced by those buying leasehold properties, which have now
been answered.
Questions to the Department for Communities and Local Government

Ian Mearns: “To ask the secretary of state for communities and local government if he will extend the redress scheme to include management agencies for leasehold properties.”

Kris Hopkins MP: “The requirement that letting and property management agents in England must be a member of an approved redress scheme will apply in both the leasehold and the private rented sector.”

Ian Mearns: “To ask the secretary of state for communities and local government: (1) what estimate his department has made of how many people buying leasehold properties in (a) 2012 and (b) 2013 were charged over £500 by management companies for
the information they needed
to complete the purchase; (2) what estimate his department has made of how long it took people buying leasehold properties in (a) 2012 and (b) 2013 to obtain from management companies
the necessary information
they needed to complete
the purchase.”

Kris Hopkins: “This information
is not centrally held.”

Question to the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills

Ian Mearns: “To ask the secretary of state for business, innovation and skills whether consideration was given to including schemes to protect leaseholders within the Consumer Rights Bill.”

Jenny Willott MP: “Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Bill will, when enacted, apply where a trader contracts with a consumer to provide goods, digital content or services within scope. The Department for Communities and Local Government has oversight of a specific legislative regime to protect leaseholders.

“The content of the bill was consulted on in 2012 and a draft bill was published and subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Business Innovation and Skills Committee in 2013.

“These consultations were conducted openly and sought views from a large range of interested parties. However, there were no wide-ranging
calls for specific provisions for
the protection of leaseholders under the bill.”

These answers highlight the lack
of awareness at a national level, which could be perceived as a drawback. We see it as a useful starting point for follow-up about leasehold transactions and, in particular, the desperate need to improve processes.

We are certain that some
stats backing up our claims
will strengthen our argument,
which is why we are encouraging all conveyancers and property lawyers to quickly answer a
few anonymous questions
about their experience of management companies
during leasehold transactions.

More to follow online and in
an upcoming edition. SJ

Eddie Goldsmith is senior partner at Goldsmith Williams and chairman of the conveyancing association

POULTER BACKS CALL FOR ACTION

Having just gone through the process of selling a leasehold flat, and dealing with what seemed to be a wilfully incompetent property management company, I am all too happy to cheer on Eddie, the Conveyancing Association and this campaign.

Without the legislative change being sought, the delay by some companies in responding to enquiries can cause frustration for both clients and conveyancers.

At a time of often heightened client emotions and, in the current property market, the potential to miss out on a sale or purchase opportunity, any unreasonable delay has the potential to damage the relationship between a practitioner, their client and the other transacting parties.

The often basic reports can also come at not inconsiderable and, on occasion unexpected, expense. This is a perfect opportunity for SJ readers to lend their voice and support to this important campaign.

Kevin Poulter is editor at large of SJ

Tweet your comments at @SJ_Weekly

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Members of the Conveyancing Association wrote to their local MPs last October highlighting these issues, which led to a number of meetings.

Ian Mearns: “To ask the secretary of state for communities and local government if he will extend the redress scheme to include management agencies for leasehold properties.”

Kris Hopkins: “This information
is not centrally held.”

Question to the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills

Ian Mearns: “To ask the secretary of state for business, innovation and skills whether consideration was given to including schemes to protect leaseholders within the Consumer Rights Bill.”

Conveyancers unite against stress and frustration of dealing with management companies

Comments

Domestic killers will face longer sentences

Parole Board provides new resources for victims

Entertainment deal activity rises on IP demand in 2026

Dickinson v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals: Pabrinex failure causes Wernicke's encephalopathy and profound functional disorder, rules High Court

CP Holdings v Assicurazioni Generali: broker's failure to press for conformity term proves fatal to €160m Covid-19 BI claim

Rowntree v Performing Right Society: Court of Appeal dismisses Blur drummer's black box royalties class action

City Outdoor Media v Secretary of State: Court of Appeal confirms scope of inquiry for site-wide advertising discontinuance notices

Kensington Mortgage Company v Price: mortgagee in possession must register as Welsh landlord before serving possession notice

Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority: Court of Appeal defines CAT's review powers in landmark Subsidy Control Act ruling

Bay Farm Power v Prescott: Upper Tribunal cuts anaerobic digester rateable values and rejects sector-wide tone argument

Privatbank v Kolomoisky: ring-fenced funds released to bank on dismissal of appeal, rules High Court

Young v Royal Mail Group: EAT dismisses trade union protection appeal over WhatsApp threat

Reforms to solicitors’ costs must be evidence-based

SJ Interview: Chris Spelman

When the rules can't keep up