STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
Rob Hailstone
Rob Hailstone
Founder of the Bold Legal Group
1086  Profile Views

About Me

Ex-conveyancer and Founder of the Bold Legal Group.

my expertise in the industry

Rob's Recent Activity

Rob Hailstone

From: Rob Hailstone 19 September 2017 07:15 AM

Rob Hailstone

From: Rob Hailstone 02 March 2017 07:00 AM

Rob Hailstone

From: Rob Hailstone 07 November 2016 13:13 PM

Rob Hailstone
It is good to see that the Conveyancing Association is setting up a working group to consider how to increase transparency, cut unnecessary delays and costs, and provide more information during the fraught house-buying process. My concern is that the CA is made up (mainly) of the volume conveyancers and bigger players. Will their views, comments and suggestions be as relevant to the other firms who collectively conduct the other 80% of property transactions? The CA have said: “This feels like a pivotal moment for how the home-buying process develops and the CA is committed to ensuring the views of our members are fully represented and we are able to support the BIS in delivering on what are sure to be some wide-reaching aims and ambitions.” The Bold Legal Group (420 member firms and growing, many of whom are also CA members) has similarly been working with the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and will also be responding to the ‘call for evidence’ when it comes. Maybe some joined up thinking at the outset would be a good idea. Responding to your comment Matt, I think we know what you, some removers and agents think is wrong with the process. You have been very vocal about these issues in the past: “The solicitor who takes three hours to send funds, due to a lacksy daisy bad attitude, well, can now take four. Why fix the real problem when you can mask it? Why force a lazy feckless individual to start funds transfer at 09:30 when you can just extend the time available and leave it so they can do nothing until after lunch?” Having said that, I think all stakeholders should be involved and whether the CA and BLG work together or not. I now extend the hand of co-operative friendship.

From: Rob Hailstone 23 June 2016 07:27 AM

Rob Hailstone
With the Government currently looking at making conveyancing "potentially quicker, simpler and cheaper" I can't see Land Registry fees being increased by it: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480798/a_better_deal_for_families_and_firms_web.pdf For most people in England and Wales safe and secure ownership of their property is of paramount importance, for the most obvious of reasons. Their property is their biggest asset and will, in many cases, provide their families with financial security for generations to come. The Government’s proposal would mean a private company, rather than the impartial and statutory LR, would be adjudicating title on transactions between other private companies, on the land rights of citizens, of mortgage lenders, and local and central government. A few points to consider: • The LR underpins property ownership worth £4 trillion across England and Wales including £1 trillion of mortgages • The LR holds over 24 million titles of land • The LR should remain under impartial control • The LR provides a guaranteed register of interests in land • The LR is run at no cost to the Exchequer • A new owner is likely to want to increase prices • A new owner would seek to increase profits and is likely to want to ‘streamline’ services • A new owner would effectively have a monopoly market • With property fraud on the increase and the LR in many cases the last barrier to a fraud being perpetrated, the continued first class service being provided is vital • Selling the LR is financially very short-sighted. It already makes a substantial profit. With a very modest increase in the cost of some of the services provided, that profit could increase • The LR being run by a new owner might not be as efficient, causing delays in registrations and other applications, resulting in more transactions falling through Never has the expression’ if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ come to mind so readily.

From: Rob Hailstone 17 May 2016 06:04 AM

Rob Hailstone

From: Rob Hailstone 24 March 2016 04:48 AM

Rob Hailstone

From: Rob Hailstone 24 February 2016 06:32 AM

Rob Hailstone
"Shall I presume that, here at least, I shall not find any acknowledgment, or empathetic response to the situations I highlight? " NO! "You would not go away believing that there is no problem." I HAVE KNOWN THERE IS A PROBLEM FOR DECADES! "These are real situations, happening every week, up and down the country." WE KNOW! "Denial won't cut it." WE ARE NOT IN DENIAL! "We have a situation where funds failed to arrive from the Lender on the day of completion. We had ordered it in plenty of time, and had requested that it be sent to us the day before. The Lender didn’t do final credit checks until the day they were supposed to send the funds. That credit check revealed an issue which delayed the funds. We were served Notice of late completion on the afternoon of completion, and the funds arrived with us at 3.46pm, which was a minute after our bank cut-off point. We asked whether our clients could go into the property on the basis of a licence and/or undertakings but were advised that the other firm in the chain would not let the clients in the middle go into their new house (which was empty) “under any circumstances”. It transpired that this was incorrect, and the other firm (who is a firm local to us and known to us well) would have let the clients in on undertakings and a licence in the circumstances. We sent the purchase funds at 8am the following day. The following morning we received a fax with a list of “losses” which amounted to about £3,500! This was the interest under the contract of around £65, as well as a small amount of mortgage interest, and a similar amount of late completion interest on the onward purchase. The bulk of the funds required were for several nights hotel stay (as the sellers removal firm had taken everything away to storage and couldn’t redeliver it for several days), £600 for clothing, £1800 for the seller’s lost earnings, and removals/storage/redelivery fees etc. My issues isn’t with the amounts (although they were outrageous and unevidenced) but with the fact that, I believe, under the contract all we have to pay in order to complete the matter is the ‘compensation’ required under standard condition 6.8 and defined by 7.2. We sent the £65 by faster payment at around 10am and receipt was acknowledged. My understanding is that any other ‘losses’ should be claimed via the small claims court after completion in the usual way, surely? My clients were held to ransom all day, with the other side refusing to release the keys unless they got all their money, and threatening that the costs would increase if it continued for a further day, as more clothes would be needed (one of the clients had an important meeting apparently and couldn’t go without buying another new outfit from M&S) etc. My poor clients, one of whom is extremely pregnant and was suffering high blood pressure and fainting with the stress, eventually agreed to pay £2,500 in full and final settlement, but appears to want to sue someone else for their own losses now." Bold Legal Group Member We see just of much of this as you do Matt.

From: Rob Hailstone 15 January 2016 18:17 PM

Rob Hailstone
What personal digs Matt? Bit thin skinned methinks. Firstly, would you please explain to me (and others) your distinction between solicitors who practice conveyancing and licensed conveyancers? Secondly, the purpose of my response was to make it clear that there are many factors that result in late completions. In that at least, I appear to have made some progress: “This problem does not just relate to conveyancers.” “So this is not all in the hands of conveyancers.” And I am really grateful for you pointing out how timescales work in particular: “See the truth of this, is that if a conveyancer acting for first in chain chooses to send funds at 11:30am the outcome all the way along can be horrendous. All too frequently we find position four, five or six not getting key release until 4:30pm, or even later. Yet in those instances where first funds have been sent first thing, say 09:00am, there is much less likelihood of a late time further along.” 40 years in the business and I had no idea! All joking aside, unlike me, you have all the answers so over to you Matt: “This system can be modified, changed and/or adjusted, very easily.” “The problem with exchange and completion timeframes that you raised is also exceptionally easily fixed.” When you explain to me how these issues can be easily fixed, and assuming your explanations hold water, I will be the first to champion and back you. P.S. “The next customer stood in an estate agents' office without key release because no funds are in, you want to ring them and give them the good news on the CHAPS extension?” I have had to make that call a few times during my 30 years at the coal face of conveyancing and as unpleasant as it was, never shied away from it. Fortunately, my clients have always understood the real reason for those delays and that I, their conveyancer, was not “a lazy feckless individual.”

From: Rob Hailstone 08 January 2016 17:48 PM

imgcollapse