x

Stephen Larcombe

1324 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Stephen's Recent Activity

Translation: Principal 'lawtec' player engages in more hyperbole to confect a false narrative over transaction times. There is a supreme irony at work here. Even as the Post Office Horizon It scandal continues to send out shockwaves, lawtec players are in denial over the risks of putting all your digital eggs in one broken virtual basket. The other point is that it is the government which is creating weeks of delays over the massive over-implementation of AML controls. No lawtec exists that covers all the AML and SOF checks which need to be undertaken. It is frankly irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

From: Stephen Larcombe 04 March 2024 10:01 AM

We are NOT Norway.

From: Stephen Larcombe 13 February 2024 08:14 AM

"New research from up-front information platform Home Sale Pack has reveals that" Shocked. Shocked I tell you. Company desperate for a mass take up of an already discredited concept confects survey results to boosts its sales. Most savvy Estate Agents want to sell not pretend to be lawyers.

From: Stephen Larcombe 13 February 2024 08:13 AM

Agreed. This is why it is such a puzzle that National Trading Standards, the Home Buying & Selling Group and The Conveyancing Association persist with their deeply flawed 'Material Information' and 'Upfront Information' campaigns predicated on the myth of computer infallibility. It gets worse with these bodies trying to participate in wholesale digitisation leading to a ridiculous 'single source of digital truth'

From: Stephen Larcombe 22 January 2024 11:03 AM

The portals will become conduits for data starved of context and barely understood by many. These ideas are deeply flawed

From: Stephen Larcombe 01 December 2023 08:36 AM

These requirements are supported by THIRTY-FOUR pages of guidance notes on sales and TWENTY-SIX pages of guidance notes on lettings. Commentary in the guidance notes on Part C is of particular interest to bewildered estate agents : "Part C information may or may not need to be established depending on whether the property is affected or impacted by the issue in question. This section applies to properties affected by the issue itself, for example, because of the location of the property. We acknowledge that property agents are not experts in the fields below and are generally not qualified to interpret title deeds and associated contracts or to make judgements on building safety. Where a matter in this section is identified and further information is required, we recommend that property owners/sellers and agents seek the services of qualified professionals (including, where relevant, a surveyor or conveyancer) to assist with the interpretation of the matter identified. This includes: ■ Building safety ■ Restrictions and rights ■ Flood and erosion risk ■ Planning permission and proposals for development ■ Property accessibility and adaptations ■ Coalfield or mining area This list is not exhaustive, and property agents should disclose any information which is material information. " NTSELA has, to quote the vernacular, thrown a gigantic spanner into the works of what has hitherto been a well-defined and respected legal process. What's worse the design of the spanner has been copied from countries like Norway, where estate agents deal with most of the legal work! The guidance notes will be dissected in the weeks to come, and no doubt estate agents will be reviewing their professional indemnity insurance arrangements to cover a significantly increased exposure to future negligence claims. Meanwhile, the public will be wondering why NTSELA has interfered in the conveyancing process in effect by the back door, without full consultation with the vast majority of mainstream property lawyers. These changes are not in the public interest and will expose the public to increased costs and risk for no good reason.

From: Stephen Larcombe 30 November 2023 12:05 PM

Sorry, but this is tosh. Thirdfort is trying hard to be controversial to boost its turnover. Delays ironically are caused by government red tape, not lawyers. AML and source of funds checks can take weeks. No tec exists to speed up this aspect.

From: Stephen Larcombe 02 November 2023 08:03 AM

Sorry, but this is tosh. Thirdfort is trying hard to be controversial to boost its turnover. Delays ironically are caused by government red tape, not lawyers. AML and source of funds checks can take weeks. No tec exists to speed up this aspect.

From: Stephen Larcombe 02 November 2023 08:03 AM

Like in Norway and Cyprus?

From: Stephen Larcombe 31 October 2023 14:30 PM

Afternoon Rob How can my objections be 'late in coming' in respect of something which still hasn't yet been published? Curious comments. Many of the estate agents I speak to do not understand why they are being dragged into this mess. It is neither sensible nor proactive to fragment a process especially if it is being done for all the wrong reasons.

From: Stephen Larcombe 31 October 2023 14:27 PM

These deeply flawed proposals are meeting considerable resistance, both from estate agents and many property lawyers. Estate agents are asking why they are being asked to supplant/undermine the historically respected role of the legal profession. These ideas based on what happens in Norway and elsewhere haven't been properly thought through. How on earth could an agent decide what material information is? The proposals are counter-intuitive for the vast majority of estate agents. Their primary function is to sell property not to convey it. The 'steering group' advising National Trading Standards includes a trade body The Conveyancing Association, which only represents a minority of property lawyers in the UK.

From: Stephen Larcombe 31 October 2023 08:32 AM

This is simply an idiotic headline. It will take several years to resolve if at all. The complexity involved with unpicking several hundred years of leasehold titles would be be positively Byzantine; well beyond the wit of many in the Labour Shadow Cabinet.

From: Stephen Larcombe 24 May 2023 09:37 AM

This is simply an idiotic headline. It will take several years to resolve if at all. The complexity involved with unpicking several hundred years of leasehold titles would be be positively Byzantine; well beyond the wit of many in the Labour Shadow Cabinet.

From: Stephen Larcombe 24 May 2023 09:36 AM

This article is pure fantasy. When will vested interests understand, that there is no 'magic wand', digital or otherwise, to accelerate conveyancing, especially when the government conspires to encrust conveyancing with costly and labour-intensive legal requirements, which make home buying ever more complex. Has Estate Agent Today not understood the core issue of the Post Office Horizon scandal?

From: Stephen Larcombe 28 April 2023 07:22 AM

Sorry to spoil the party, and although you have to start somewhere in the context of an Act nearly 400 pages long, the amendments to LPE1 in the article are just that - a start. Much of the Building Safety Act is not yet in effect and unfortunately, there are issues with some of the new enquiries themselves. It should be a common goal for all to ensure that the new Act, and related fire safety legislation works well in practice, but reaching this goal will be undermined if premature claims are made before the legislation is properly understood.

From: Stephen Larcombe 09 January 2023 10:41 AM

The reality is so, so different. Instead of vanity projects, the Land Registry should concentrate on clearing the massive backlog of applications. It cannot be 'world-leading' so long as the current delays are distorting the market.

From: Stephen Larcombe 05 December 2022 08:02 AM

Hi Colin I am a conveyancer. Clients want technical perfection, in the shortest possible time, at the lowest possible cost. These objectives (and this may shock you) are mutually contradictory/inconsistent The Land Registry is taking over TWO YEARS to register titles to new flats and houses. Dorset Council was taking over TWO Months to process a local search. The government has recently passed the Building Safety Act 2020, which is 400 PAGES LONG and profoundly affects all leasehold purchases. SDLT is a highly complex tax which slows down conveyancing. The government intends to make solicitors personally responsible for the detection of complex money laundering. Do you see the problem with your sweeping statements about conveyancers? I have worked with a number of law firms and all use case management and other computer toys and such law firms are wholly committed to working with the broken system that we have.

From: Stephen Larcombe 26 October 2022 19:06 PM

Sorry. This will never happen. Planning is a highly politicised process. But we can dream.

From: Stephen Larcombe 05 October 2022 08:58 AM

But that's the problem. The Home Buying and Selling Group does NOT represent all the players in the market. This group represents vested interests not necessarily acting in the public interest. The Law Society should be leading this process.

From: Stephen Larcombe 04 October 2022 07:24 AM

Sorry but this is mere tinkering. The main reasons for the delays have little to do with alleged Luddite practices by conveyancers. Mass digitisation is a red herring being pushed by vested interests. Tackle the fundamentals first before you try to digitise everything that moves. For instance, the government suggests potentially huge fines for conveyancers when it is proved they have facilitated 'economic crime'. The new Building Act affecting flat purchases is nearly 400 pages long. It must be understood by the industry. that so long as the government spews out complex measures, delays in moving home will increase. Some issues cannot be just 'fixed' by technology, because measures like the above will always require a substantial manual audit of identity/ legality. There is also the problem of some councils taking in excess of two months to turn round local searches. This is an example of something which could be 'fixed' by better IT. Progress can be made to speed things up but certain realities must be understood by non-conveyancing participants in the housing sector.

From: Stephen Larcombe 27 September 2022 09:20 AM

Meanwhile, in the real world, the Building Safety Act 2022, which is nearly 400 pages long, has been passed into law. This Act, plus future secondary legislation, will have numerous and significant implications for leasehold conveyancing. No cliches can mask the fundamental problem of property ownership in the UK; politicians love to pass laws relating to its ownership including planning, the environment and taxation. As a judge once said - 'it's all very well putting the law, in a nutshell, it is keeping it there!'

From: Stephen Larcombe 08 August 2022 11:11 AM

Despite an obsession with 'digitisation' propaganda, nothing will change until the essential elements change. For instance, Dorset Council DESPITE heavy investment in IT is still taking over two months to process local searches. Over the decades I have seen many 'game changers'. Bear in mind as well that there are limits as to how far a complex process can be dumbed down. Consumers (formerly known as clients) don't always benefit from blind speed. What is needed is diligence, not mere handle-turning. The new Building Safety Act will have a dramatic impact on leasehold conveyancing is over 298 pages long!

From: Stephen Larcombe 26 July 2022 10:25 AM

I have previously worked in a digital law firm. I use Dragon digital dictation. I use and am comfortable with, various other digital toys on my laptop. I have also worked in commercial and residential conveyancing for several decades. Stepping back I have seen a number of burnouts and breakdowns amongst conveyancers over the last few years. The core issues are many but in no particular order: 1 The government keeps piling red tape onto conveyancers 2 Conveyancing, because of 1, can't be easily 'dumbed down' no matter how much technology is available 3 Estate Agents are being pressurised by their employers/team leaders/others to harass highly trained legal professionals 4 Critical stakeholders in the process are starved of resources and have resorted to poor technology. 5 An over-reliance on technology to compensate for lack of experienced staff has seen processing times soar 6 Some councils are processing local searches so slowly that deals are falling through Food for thought Solicitors could have staff dedicated to dealing with routine enquires from agents, clients and others. Estate agents recognising the above issues should work collaboratively not confrontationally with lawyers. The existing group dedicated to reforming conveyancing should engage in a series of constructive reforms and stop obsessing with headline-grabbing 'reforms' which have little utility in the real world.

From: Stephen Larcombe 11 July 2022 09:54 AM

Articles like this do nothing to fix the real problems. It is a complex picture but some issues require central government/local government funding. For example, the Land Registry is a body in disarray, with some applications remaining incomplete over a year after lodgement. This plays havoc with new sales. Some councils are still taking nearly three months to process a local search. So, fix some of the fundamentals and things will improve.

From: Stephen Larcombe 06 July 2022 09:17 AM

Having spent time in a digital law office I was astonished by the ingenuity of the fraudsters trying to scam both clients and the law firm. Digital AML Nirvana is a one shop stop for these checks PROVIDED legislation does join up the dots. Too often such laws contain default provisions dragging us back.

From: Stephen Larcombe 25 May 2022 07:59 AM

One bit of good news for developers is that the net has been widened to include manufacturers of the products. Some leading players have sought advice from Queens Counsel to push back against some of the proposals. But in the light of consistent complaints about poor workmanship in newbuilds and of course the Grenfell Fire tragedy itself there will be little sympathy from the public.

From: Stephen Larcombe 16 February 2022 07:54 AM

Most agents I have known have acted professionally. But like every sector, there will always be exceptions. Some buyers are vulnerable and some agents have also seen traditional professional standards supplanted by a corporate, target-driven culture, where targets must be met. My wife's uncle was a realtor in the USA and I was struck, by the huge differences between our real estate systems. One big difference is that homeownership in the UK has become so politicised. This has resulted in the conveyancing process becoming encrusted in taxation, planning, green issues, money laundering due diligence and all the rest. Imagining that you can simplify and speed up the above process by front-loading transactions is I am afraid an illusion. What needs to happen is for the various elements to be modernised, not consolidated into a single pack, overarched by a reservation agreement, which would still need numerous consumer safeguards to protect the vulnerable. For instance, my local council is taking 52 working days to process a local search! A Judge once said that it is all very well putting the law in a nutshell -it's keeping there!

From: Stephen Larcombe 08 February 2022 08:36 AM

Woods and trees spring to mind. There is never going to be a 'big bang' reform of the home buying process. The group named in the article has been established on the flawed premise that you can speedily reconcile the irreconcilable. What is needed is a much smaller group that steadily chips away at the problems many of which have been created by successive governments. So for instance : 1 stop burdening professionals with extensive anti-money laundering duties 2 pass simple legislation to exclude liability for all homeowners from most developers planning obligations 3 pass legislation to exempt homeowners from the sins of developers who have contaminated the environment. 4 pass legislation to remove liability for church chancels Any solicitor working at the coalface of real conveyancing will say the same.

From: Stephen Larcombe 13 January 2022 08:25 AM

This unfortunate incident shows no sign of being resolved. However, I remained concerned about referral fees. Sorry, but I have seen a number of new housing developments where professional independence HAS been compromised by the shadow cast by the payment of such fees. Modernisation of conveyancing is one thing but referral fees damaging a client's best interest is another. There is NO justification for this pernicious practice continuing.

From: Stephen Larcombe 04 January 2022 08:23 AM

Groan! Another 'guru' makes claims about the future. Crystal ball gazing is a dangerous game in the property sector. There is so much that could be done to make deals quicker. but while you have politicians continuing to encrust conveyancing with red tape, while you have developers trying to trick buyers with poorly constructed schemes, the dream of a slick and easy process will remain just that- a dream.

From: Stephen Larcombe 30 December 2021 10:38 AM

The property industry is sending out mixed messages about this toxic weed. But what I do know is that once established it cannot be easily eradicated. I was told this by an eminent scientist in Cambridge some years ago. Infestation is like underpinning. It creates a 'residual stigma', that is even more difficult to shift than the weed itself.

From: Stephen Larcombe 29 June 2021 08:47 AM

This article shows the consequences of reckless due diligence encouraged by a white-hot property market Most solicitors rely on what the sellers say about past flooding and flood searches. However critical local knowledge sometimes is not passed on by the seller as part of the conveyancing process. Perhaps the greater problem is the increasing willingness of some developers to build on historic flood plains, with local planning authorities ignoring the concerns of the Environment Agency when granting planning permission. With climate change, this problem is only going to get worse.

From: Stephen Larcombe 14 June 2021 11:14 AM

Well said. This is a nuanced response, unlike some commentators on this site! Just like with the planning reforms there are no magic bullets to solve the problems of conveyancing or the housing market in general. On the topic of conveyancing, a good first start would be just like a house, to declutter the process of badly thought through red tape. Agents and lawyers must work together to improve the process generally, but all of this would be a pointless exercise if MPS keep piling on the red tape.

From: Stephen Larcombe 25 May 2021 10:06 AM

From: Stephen Larcombe 25 May 2021 08:53 AM

Ok, We will have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day

From: Stephen Larcombe 24 May 2021 11:23 AM

'The system' has been distorted by the constant interference of politicians. They require lawyers to be 'gatekeepers' to detect sophisticated money laundering, environmental experts, tax experts, identity theft detectors, and much, much more. There is nothing for lawyers 'to wake up to' and you should be directing your ire towards goverment not hard working professonals by taking cheap shots.

From: Stephen Larcombe 24 May 2021 10:54 AM

Sorry, but it's a bit rich for some agents to complain about solicitors having the audacity to be paid properly for what they do. Despite propaganda to the contrary, conveyancing is a stressful complex exercise. Only the other day I came across a sale of an apartment and because of sloppy drafting by a developer, the owner was legally obliged not only to look after the repair of his own property but also the rest of a block containing two carports and a garage! Needless to say the matter fell through.

From: Stephen Larcombe 24 May 2021 08:11 AM

These issues have come back to bite the big developers with a vengeance. 'Crocodile tears' springs to mind. The idea of developers ripping off couples with a second bite of the cherry on the sale of houses has always been a repugnant one. In terms of the Ground Rent Scandal, it should not be forgotten, that developers put buyers and their lawyers under the most enormous pressure to accept one-sided leasehold schemes. So, I have zero sympathy for the position these companies now find themselves in.

From: Stephen Larcombe 22 March 2021 08:08 AM

Sadly this type of behaviour is typical. I have acted for large landowners over the decades in dealing with national developers and some of the behaviour I have witnessed is shameful. Developers must clean up their act since some of them simply cant be trusted.

From: Stephen Larcombe 15 March 2021 08:27 AM

When I saw this headline I thought it was 1st April! This is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard. The idea shows a real ignorance of the process. The problems facing conveyancing have their genesis in the tendency of politicians to call for easier conveyancing, while at the same time passing legislation pulling the process in the opposite direction. There are sensible things that can be done to speed the process, but prosecuting professionals isn't one of them.

From: Stephen Larcombe 03 March 2021 08:09 AM

Those advocating "quicker simpler conveyancing" should bear this scandal in mind. When a hard-pressed lawyer receives the papers from an aggressive developer, in respect of a new leasehold flat, typically there can be several hundreds of pages of paperwork to examine, which can hide a host of sins such as cladding and other inflammable material. In terms of cladding, sadly, in the past, too many developers had cut corners. Ironically, it is young couples who end up being the victims of this scandal. This can all be fixed, but vested interests need to back off, and let the public interest take centre stage.

From: Stephen Larcombe 10 February 2021 10:49 AM

Successive governments are to blame for the current challenges and so it is over-simplistic to imagine that buying and selling dwellings is like selling baked beans. The government has recently tightened up again AML procedures, you have the cladding scandal and there are tens of thousands of unsellable flats. Don't get me started on new builds. I had a package of documents recently, which comprised several hundred pages of documentation and it was riddled with traps for the unwary. Go into an alliance with lawyers and together we can effect positive changes. Going on a fantastic voyage ultimately will lead all the professionals engaged in the sector nowhere.

From: Stephen Larcombe 01 February 2021 10:34 AM

Iain and David I worked for a digital law practice for several years and I stand by my comments. There is little point in "scaling up" if there are hefty negligence claims down the line. Solicitors can be sued for a period of up to 15 years after the event! Interesting to note, that I received an email the other day to the effect, that Co-Op legal services are inviting Co-op members to instruct them on defective leasehold conveyancing. I have met plenty of law firms able to combine volume with professionalism, and it is fallacious to suggest otherwise.

From: Stephen Larcombe 17 November 2020 10:26 AM

Reading this article, I can hear the gentle sound of wings fluttering, as squadrons of chickens return home to roost. I have been undertaking conveyancing for decades and during this time I have seen both the best and the worst of conveyancers and estate agents. In an ideal world, solicitors look after their client’s best interests for a reasonable fee. In the same world, estate agents provide a vital service, holding chains together by correcting misunderstandings or unblocking logjams. In the real world: • Sadly, some badly trained, target obsessed factory line conveyancers only make things worse when problems occur • Some estate agents put extraordinary pressure on solicitors to ignore defective titles, or to accept the ridiculous demands of aggressive developers. The best approach in the current SDLT inflamed scenario is a collaborative one, and it is a pity that some involved in what is already a stressful experience for clients, don’t appreciate this fundamental fact.

From: Stephen Larcombe 17 November 2020 10:05 AM

I agree with Peter. This is a wake up call for all those individuals in the sector who keep saying "conveyancing is easy" or "its just form filling" Solicitors will generally try to limit their retainer by spelling out to the client what is included in, or excluded from their retainer, using language which complies both with their professional obligations and consumer protection legislation. But unfortunately the problem sometimes arises of "mission creep", where an additional retainer can arise by implication. So the moral of the story is to allow the lawyers more time when necessary, to do their jobs properly, especially when they are dealing with a demanding client, buying high value real estate.

From: Stephen Larcombe 05 October 2020 09:51 AM

No David. Sorry I appear to have touched a raw nerve, but some of the worst conveyancing I have ever seen, has emanated from “factory” style conveyancing firms, with leaseholds remaining a mystery for many . Logjams happen for a variety of reasons and it’s a poor polemic to suggest that traditionalism is their root cause.

From: Stephen Larcombe 22 September 2020 14:15 PM

As a conveyancing lawyer of several decades standing its all about the balance, between a lawyer communicating with his or her client, and being allowed to be a lawyer! Sadly some clients want technical perfection, at the lowest possible cost, in the shortest possible time. Its axiomatic, that these goals or demands are mutually exclusive. No conveyancer I have ever met deliberately sits on a file for the sake of it. Inexperience is a real problem, especially with factory line style conveyancing companies. With experience comes the ability to know how to cut corners- safely. Sometimes its the little things which achieve the greatest benefits . I got into the habit of cc the agents, when I sent out an email since this had the effect of, how can I put this, promoting veracity!

From: Stephen Larcombe 22 September 2020 10:18 AM

Breaking News