x

Tim Higham

2986 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Tim's Recent Activity

Sadly, time and time again we hear estate agents saying 'we hate doing it, but our HQ tell us to refer the public to X conveyancers who are dreadful, but we get sanctioned if caught not obeying'. So yes, they do refer to dreadful quality....and the X is often volume conveyancers, so it is happening in droves. Quality conveyancing is not a priority where that threatens profit it would seem. Shameful.

From: Tim Higham 24 January 2017 09:18 AM

Total red herring to the single issue with the conveyancing process: The quality of the actual conveyancer, both knowledge of the law and dynamically prompt.

From: Tim Higham 07 December 2016 11:10 AM

Just my own views: 1. be careful - electronic ID systems may prove a person exists, but not that the person in front of you is who they say they are 2. collating is easy, it is then about reading the forms to make sure there are no gaps not just missing enclosures but likely enquiries as answers are vague or misleading - rarely done by selling conveyancers I feel 3. Will distract from just getting on with the conveyancing 4. Even now conveyancers fail to secure mortgage money the day before. Not a workable amendment. 5. Make LPE1 the mandatory form with a set cost. 6. Unworkable. Encourage conveyancers to actually read the documents to anticipate likely buyer enquiries. This means the conveyancers who have poor legal training need to be removed from conveyancing. 7. Searches are good as they are. Many that exist are not appropriate to involve conveyancers in (flooding for example, and environmental too to be honest, but we do the latter none the less) 8. Agreed. 9. No objection 10. Agreed. 11. No objection, though valuers need to be paid more or of course they will cover themselves with vague expressions, disclaimers, and passing the buck to the borrower’s conveyancer 12. No portal. Absolute red herring. Veyo! Robotic impersonal conveyor belt, dumbing down conveyancing – which is why standards are already so low, the quality of the human lawyer currently allowed to do the work is the root of the problem with conveyancing. NEW IDEAS: 13. Claims and complaints must be published for all to see by conveyancing firms every year in order to be able to offer public paying conveyancing. 14. Referral agreements, parties to them and payments made per organization per year, to be published every year, for all to see. To be able to offer public paying conveyancing 15. Conveyancing quotes must identify: a. Are they a solicitor firm, and if not, which organization are they instead b. In all cases, WHO will be the conveyancer c. The conveyancer’s qualification d. A Senior Partner professional Undertaking to the above effect 16. To be able to offer conveyancing, organisations are banned from acting for the buyer and seller in the same transaction 17. CML Handbook to discourage use of legal indemnity insurances as that dumbs down the process/excuses shoddy conveyancing, and masks legal defects/wastes the public's money 18. We need a new edition of the Standard Conditions to: a. penalise a seller – contract rate apportionment for every extra day - if more than 10 working days were taken to dispatch contract, transfer, requisitions, TA forms b. penalise a seller if the leasehold management pack is not requested within 10 working days of instruction c. penalise a seller if buyer enquiries take more than 10 working days to be returned in full 19. CQS to be brought in line with the physical inspections carried out by Lexcel 20. CILEX and CLC to bring in an equivalent accreditation, and inspection to 23. 21. Conveyancing quotes must only be in two parts - to be able to offer public paying conveyancing : a. A COMBINED total for the conveyancers own profit charge e.g i. filling in a stamp duty return ii. acting for a mortgage company iii. repaying mortgages iv. additional enquiries asked v. unregistered title charge (that one makes me cross -smacks of a mediocre conveyancer) vi. leasehold title vii. Help2Buy viii. LSAP ix. bank transfer fees b. Third party expenses 22. Estate Agents must not even mention (let alone dictate the choice of) any conveyancer that has to be used in their contract with a seller, or a similar condition imposed on the buyer for having their offer put forward. 23. A single Online Mortgage Portal for collecting law firm data so lenders liaise with the Professional Bodies for what data needs to be kept/submitted. 24. Professional Bodies to make a rule that conveyancers should establish which lender a client intends to use, and to warn them that they could face having to pay a second legal fee if the conveyancer is not on the approved panel, and to suggest they may wish to consider a conveyancer who is. This gives the client the choice - a more informed one so they really do know they could have avoided two fees 25. Conveyancing Protocol to be adopted and made mandatory by all Professional Bodies, and amended so: a. Transfers and Replies to Requisitions to be sent out with the contract papers. b. Law firms should be encouraged not to wait for search money to be received. c. Law firms should be encouraged not to use letters if there are no enclosures d. NO exchange of contracts until the seller supplies a copy of their client signed contract and transfer – redacted for security of course . e. Sellers to always supply conditional planning consents, whatever the age (i.e not the buyer’s job) 26. Review of the use of online case tracking and whether it is simply a way to avoid client interaction with ticks, instead of actually and personally alerting clients on a weekly basis of what is going on. 27. HMLR to alert lenders when they receive an AP1/FR1, and then once registered

From: Tim Higham 29 November 2016 10:48 AM

Be careful about review sites, not easy to see who are genuine. I fear for sellers who do not get the highest price they could when using upfront payment online estate agents, leaving the agent with no incentive to squeeze for best prices. Or such agents who force sellers to use their lawyers who are mediocre in the extreme. I have only heard negative comments from buyers, though never upset at the price THEY are paying, and as for taking an interest in the legal process to help keep the chain together...nothing, ever. Not a word. My advise to friends and family let alone clients and the public...don't go there.

From: Tim Higham 22 November 2016 14:19 PM

The mindset of groaning when an ESTATE AGENT telephones a conveyancer has to stop. (Conveyancers rarely call each other)

From: Tim Higham 16 November 2016 21:31 PM

The mindset of groaning when a conveyancer telephones a conveyancer has to stop. Why? Because Agents can be a real asset to a conveyancers work, but more particularly, conveyancers need to realise that Estate Agents do not get paid until the conveyancer exchanges contracts, so having handed the baton to the conveyancer with all their weeks of hard work, wouldn't you expect them to be worried the conveyancer may prove mediocre (e.g going too slow, poorly trained in conveyancing, a case handler unable to make decisions without sign-off) and so drop the baton and scupper the deal. Having written about this very thing - http://www.trethowans.com/site/people/profile/tim.higham - it is crucial that conveyancers go back to chasing deals through. We have now set a target of 4 weeks maximum to exchange of contracts on all transactions now, as quite simply put, it can be done....or we wouldn't attempt it. We save so much time: 1. we don't charge more for being instructed at the same time the estate agent is (so we can prepare, and study the deeds for likely issues), in fact we don't charge our time at all if sellers change their mind and don't accept any offers. 2. we apply as early as possible for leasehold management packs 3. we recruit standalone highly trained lawyers who make instant conveyancing decisions 4. we aim to despatch contract papers the same day as instructed and 5. we so often return around buyer enquiries by return of email. As for communication with Agents, it is fundamental, they are a real benefit to the role of the conveyancer. We constantly cc agents to emails to the other lawyers - giving them a weekly update on top too - enabling them to know in full detail - not silly tick box online updates which even a tradesman selling a certain software package once said to me "the agents love the tick boxes; tells them nothing, but they don't call you"...which made me furious, as we want everyone to be informed in detail, not 'applied for searches 'tick', sent out contracts 'tick'. Instead real detail agents can paste or forward to their own clients. We even get emails from the parties in the chain saying they have seen our email and complaining their own lawyers don't update like we do, and can we help them!? But never rushing, just, expertly prompt. Clients get exchanges, agents get paid...and oh, so do we.

From: Tim Higham 16 November 2016 21:25 PM

If you disrespect your own property this much to pay peanuts for someone to take interest in selling it, good luck with getting best price. Yikes!

From: Tim Higham 28 October 2016 08:33 AM

As a conveyancer please don't go cheap in terms of what you pay the estate agent to sell your property. I certainly would not. House sales are about achieving best price; going cheap in your motivation of your estate agent will not end well. Nor will the situation where they dictate the conveyancer you are allowed to use. Nor will the lack of interest that can be shown in the conveyancing side once a buyer has been found. This is my experience, and client comments.

From: Tim Higham 11 October 2016 19:18 PM

The Government's call to evidence will receive an enormous array of reasons why conveyancing standards are low, and the suggested cures. The quality of the actual human allowed to do the work is the issue. Every Conveyancer should identify what makes their Jo more difficult, and if that means naming legal businesses and the professional body that governs them, then so be it too. The public need the very best conveyancing lawyers. Expert in what is a legal process after all.

From: Tim Higham 30 September 2016 21:57 PM

We aim for a 4 week max exchange as Agents are waiting on us to get paid, and clients want to deal exchanged. Absolutely state a timescale in the Memo of Sale. We love that. It is a stick to use when chasing slow conveyancers. If you get grumbling conveyancers wanting more time, then refer to us. We love to chase, as we spend 60% of our time doing so anyway. Prompt expert legal work. You'll be impressed.

From: Tim Higham 24 September 2016 16:41 PM

Terence - love your business idea, so true!

From: Tim Higham 25 August 2016 07:56 AM

Keep telling people. They have a choice. A cheap estate agent fee OR the highest price for their house. Never both. Pay less than 1% commission at your risk.

From: Tim Higham 22 July 2016 07:50 AM

As with the predictable disaster that was Veyo, dynamic conveyancers refuse to fob clients off to silly website tick boxes. Instead clients are respected and personally emailed or telephoned with at least weekly updates....by the very solicitor handling the work...the actual instant decision maker who requires no sign-off from a senior colleague. Though a more basic point is that every law firm already has instant IT to update their clients. Been around 20 years. It is called email, but so many seem unwilling to use it at all or in a timely manner. More IT is not the solution to better client/conveyancer communication. A better trained human being doing the conveyancing work is the key to improving conveyancing standards/client communication.

From: Tim Higham 20 July 2016 21:56 PM

Let's hope not half the asking price too.

From: Tim Higham 04 July 2016 09:22 AM

Indeed. One Agent just emailed: "Keep calm and carry ! It will be fine FTSE and £ already coming back" We are exchanging on deals this morning just fine.

From: Tim Higham 24 June 2016 10:16 AM

With law firms providing the Government's review into the same issues, and a critique of volume conveyancing, I can see why some organisations are panicking. Standards are at all time low, and big changes are needed to the quality of the actual person offering the legal work. That keeps being overlooked in any new idea to improve things. (Can't say we are many fall throughs though at all, do others? And Conveyancers carry the biggest risks in a home move yet already charge far too low a fee of anyone else in the process. Cut price fees and kickbacks/owning agents/conveyancers are the two biggest financial issues to address.)

From: Tim Higham 23 June 2016 07:43 AM

As a conveyancer we experience online Agents. I could not recommend them to family let alone clients. Incentivise the Agent not to settle for first offer but 25% higher next few offers. Always been cheap Agents, but that is why people in the main avoid them.

From: Tim Higham 13 June 2016 08:36 AM

We need top quality solicitor firms offering top quality conveyancing to the public. That must be the priority, nothing else.

From: Tim Higham 09 June 2016 07:53 AM

We recommend the better estate agents, and we offer expertly prompt conveyancing.....as a result....not even 1% fall through on our watch.

From: Tim Higham 06 June 2016 07:41 AM

It is why the online flash in the pan / bubble will burst. Smart sellers know to pay a proper price to an agent to incentivise them to secure best price. Saving on the agent fee to secure e.g 20% less sale price is otherwise daft.

From: Tim Higham 25 May 2016 07:41 AM

Talk about immediately alienating all other conveyancing law firms in the area, losing you every single referral those firms could have made to you. I know my firm employs estate agents when we are acting in the sale of a property following a death of a family member, or we recommend estate agents when asked who are good in the area.

From: Tim Higham 24 May 2016 07:58 AM

Just an excuse to help slow conveyancers. Also, would I dream of sending money relying on the receiving lawyer to still be in the office to acknowledge receipt probably after 5pm...of course not. Last two years I cannot think of a need to send £ that late.

From: Tim Higham 19 May 2016 07:31 AM

p.s We are looking for additional conveyancers in each of our offices if anyone wishes to submit a CV. You'll be impressed.

From: Tim Higham 17 May 2016 08:02 AM

Jane - like I say, we aim for 4 weeks, 12 weeks is unacceptable. We are well known for chasing down prompt deals. We impress clients and Agents. Karen - i don't know any conveyancer who doesn't have 4 volume outfits in their top 5 list of slow conveyancers. 'No completion no fee' means 'we don't plough much effort in so we don't have much to write off', instead 'we shall bury our heads and hope the other lawyer finds an answer to their own enquiries'. 'Gateways, client portals or inter-active services' is another way of saying 'we don't have a single lawyer with a law degree, but we hope to the heavens the latest IT will distract the public from realising that fact, as we know slick IT does not spot a legal defect in the paperwork, nor does it make the other lawyer any faster, but the public might think we are somehow good' My point to conveyancers? Just be genuinely very good at conveyancing. Forget distracting bells and whistles. Or step aside and let the public receive great service and quality from the conveyancers out there, who actually are very good.

From: Tim Higham 17 May 2016 07:55 AM

1. It think it is superb when Agents have seller and buyer agree a timescale. We now aim for a 4 week exchange unless client instructs otherwise. I say all this, as it is perfectly possible to achieve. It is when no timescale is stated, that the stress later on comes. 2. Good grief, how many complaints are you getting. 1 a year and we feel bad. Don't get any! 3. Conveyancers are to blame for many abortive deals as so many are too slow at the legal work , leading to coldfeet. Conveyancing standards are the worse I have ever witnessed. 4-6 weeks max to get an exchange. We spend 30-40% of our time on a purchase just chasing slow selling lawyers. Madness, as we already have the more involved role as a buyer anyway. The majority of selling lawyers take 2 weeks to send us legal papers. Then 2-3 weeks just to reply to enquiries. Ludicrous. Remove volume conveyancers from the industry and I feel standards and timescales will improve. Too many volume outfits do not employ conveyancers with law degrees do they - madness - so anything complicated and they bury their heads and hope it goes away...taking weeks in the process away from clients who need to move. But it won't change...though the public are getting wise to remanding a conveyancer with a qualification. After all, so much law is used, why employ an amateur, when you can have a professional for the same price.

From: Tim Higham 14 May 2016 22:38 PM

Seriously. Does anyone use any other website than OnTheMarket or Rightmove. As a conveyancer, and home owner, j have never visited Zoopla. No kidding. Not even now.

From: Tim Higham 12 May 2016 07:32 AM

Ask a conveyancer would they recommend Tepilo. That's the best review. Always ask your conveyancer for the best estate agents in fact. We see the best and worst.

From: Tim Higham 12 May 2016 07:30 AM

Bring back HIPS, massive error to abolish them, BUT, they should ONLY be prepared by a solicitor firm, stamped as such, and with the official (not regulated) Council search, and always sellers property information forms. AND a new Part II where the solicitor confirms they have read the TA6 and includes missing documents, suggestions for solving obvious legal issues on title. HIPS were ruined by profiteering Agents and, volume conveyancers. Of all the conveyancing organisations out there, only one worth liaising with - The Bold Group.

From: Tim Higham 11 May 2016 07:35 AM

Every time, every time, they touch the industry, they get it wrong. Far more important issues that the Govt ministers should be spending their tax payers salaries on running the UK and solving.

From: Tim Higham 11 May 2016 07:27 AM

Carl - very well said. So many volume outfits are simply not fit to offer legal services, but sadly their regulators are at fault, and I feel not fit for purpose either. But so much profit being made outweighs caring out the public and the quality they get. The Law Society and SRA do, so always use a Solicitor firm. I would convert to any other part of the legal world if I felt they were a better choice. I don't, not even close.

From: Tim Higham 07 May 2016 09:12 AM

All I know is that the public are being sold nonsense 'initiatives' from so many sectors of the property market, even the highest ranks in the conveyancing market, from failed IT systems publicised with £Ms budget, to unnecessary data conveyancing searches. We are constantly fixing errors made by other legal 'conveyancing' outfits who fail to employ actual Solicitors and Legal Executives, but instead focus on IT as a substitute. Odd, as the legal work to record a person owning a house contains law, nothing to do with IT. Somewhat ironic that many of the factory style outfits operating huge volumes of conveyancing are the ones who don't even reply to email, or even have their individual conveyancer emails on their letterheads. Missing rights of access to the house. Breaches of Council planning consents or title deed restrictions are rife, because legal outfits have focussed on the latest way to generate a standard letter to a client in a milli second quicker fashion, than getting the law right with qualified lawyers. A mediocre conveyancer with the best IT, is still a mediocre lawyer. Solution? The public should demand their conveyancer is employed by a Solicitor firm. Sorry but I face conveyancers on an hourly basis each and every day, and that is my advice to family and friends, let alone fee paying public. Don't be fooled by IT systems. It means the conveyancer will br taking on volume, not personal service. And where close scrutiny of legal documents is replaced by a square peg for a round hole study of the legal papers. Hope that helps. Good luck home movers, enjoy the new property in 2016.

From: Tim Higham 28 April 2016 07:56 AM

So many volume conveyancing businesses have an almost impossible task to improve, to name just one type of conveyancer. It is seeking out those conveyancing firms who are already top of their game - those are the conveyancers whose clients end up so delighted with. When you find one, you will be impressed.

From: Tim Higham 16 April 2016 09:12 AM

Does anyone seriously use Online. As a Conveyancer we see all agents and I would always recommend high street to friends and family, certainly the public. It is not about saving the agent's fee, but ensuring their skill and location secures a tip top house price, as fighting for that extra £5k, £10, £50k etc is what fee savers overlook. That's what costs the public £Ms in clever promotion by onliners. My experience is that I witness low sale price, no involvement in the legal chain once a buyer has been found, shoddy communication (if any) and such low skill. Personally, if I were buying I would fear the seller has been cheap elsewhere in their house maintenance, if they are selling on the cheap too. Such a valuable asset after all. It is like conveyancers. Go cheap and you get stung - slow, errors and no communication But hey, its just my opinion. A low initial fee will tempt people, sadly.

From: Tim Higham 14 April 2016 07:52 AM

Welcome to Salisbury too. National low value chain estate agents with their bogus 'sold' signs. Very dishonest to the public, but we certainly draw the public's attention to it....bad PR for the Agent.

From: Tim Higham 14 April 2016 07:40 AM

Most with still be caught with that criteria. But I hope not.

From: Tim Higham 13 April 2016 08:03 AM

I meant look you up Terence, not the Conveyancing Association.

From: Tim Higham 09 April 2016 21:30 PM

Sadly, some of the corporate agents (the lower value chains, or independents run by ex-corporate) we know are all about what lawyer can cash bung them the highest, no care at ALL about offering the public a good lawyer. Fine, accept a payment, as many firms pay such fees, but the agent must not be driven only by that and not a desire to refer to a quality law firm paying it. Sadly, so often they want to refer to the highest paying law firm. Cash bung is powerful. Ignore the backlash that so many face, the slow deals, the legal errors made. Who cares must be their response. Knowing this cash bung attitude, legal outfits exist where they bung high payments or even own the Agent, and because they are limited on the legal fee they can charge their client (though some will overcharge) they employ inferior trained 'lawyers' (with no realistic legal knowledge at all) to ensure they can still make a profit per house move. BUT they have to do vast quantities. But that is ok, they bung massive payments left right and centre and in it floods. Then the legal outfits can claim they are the moat popular in the country.....which of course is dreadfully misleading. Again the public suffer, as these outfits will name themselves as a lawyer, and the public think 'i have a solicitor now' - sadly no where close. Meanwhile, the actual solicitor firms look after the smart home movers who actually demand they secure a solicitor firm. Where they are given an actual named lawyer as their own for the whole deal. Where the lawyers have qualification in law and are legal error free. These firms build a relationship with the agent and client and the deals are prompt and expert. The cash bung agent/inferior lawyer deals take longer, attract bad PR to everyone, and legal errors occur, usually once the client moves in and gets a knock on the door, or on resale/refinancing. But it wont change as too many people are making vast sums of money off gullible public.too many vested interests protecting the bung arrangement. You'll tell who they are by how they defend it.

From: Tim Higham 09 April 2016 09:32 AM

It's about what price online secure v high street. I personally would offer low for online houses as I would feel the seller had been cheap generally in their house maintenance too. Paying a low fee suggests to me you do not care about your prized joy/property.

From: Tim Higham 05 April 2016 07:59 AM

Indeed. Because online checking is often inconclusive, and carries no form of guarantee. Meaning 2/3rds of conveyancers realise this, and are not robotically wasting money on such methods.

From: Tim Higham 24 March 2016 07:57 AM

I have a slow conveyancing confirm currently asking our selling client to meet the extra stamp duty if they cannot make 1 April. Our response is quite blunt. This 1st April deadline is really showing three types of conveyancers: 1. those who are rushing and making unknown mistakes to meet the deadline 2. those who cannot make it due to slow conveyancing 3. those who can make it, as usual, due to expert conveyancing Buyers need to look to their own conveyancer to pay the extra stamp duty if they have been unreasonably slow. Post 1st April: Agents should not answer 'how much will the stamp duty be?' questions as even conveyancers are misapplying the new rules. The new rules have a lot of fine print.

From: Tim Higham 22 March 2016 08:08 AM

Next Birmingham lead by a client/executor and I shall look you up. Refreshing.

From: Tim Higham 22 March 2016 08:02 AM

If the deadline cannot be met, sellers need to realise that their own slow conveyancers will be blamed when the buyer asks for a price reduction. The deals we cannot get exchanged are purely down to the selling lawyer taking days and days and days to deal with enquiries. Not in the month of March! There is no time for the usual slow conveyancers. But there are too many that now exist. Volume outfits are pushed by agents securing vast sums of kickbacks. But not just volume boys, but those who take on too much and then cannot service it. Your article is a shoutout to the selling lawyers who are taking too long. On our sales, buyers' conveyancers are all being prompt.

From: Tim Higham 11 March 2016 07:59 AM

@ Graham Coton Thank you. Just to pick up on your comment, "the majority of transactions are very very straightforward". If only. It would certainly remove the transactional stress from the conveyancer if that were remotely true. Sadly the majority of work in any conveyancer’s cabinet is not straightforward. And that is a recent phenomena, since the downturn in 2007 I would say. If they are straightforward in anyone’s cabinet, the conveyancer better have their files checked by a senior colleague, and quick. In London – leasehold deals dominate, and so frequently defective leases are not spotted when the seller bought, absence of Council consents for the conversion/build, alterations without landlord/Council consent, or service charge issues that slow things down. The list goes on. Out of City – aside from the above, so much of the complexity is either down to mistakes made by the seller’s own conveyancer missing things when they bought, as it is due to that same conveyancer badly reporting to the seller. Badly reporting? For example, the seller may well have created the issues during their ownership because their own lawyer never told them (e.g) that they have covenants in their freehold preventing extensions without covenantee/neighbour consent, and that has to be resolved. Or they failed to obtain Council consent. Even because of the attitude of conveyancers being slow, not understanding the issues etc, a deal can be far from straightforward. Typical conveyancer mistakes first time around are so often: 1. Defective legal access 2. Missing title to part of the garden 3. Absence of Council consents BUT having said all the above – they can appear straightforward IF you have an expert conveyancer who knows what to instantly do to get that prompt solution. Now, if those conveyancers were “very very” commonplace, then you COULD say "the majority of transactions are very very straightforward". Unfortunately, I cannot see that happening.

From: Tim Higham 24 February 2016 12:16 PM

Dear Estate Agents How wrong. We DO NOT blame you in the slightest for the slow speed of house sales/purchases. The spotlight must in fact be on the Conveyancer – as the quality among them ranges wildly. It is wrong to even mention estate agents in a discussion about home moving delays. You do a crucial job getting the sale to offer, but it is when some conveyancers take over that your great efforts are then so often wasted/tarnished, as so many conveyancers take over and exhibit appalling and insufficient legal skills to even be allowed to offer a fee charging service to the public, and so cause delay, or worse yet, abortion of the whole deal. This is because of their inability to spot (let alone solve) legal issues, a lack of understanding of even the basics of conveyancing procedure, an inability to make instant decisions because the only one qualified to do so in their office (an actual solicitor) only walks by once a week to ‘sign off’ files. Sadly, when the downturn hit in 2007, conveyancing firms made many of their own staff redundant, and those ex-employees had to retrain out of the legal market, as no one was hiring as the downturn was lasting and lasting (5 years I fact). Certainly no new conveyancers were therefore entering the market either. But when transactions started to rise again, conveyancers thought the best way to keep economical was to hire cheap employees without any legal training – yet devilishly they would still charge the public the same price – and over time they promised themselves they would train these employees in-house. Sadly, the more they recruited with rising transaction levels, the one thing they forgot to do, and now have no time to do, was…..to train the employees. As a result, there are conveyancing businesses whose teams are dominated by conveyancers who are not actual Solicitors, or Legal Executives, or even a law degree, in fact, almost nil legal training. Low standards have therefore swept the conveyancing market. The public have a difficult job in weeding out who is good. Mediocre businesses know that repeat business is unlikely, and so they employ very persuasive marketeers to continuously bring in new work…to attend high footfall public events, to offer huge financial payments to buy the referral, to seek bulk work contracts etc. And yet, the end user suffers – the public, who are none the wiser of who is doing their legal work, as the public understandably think ‘I have a lawyer’. Consequently, to reduce the wrong conveyancer becoming part of the conveyancing chain and risking your hard work to date, you CAN HELP, PLEASE: 1. When a member of the public seeks a recommendation for a conveyancer, please consider the quality of who you are recommending. One way is right now, just put their name into Google and add the word ‘review’. Scary reading, as you recommend them, and it tarnishes you too. 2. Even dynamic conveyancers pay referral fees 3. Please promote this from your chosen conveyancer: we offer our clients there very own named conveyancer who stays the same start to finish. Who makes instant decisions, who freely offers their own personal email and direct telephone number. We make our whole conveyancing team publicly accountable and accessible, with no hiding behind an anonymous website. Let’s get those property deals exchanged. Kind regards TRETHOWANS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TEAM - http://www.trethowans.com/site/services_for_you/property/

From: Tim Higham 24 February 2016 10:02 AM

It was "not ..apparent to which property the board related". That goes on all the time , in so many places, just drive around Salisbury for instance, I see some of the lower value chain Agents doing this. Do you think home owners are ever paid to host a board on a property not actually for sale?

From: Tim Higham 17 February 2016 15:22 PM

If we could weed out the personal search agents monopolising the time of the Council then the Council would have extra time to speed up the searches they expertly handle.

From: Tim Higham 17 February 2016 15:19 PM

Independent estate agents or the higher value chains, they already work well together. It is the irritating calls from other agents to ask 'have you got your searches' or 'can I have an update?' - bringing no help or information to the conveyancer. Just them ticking off their boxes to say they asked the lawyer in case their own client again screams at them for asking why they are not providing updates. We receive so few calls, as we update our Agents once a week by a cc when updating our clients. But to those above mentioned who are an irritant, please be of more help, as we want to work with you. Otherwise, you might start getting calls from lawyers during the time when the property is on the market, and asking you 'so...have you listed the Property on Rightmove yet?' or ' have you provided all feedback on all viewings yet' etc. Oh and 'please don't farm the buyer out to a conveyancer who pays you most for the lead, please respect your selling client, who will want the best conveyancer to be recommended'. Teamwork is key. Good estate agent and conveyancer communication is key, to work together to keep the pace of the legal work as fast as it can be, as the client could otherwise lose the sale through delay and therefore cold feet, the agent loses the commission, and everyone's time is wasted.

From: Tim Higham 12 February 2016 08:13 AM

Then conveyancers have only themselves to blame, as these are matters for a surveyor to warn clients to do for themselves (or even do for the customer as who better than a surveyor) and mortgage lenders to satisfy themselves over before considering to lend. Lawyers are not surveyors / flood experts to offer any advice at all on the content. (Actually I am not sold on these search results anyway myself; to do a flood search because you know it is in an area of flooding to be told it is in an area of flooding. Daft. And they carry no guarantees, nor actual 'yes or no this property has or will flood'. Ask neighbours, and get an insurance quote - then you will soon learn, and visit http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683.0&y=355134.0&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=floodmap Madness to associate lawyers with such searches. Instead, search companies are peddling more and more searches to lawyers who are a soft target, to buy the searches. Conveyancers get themselves worried that they better be doing them in case others are. More and more daft searches are on their way as a result - 'when was the cat flat last oiled' searches won't be far off.

From: Tim Higham 12 February 2016 08:06 AM

Squeeze out shoddy conveyancers, and standards will rise. First time buyers are quite naturally very trusting of those involved in the house selling process, but vast numbers can be farmed out to conveyancers who can be owned by the referring estate agent, or to conveyancers who pay vast sums of money to the estate agent for the business in both cases whether or not the quality of that conveyancer is any good. If they have customers on tap like this, there is no incentive to make sure your service is as good as it can be. Sure, any conveyancer can offer poor service, but when a conveyancer's 'Top 5 List of Mediocre Conveyancers' includes more than one volume conveyancing outfit there is both smoke and fire, and a shed load of people being exposed to mediocre. Sadly, it is not the first time I have heard an estate agent say they wish they did not refer customers to X, but they are told they have to by their HQ as they receive lots of money. One even told me not to put off a client of ours from allowing that to happen where we were already acting for the other party. So if quality was the focus, not profit, then the public would have a better chance of securing a quality conveyancer.

From: Tim Higham 19 January 2016 16:52 PM

Matt - do please explain your distinction between solicitors who practice conveyancing and licensed conveyancers? (Be careful not to be libelous, but I would be interested to hear what you have to say) 4.20pm is the current CHAPS cut off now I see, but I am aware of so many firms stopping at 3.30pm. So 6pm will mean 5.10pm? But the reality is that extending the time needs to be backed with a guarantee of specific timed receipt (e.g it will take 10 minutes) as I would be loath to send money after 3.30pm anyway, as goodness knows when the seller will claim to receive it. Imagine sending payment at 6pm...what use is that to a seller, nothing. Only 'receipt' is. And as likely is that the selling lawyer will go home. The 'gone home conveyancer' is an increasing breed. You might argue that fact of sending the money should be enough for a seller to rely on, but so too would an undertaking not to send it but to hold it to their order until the next day - the current system used for payments being unable to be made after close of CHAPS. Actually invoking the SCs to allow simple occupation is often too, which we find as successful. BUT - too many conveyancers are not trained in the undertakings procedure or are not confident enough to even be bothered to pick up the phone and care about people outside houses who are trying to work out a solution. Not so long ago, we had a conveyancer selling to us who called to ask us what to do for their own onward passing of the undertakings!!? A local firm to one of our offices too. My suspicion is that all this is a storm in a teacup and not much will change (i.e unwillingness to send money late in the day and thus losing control of it until the next day). By lose control I mean the reliance on the selling lawyer to acknowledge it.....which will becomne an issue, because....they wil ahve gone home. Watch for the increase in the 'gone home conveyancer'. 'The 5pm answerphone brigade' However, thankfully, only about twice a year we witness funds being unable to be sent by 3.30pm. And the reason is invariably someone did not secure mortgage funds a day early. There will be conveyancers now who read that and think, but I don't secure funds the day before!!? My solution? I don't think there is much of a problem to address. I do think many conveyancers handle their completions very carelessly, including (can you believe) not calling the other lawyer to even confirm receipt of the money. But those conveyancers are not just careless on completion, that is their typical working method. Its about undiluting who can be conveyancers and allowed to offer their legal services. Better legal training. Sadly nothing is on the horizon for that. Those at the highest level think the solution to improve conveyancing is to offer up IT portals and deal rooms. Ignoring that fact that a shoddy conveyancer is still a shoddy conveyancer with all the bells and whistle IT gizmos they can have. Insist on dynamic, expert conveyancers, and conveyancing quality generally will start to improve - and if you are a business owner working with conveyancers like that, you will suffer less stress, fewer deals will abort, and their quality can only help yours.

From: Tim Higham 09 January 2016 21:33 PM

Breaking News