The Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) has unveiled a rebrand and will now be known as the The Property Lawyers Alliance (PLA).
PLAG was formed last year to counter what it perceived as multiple threats to all property lawyers.
Last July a special general meeting of the Law Society, requisitioned by the organisation’s solicitor members, called for a vote of no confidence in the Law Society (SGM). Although the vote was unsuccessful, PLAG’s efforts resulted in the Law Society organising a consultation on its controversial fifth edition of the Property Information Form (TA6).
The TA6 is, in turn, based on what PLA argues is the misguided and potentially unlawful inflation of the concept of ‘material information’. We are told that PLA is an evolution of PLAG to a wider, more inclusive group of property lawyers, that will support, inform, and protect the integrity of all property lawyers operating as part of the wider legal profession.
PLA feels strongly that lawyers at the heart of conveyancing, and the interpretation of land law principles underpinning it, and the fundamental aim of the rebranded group ‘is to defend the role of independent property lawyers as part of the legal landscape identified above’.
“All the conventions of daily law practice find their highest expression in integrity. Something the PLA feels must remain an integral part of conveyancing,” the group stated.
Could PLA clarify what they mean by “the misguided and potentially unlawful inflation of the concept of ‘material information’”? I’m genuinely seeking to understand their viewpoint on this matter. It seems that the logical outcome of the material information regulations is to involve conveyancers earlier in the process for both vendors and buyers, which could enhance transparency and help buyers better understand what they are purchasing before offers are submitted. What specific concerns does PLA have regarding these changes?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As a buyer, I expect my solicitor to represent my best interests, which means identifying all material information, as early in the process as possible. But what often happens is damaging information becomes known only after completion, and the solicitor refuses to accept any responsibility for not gathering all the information beforehand, and/or refuses to take action against their opposite number and their client. If the TA6 is an improvement, what’s the problem?
This sounds like a backside covering exercise.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As a buyer you have right to all of the information that affects your decision process before you do anything, before you view, before you offer. I maintain that if you are being given access to information you are not qualified to properly understand you should be asking for an explanation from someone qualified before you make an offer and before you spend out on surveys and mortgage fees.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hi Robert, PLAG (the predecessor to PLA) wrote about this quite extensively. We wrote an open letter to NTSELAT, a further open letter to the Law Society, requisitioned a special general meeting of the Law Society, and many of us gave speeches in support of our positions. I am not sure what else we can do to make our positions clear, but if you would like to speak to one of us please contact me at colin@propertylawyersalliance.co.uk
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Estate agents be very wary of this ‘Alliance’. Rather bizarrely, none of the senior members are named in this article. If you read some of the posts on LinkedIn, posted by the founder, a Stephen Larcombe (if they haven’t been deleted), you will see how much they want to prevent any form of development or modernisation of the home buying and selling process.
In addition, they don’t reveal anywhere, their membership numbers or members names. Why? Because they appear to be anti-everything considered to be progressive, anti-technology, anti-estate agents, and very anti referral fees (in any form).
The members do not seem keen to want their identities known publicly, which is strange, surely you should be proud of being part of an ‘Alliance’ that puts integrity at its forefront?
Make your own minds up though, take a look at an almost unreadable and unintelligible article that was published about them in yesterday’s edition of Today’s Conveyancer.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I quite agree that article was almost unreadable. Nothing to do with Mr. Larcombe however, it appears to have been a fault in the reporter’s transcription.
Do keep in mind that PLA was only officially launched today. About an hour after you posted your comment.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Does the PLA have different objectives and beliefs to the PLAG? Is there a website yet where we can see what they are and who exactly is involved? Are the PLA more estate friendly towards agents and more accepting of referral fees (if not extortionate), and legal tech than the PLAG were?
Yesterday’s Today’s Conveyancer article seems to have disappeared completely. Why, if the contents were worth reading why wasn’t it just re-edited?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
PLA are not against modernisation – it’s just that people who actually know nothing about being on the front lines of conveyancing are pedalling the myth that everyone’s problems will be solved by technology. It won’t – it won’t stop the developers from lying and handing out deceitful Building Regulations Certificates (claiming it’s all safe when in fact they have ‘bribed’ the building regs inspector to sign off a new building). The new TA form is expecting sellers to know if their properties were built with defective construction? Seriously – nobody pays the blindest bit of attention when they buy so you can see how sellers will struggle with a new form that is double the length of the original, some questions which are incorrect and really some questions only need to be there to trigger further enquiries. Most sellers don’t have a clue about solar panels and EV Charging points. Sellers still consistently fill in the 4th edition incorrectly.
There is targeted silencing to not bring the conniving and abuse of leasehold and freehold management service charges to the attention of the public.
You all seem to have forgotten that NOT all solicitors/conveyancers are created equal and the public has no idea who is being let loose on their file (especially if they are a ‘recommended’ factory firm). It is a misconception that all the information will be provided to make a decision at the outset because Joe Public doesn’t have a clue what any of it means and you are sorely mistaken if you think someone will spend money on a lawyer to find out what it means! If people could they would still buy a house without a lawyer because they think it is like a tin of baked beans. Unfortunately you can’t return a house and get a refund because you don’t like it or because a piece of string is hanging off! It’s the most amount of (someone else’s) money you will ever spend.
Any “Recommended” solicitor who is paying a referral fee back to an agent or developer is only looking after their own interests and not the client’s. Estate Agents make shed loads more for none of the liability – and the key question here that no one is answering is LIABILITY which is very important so as to throw the mud when something goes wrong – who is the client going to be able to blame?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
PLA’s concerns about the new regulations are clearly rooted in practical challenges, particularly for sellers, conveyancers, and the issue of liability.
Firstly, no one is claiming that technology will solve deep-rooted issues like developer dishonesty or leasehold abuses. Those problems require better oversight. But material information is not about sidelining conveyancers; it’s about providing transparency earlier in the process, so buyers aren’t blindsided later.
I agree that expecting sellers to know intricate details about construction faults or EV charging points is difficult, but that’s why early involvement of conveyancers is crucial. They can help sellers navigate these complexities and avoid delays. Likewise, involving conveyancers earlier for buyers can clarify technical information, improving their understanding before offers are submitted.
On the issue of liability, I understand PLA’s concerns, but surely by sharing responsibility between agents and conveyancers from the outset, the risk would be better managed. Leaving important details until later seems to increase rather than mitigate liability.
It’s also worth noting that for every developer who pushed toxic lease terms, there was often a conveyancer who didn’t flag the risks to their client. If conveyancers were engaged earlier, alongside material information, we could help prevent such issues and protect both buyers and the integrity of the profession.
So, why would PLA resist this shift, when earlier conveyancer involvement could address many of the concerns raised? Wouldn’t this approach reduce risk, improve transparency, and safeguard both buyers and professionals?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I, with thousands of others (judges, barristers, accountants, engineers…) most of whom were experienced freehold house buyers but inexperienced leaseholders, fell victim to Powell Callen (solicitors) who were the specified solicitor for developers and their agent selling toxic leasehold apartments back in 2006-8. We believed OUR solicitor had our backs, but it turned out they were scamming us all… and then went bust and disappeared, leaving us with rubbish investments [and egg on our faces!]. I am now very leasehold-aware, which is more than I can say for most solicitors., regardless of what they claim when they want your business.
I was an RTM director for my last sale, and provided all the relevant leasehold information upfront to my solicitor, with the expectation of a quick conveyance process to a cash buyer. It still took 7 months!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Does it give you pause for thought at all that new build purchases already in effect utilise material information? All of the information that the buyer’s solicitor could generally want (and then some) is included in an enormous bundle of documents at the outset of the matter. Yet the issues you describe still occur.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
A new build is often far more complex and involved with much more legal documentation than a normal freehold sale or purchase.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
LIABILITY – no doubt it will land on the conveyancer’s shoulders – estate agents rarely get the blame or get sued. The conveyancers are doing the legal work so why would they open themselves up to more liability? It’s definitely going to stamp out the smaller practices, some of whom work with more integrity and client’s interests in mind rather than pandering to the company paying their referral fee just to get the transaction through.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register