Property lawyers have rejected claims by the government that it will be able to speed up the home buying and selling process by digitalising data shared during property sales to tackle hold-ups in transactions and streamline the transaction process.
The proposed changes, announced on Sunday, aim to modernise the “cumbersome” process by allowing information that is often paper-based or not machine readable to be shared more easily.
The government is launching a 12-week project to decide on the “design and implementation of agreed rules on data” so that it can easily be shared between conveyancers, lenders and other parties involved in a transaction.
“We are streamlining the cumbersome homebuying process so that it is fit for the twenty-first century, helping homebuyers save money, gain time and reduce stress while also cutting the number of house sales that fall through,” housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook said.
Plans to digitise the property market, designed to help speed up the moving process, have been welcomed by Rightmove, which said it takes five months on average from an offer being accepted to moving into a property.
“Digitising the property market is key to helping speed up the moving process. If the plans set out today can further the access to information and an improved transaction process, it’s also critical to drive industry-wide adoption of tech solutions and collaboration to make it a success,” Rightmove CEO Johan Svanstrom said.
Propertymark has also voiced its support for the government’s’ proposals.
“[We] welcome plans to help speed up the buying and selling process via the proposal of making better use of technology,” Nathan Emerson, CEO of Propertymark said. “The housing sector will benefit enormously from digitisation, such commitment will ultimately bring vast consumer value and help streamline systems that have long needed progression.”
However, the government’s announcement yesterday raises more questions than it answers, according to the Property Lawyers Alliance (PLA), the group previously known as Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG), which says ironically it is parliament that is responsible for homebuying delays.
According to the PLA, this is because of:
• Crippling AML red tape
• A dysfunctional Legal Services Act
• A badly drawn Building Safety Act
• Underfunding of local authorities
• Unnecessary liabilities for home buyers concerning contaminated
land
• Poor regulation of developers
• Hideously complex stamp duty on second homes
• The corruption of home buying by the payment of referral fees
• A dysfunctional Land Registry
Stephen Larcombe, chair of PLA said: “Lawyers have been around for a very long time. As the rule of law developed from the ‘property clauses’ of Magna Carta, property law principles evolved, and lawyers developed their craft. Moreover, they practised with a deep sense of professionalism that sense of practising law as part of a strong, independent legal profession, for a higher purpose.
“The challenge for property lawyers is to practise law professionally but in a ‘modern manner’. What does that look like in 2025? Surely not a passive acceptance by lawyers of the rampant hype from the law-tech sector so practising law is reduced to mere algorithms.”
Larcombe went on to say: “The Law Society was challenged last year at the Special General Meeting (SGM) to justify why it had taken various steps without a mandate from its members. Part of the requisition for the SGM called for the resignation of the Law Society President and CEO because it had joined the Home Buying & Selling Council (HBSC) without a mandate from its members. The Open Property Data Association (OPDA) is also a prominent member of the HBSC. All three appear to be working closely with the Housing Ministry as members of the Digital Property Steering Group.
“In the light of recent cyber-attacks in the UK by cyber-criminals why would property lawyers, let alone the public, support the creation of a digital infrastructure in the form proposed by the government allegedly to ‘speed up’ conveyancing?”
Larcombe added: “Jurisprudence is evolving all the time and needs the skills of professionals to ensure that it is not corrupted by greed. How does the Law Society convince the public of the necessity of using lawyers to protect them in an increasingly dysfunctional property market? For solicitors, they want their professional bodies to take the lead. Most property lawyers will not just sit back and see their role diminished or marginalised by stealth.
“There is little point in being part of a group of highly trained professionals if the public is unaware of what lawyers do for them. So, the Law Society must change its direction. More importantly, it must now listen to its members working at the conveyancing coalface. A false narrative has been created to justify the dumbing down of property law.
“As one lawyer put it succinctly to PLA: “These proposed changes are cosmetic and simply provide answers to the
wrong questions.”
The Law Society has been approached for comment.
Protecting their jobs and nothing more. The process is slow and archaic and needs urgent modernisation. Everyone suffers mainly the customers as things stand
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Mr Larcombe appears to suggest that the protection of lawyers jobs is a more valuable goal than than improving the customer experience for buyers and sellers, interesting.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’m amazed that this is what you summize from his comments.
Nothing to do with lawyers preserving their jobs. There will always be a human element to conveyancing – we are lightyears away from tech replacing lawyers.
What he’s saying is (a) a lack of “digitisation” doesn’t even scratch the surface at to why conveyancing is so dysfunctional, and (b) it’s not in the public interest for the role of lawyers in the process to be marginalised. Conveyancing is fundamentally a legal process that requires legal expertise.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Clearly you live in the dark ages. Solicitors are unnecessarily slow, take an outdated step by step approach and have no concern for their customers feelings, or stress. The whole process is ridiculously outdated. Bury your head in the sand talking about legal expertise all you like. We are light years behind other countries on this but then so is the whole legal system.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Respectfully, you are clearly not a conveyancer and don’t have a clue about conveyancing.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So you don’t think the system is archaic or there can be improvement s to it? Just happy to disappoint and frustrate your customers?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There’s definitely improvements to be made, but you are an estate agent so have no inclination to act with integrity. I’ve seen estate agents purposely omit crucial information so that they can get a buyer agreed. Is it any wonder that sales are falling through?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Wow what an insult. My business is all about integrity and customer service and your naive assumption are very wrong and offensive. I find conveyancers blame others all the time when they make a mistake (usually basic). I have yet to find a conveyancer that actually gives a damn about their customers feelings and stress levels and provides an exemplary service.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
And hence you are wrong – my services are exemplary and people need to understand it is not a need for speed. It is a need for understanding. You are working with the wrong conveyancers which is why you have this attitude.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You are totally wrong and your attitude is exactly what I mean – there is a need for speed. For the sake of your customers and to mitigate any risk of fall though. I bet for example you don’t update them weekly as to progress – or not
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I absolutely do. Or they have an understanding that conveyancing doesn’t move at a weekly pace. There are many factors outside of my control (including interfering estate agents egging on and whispering false niceties into their ears). Much of this is estate agents stirring the pot when there is no need to.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Weirdly the old home information packs would be the best way forward. Get an exchange ready legal pack done before the property goes on the market.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
HIPS were a complete failure. But yeah, let’s try it again and expect a different result.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Agreed.. our national research in Connells Group on transaction timescales in 2018 proved that HIPs were improving timescales on transactions but the Tories then through the baby out with the bathwater….
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You’ve got to start somewhere. Digitising forms, getting searches earlier and having a dataroom to keep it all in so everyone can see what’s going on works for auctions and can work for private treaty. Research clearly shows that when buyers and sellers engage, deals go through quicker – humans will always be involved and it feels wrong for solicitors to be negative, when they need not be?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Digitisation is a glorified dating app. You will need lawyers so that the public are not screwed over by unfair terms (as we have seen with this awful MMA agreements). You are presenting information to Joe Public who says ‘yes I’ll go on this date’ but without getting to know the person agrees to marry them? You’re asking for trouble mate. Not to mention being seriously screwed over as there is a “no refunds” policy. Divorce is an expensive business. So is selling especially when agents are getting paid 3x more than conveyancers for none of the risk. Estate agents are the ones who need sorting out not conveyancers. Stop referring to the factory outfits and put decent conveyancers opposite each other then you will see how quickly things get done without a glorified dating app supported by govt officials who know nothing of the misery that leasehold, newbuilds and shared ownership brings.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Your comments are laughable. No point comparing agents and conveyancers fees, two very different jobs. Also, having recently purchased a home I can conclude that there is very little need for a conveyancer. Wind your neck in.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Referencing the Magna Carta is not going to engender sympathy in this debate, in fact it is only going to underline the urgent need for change. Then calling out all of the various entities that are at least, trying to be proactive in a collaborative way to help solve this problem and finally throwing in accusations of corruption is only going to lead people to the conclusion that this response is simply bitter self protectionism. Instead of looking backwards (Magna Carta) let’s look forward to a simple solution/system that is fit for a digital age and meets a modern day customer’s expectation. The fact is there are many vested interests in the various stages of the transaction process and until someone (The Government) can mandate the process and bring into line all of these parties (Agents, Surveyors, Lenders, Lawyers, Search Providers, Local Authorities and Land Registry) very little will change with the antiquated conveyancing process, as you can see from this response above. The fact is in today’s world it can be / should be a very simple process in the vast majority (90%-95%) of transactions. I am not trying to detract from the hugely talented property lawyers out there, who do a fantastic job protecting their clients and the lenders, in complex or high value transactions. I am just saying we shouldn’t need that many of them with a modern, fit for purpose process. Our starting point should be…..Why should there be any need for a human element to the conveyancing process, in the vast majority cases? If the current legal process precludes this…..Then the starting point should be the changing of the legal process to allow for digitisation.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Lack of digitisation” is not why conveyancing takes so long. Conversely, it is the conveyancing outfits who over-rely on technology who are responsible for the majority of delays.
Yet instead of tackling a dysfunctional land registry, poisonous referal fees, crippling AML red tape, or other factors that genuinely delay conveyancing, the government seem to have been hoodwinked by the complete myth that more digitisation will solve all our problems.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Digitisation is a glorified dating app. You will need lawyers so that the public are not screwed over by unfair terms (as we have seen with this awful MMA agreements). You are presenting information to Joe Public who says ‘yes I’ll go on this date’ but without getting to know the person agrees to marry them? You’re asking for trouble mate. Not to mention being seriously screwed over as there is a “no refunds” policy. Divorce is an expensive business. So is selling especially when agents are getting paid 3x more than conveyancers for none of the risk. Estate agents are the ones who need sorting out not conveyancers. Stop referring to the factory outfits and put decent conveyancers opposite each other then you will see how quickly things get done without a glorified dating app supported by govt officials who know nothing of the misery that leasehold, newbuilds and shared ownership brings.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
No industry is perfect, but instead of deflecting, Conveyancers should self reflect and look at why these sales take so long to complete. In many cases it’s other Solicitors in the chain, disorganisation and general incompetence. Why is this?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There is no doubt that conveyancing is challenging, and good forward-thinking conveyancers are much needed, but Stephen Larcombe needs a reality check! He rarely passes comment without referring to the Magna Carta. As far as I am aware he is a conveyancing locum, not Amal Clooney.
The Property Lawyers Alliance appears to be a cabal of a handful of conveyancers who have a desire to hold back any kind of progress, particularly tech led, and have no time for anyone else involved in the home buying and selling process, particularly estate agents. They consider themselves the ringmasters and don’t you forget it.
This latest news is welcomed with caution by me, but it is not a silver bullet, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Now, I’m off to sell some properties. Hasta la vista baby.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You have no idea mate. The lies that I have uncovered. It starts with the building and construction industry building dodgy homes, unsafe materials being used on homes, guarantees that are worthless pieces of paper, fraudulent documents and sign-offs. So the HBSC and govt think this will be solved by digitisation? Joe Public have no idea what they are looking at, how to evaluate the evidence and how it has been ‘framed’ to look good to hoodwink you. This includes sly selling techniques by agents which then wastes the public’s money.
When looking at conveyancers, don’t put us all in the same boat. Some are better than others. But the public don’t know how to look for qualification – you make it all about price and being able to “control” them with your referral fee network. Those are the guys putting non-qualifieds on the front line who think it is a ‘tick box’ exercise. Stop your conditional selling and you will see how things unravel.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’m not your mate BTW.
I have worked with, and continue to work with, many experienced yet unqualified conveyancers. In many cases they are better at progressing transactions quickly than some died in the wool qualified ones.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Perhaps because they are paid to look the other way and not actually deal with any substantial legal issues as it needs to go to a supervisor?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I have not seen any conveyancers in favour of this. The proposals put forward will not ‘fix’ the conveyancing system, as it’s not intended to be fixed. This appears to be the result of more government lobbying to throw good money after bad into tech and so on. A total money pit. Nobody is listening to conveyancers. Everything is already digitised and it hasn’t made much of a difference. Why? Because a lack of tech is not the issue and never has been.
Conveyancing is too slow and can be improved, but let us not forget that the system worked perfectly fine before endless government meddling. So logically how can further government meddling be the solution as well as the cause?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The whole industry must agree the process must move to a digital based system. Huge vested interests will restrict and frustrate the process but the progress must continue.
The work that has been done by the likes of the @Property Data Trust Framework and the like are preparing the way for some big changes that will improve the consumers experience but also that of those working in the industry.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yet they refuse to entertain any question about who will be liable? It’s because they don’t have an answer for the mistakes that they will be causing.
You would have thought that they would learn their lessons from HIPs and yet here we are again.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I am a career agent of 40 years with conveyancers in the family so I do know a bit about conveyancing and the house transaction process.
The bit I find frustrating is that conveyancers do not seem to appreciate the relationship between the length of time it takes for a transaction to go through, the risk of it falling through the longer it takes, the more touch points they have the longer it takes , the less profitable the job becomes the more touch points they have and to top it all the poorer experience the person paying the bill has. We all provide a customer service and so our goal should be to improve that service.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This is a straw man. Conveyancers would generally love transactions to happen faster. I certainly would – I’m a self employed consultant and I’m not immune from the realities of running a business just because I’m a conveyancer. My own position is just that this is the wrong approach.
Incidentally I would like to see more progress made in some tech areas, making electronic mortgage deeds actually viable,for example would make a big difference. But this is not a focus as there’s little/no money to be made from it.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
David Jabbari CEO Muve
Fascinating to see how the debate is positioned as a battle between Dickensian conveyancers, sitting in their dust-filled rooms amongst their law books, and modernisers trying to speed up the process.
Stephen Larcombe of the The Property Lawyers Action Group does nothing to help this by citing ‘Magna Carta’ and the rule of law. Stephen is not in fact trying to justify the present system – no one could justify a system that produces the current delays – he is simply pointing to the real factors that have slowed the process down such as the absurd AML burden, poorly drafted legislation (eg the BSA) and the ‘dysfunctional’ Land Registry.
The deep irony in all this is that digitising property information, while an important building block, will have a negligible impact on the speed of transactions. Henry Ford realised a similar thing when he invented mass automobile production. Simply standardising the tasks and inputs had no effect on the speed of process unless the process moved at a pre-set speed, hence his introduction of a moving production line where workers had a defined time to complete their task.
The primary delays in the process currently are AML, enquiries, management information and co-ordinating chains. Digital information has a negligible impact on each of these. This is because (a) there is nothing in it that will force a slow conveyancer to respond more quickly to enquiries, and (b) all the digital data referred to still needs verification by a conveyancer.
Any initiative which involves bodies like the UK Government and Land Registry is unlikely to make significant inroads on key issues in the process. In many respects the Digital Property Market Steering Group (DPMSG) agenda here is already outdated, failing to recognise that the evolution from Analogue to Digital is over-shadowed by the evolution from Digital to AI.
Digital Information is a side show in a process where the delay originates chiefly from human procrastination of different sorts. At Muve we strongly back digital data as one important element in a faster process but we see the solution to faster conveyancing as much more likely to come from AI and insurance supplements to the conveyancer’s work.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You forget also that DPMSG have been put together by people who have no idea about the realities of front line conveyancing. We use technology and yes you are right it’s got nothing to do with ‘digital information’ and all to do with the interpretation of the same which estate agents are not qualified to do. You’re only as good as your slowest link and sometimes clients want you to move slower where they are trying to find another property to buy (if selling) or there are finance issues. Nobody asking why lenders now require so many bits of information and why the Law Society are asking sellers to go off and do research that would typically be undertaken by a buyer’s solicitor. Any moves to AI will need to be supervised by lawyers because even AI can hallucinate.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The objections by the PLA are nothing but smoke and mirrors, there is nothing in that fabricated list that cannot be improved in tandem with these plans.
The conveyancing world is still dominated by crusty old white men, who think they know better than everyone else and refuse to conform to systems that can inherently improve the industry. Their only concern is that once the system is improved, overly inflated fees will be difficult to conceal under the guise of ‘difficult process’.
Everytime there is improvement suggested, whether it be mortgages or the legal process, the old world crustonians moan because they will have to adapt to the 21st century that will clearly expose what it is they actually do.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Your prejudices are showing. The majority of conveyancers are in fact women. I happen to be a man, but I don’t know if at the age of 34 I would yet qualify as being ‘old’ or ‘crusty’. I work remotely, entirely paper-based, and that is part of the reason why I know these proposals are pointless. The conveyancing process has already largely been modernised. ‘Adapting to the 21st century’ is not the problem, nor what conveyancers are objecting to.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Objection, your honour!
The poster didn’t say that the majority of conveyancers are men. What they actually said was:
“The conveyancing world is still dominated by crusty old white men, who think they know better than everyone else and refuse to conform to systems that can inherently improve the industry.”
I can see why they’d hold that opinion—even if it’s a broad generalization. But responding to an interpretation rather than the actual words is a misrepresentation of their statement.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
And you think it is acceptable to bring skin colour into this? How bigoted.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oh do bore off. I was going to write a response as to why this was used, but I don’t think you have the IQ to understand.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So ignorant. I have two degrees
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Intelligence and academic ‘success’ are not always bedfellows.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Have you nothing better to do than spout your idiotic clap trap?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Have you got nothing better to do than look for ways to be offended on the internet?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Damn right too. Imagine the chaos if things like banking, issuing/signing of contracts, booking holidays, buying cars, ‘seeing’ a doctor, HMRC tax filings, passport gates at airports and more were digitised and cyber criminals could upend our lives at a whim! It would be chaos!?!
Oh wait…..
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Burn the Looms?
In the early 19th century, the Luddites smashed industrial looms, fearing mechanisation would destroy their livelihoods. Today, the Property Lawyers Association (PLA) seems to be taking a similar stance—resisting much-needed changes in the home-moving process with hostility rather than engagement. While their concerns aren’t entirely without merit, the rudeness, aggression, and petulant blocking of those trying to help is both unprofessional and counterproductive. When I pointed out that one member’s attack breached SRA regulations, I wasn’t met with thanks or discussion—I was blocked…. Bit Rude!
The irony is, refusing to engage won’t stop progress. There’s clear evidence that small process improvements can significantly speed up transactions, benefiting everyone involved. This isn’t about undermining lawyers—it’s about making the system work better for all. The PLA must decide: help shape the future, or cling to the past while their profession and our industry moves on.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Welcome to the growing club Robert. Probably more people blocked than actual members now. Disagree with them, challenge them, and they block you, so they can say what they like in some places (LinkedIn in particular) free of robust debate.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Robert I haven’t blocked you and you might recall that we had a (from my perspective at least) perfectly affable conversation for close to an hour.
If you want people to engage with you, don’t make absurd claims about them publicly with no basis. It’s silly to expect people to thank you for that, or to wish to continue listening to you. Having or expressing a contrary opinion is not a breach of SRA regulations per se.
I’m sure that you have some useful contributions to make to these discussions, but you should make those arguments, rather than attacking people who you don’t agree with. In short, attack the arguments, not those putting them forward.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“You think my post was about you, don’t you?”
Colin, I wasn’t referring to you, and to my knowledge, while your comments have been robust, none have breached SRA guidelines.
However, I do have screenshots of posts that I believe did cross that line. It seems the author may have agreed, as the comments were swiftly edited.
What I find telling is that instead of engaging professionally, some vocal members of the PLA are resorting to rudeness, dismissiveness, and aggression. The irony is that, rather than strengthening their position, this behaviour weakens it—because they’re being outgunned not by hostility, but by good manners and professionalism.
Pointing out breaches of conduct and decorum is not an attack. It’s simply holding discussions to a standard that benefits everyone. The real question is whether people want to debate ideas constructively or continue undermining their own credibility.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Robert if you believe that members of PLA are undermining their own credibility then simply leave them to it, and as you suggest, they will lose the argument by default. That is the approach I have been taking, successfully, with another commenter on this thread.
It strikes me as though you’re simply saying anything other than making an argument that addresses the issues because you know you can’t compete in that department.
If you wish to have an actual discussion on the issues, you have all of my contact details.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Looks like it has been a good day. A couple of sales agreed, and proactive conveyancers instructed. Happy sellers and buyers indeed.
Talking of undermining your own credibility, a conveyancer contact has just pointed me towards the end of a podcast you were involved in recently, and by your own admission you said now that you are a self-employed consultant you “have less free time” to post on social media etc as much as you did when employed by someone else. You also seem to be keen (keener now you are self-employed maybe?) to see transaction times (and your cash flow) improve.
“Conveyancers would generally love transactions to happen faster. I certainly would – I’m a self-employed consultant and I’m not immune from the realities of running a business just because I’m a conveyancer.”
Welcome to “the realities of running a business”. Self-employment seriously focusses and possibly changes one’s mind about a number of things.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Colin, you do have a way of making these discussions entertaining.
I’m not avoiding discussion—I’m countering incorrect claims where they arise. That’s not deflection, that’s ensuring accuracy.
I’m quite content to leave the PLA to its own course, but at the same time, I’m having meaningful discussions with others in your profession who recognize that reducing reliance on caveat emptor ultimately benefits their clients. That’s where progress is happening.
From what I’ve observed, the real point of contention seems to be that some level of professional responsibility for accuracy would shift onto conveyancers—not just in service of their paying client, but in ensuring that information is correct for the wider transaction. If that’s the real concern, it’s an interesting stance to take.
If all in the PLA are open to discussing the issues politely and constructively (as you have with me), I’m always happy to engage—just as I already am with those who see value in evolving the process. But attempting to shut down or discredit people simply for holding a different opinion is neither reasonable nor productive.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The holier than thou arrogance of large parts of the conveyancing industry is not going to be solved by digitisation, therefore nothing will change unfortunately for the foreseeable future.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Rather sad that the battle lines between agents and solicitors are so deep seated. Should all parties not be sitting down and listening to the other parties concerns and trying to find a solution to those concerns. On a positive note i am hearing a number of agent/solicitor arrangements working well for both parties.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Could not agree more Tim, and it is something I am currently working on with a solicitor who has just begun working for an estate agent. A real eye opener she says.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register