I remember a book in the library about doing your own conveyancing and avoiding legal fees. I am selling my house with no mortgage involved. Has anyone done their own conveyancing and can pass on some tips? Thanks
This isn't much for you to go on but .... if I was only selling I would consider doing it myself. I am happy to be corrected, but all your responsibility seems to be is to make sure you do not deliberately give false information about the property you are selling and make sure you get the money!
I got a solicitor quote of £400 but they quoted other fees on top........Bank charges £29.38, office copy enteries £10 and POSTAGE £35.25. What postage?????
Originally posted by mummysboy: I remember a book in the library about doing your own conveyancing and avoiding legal fees. I am selling my house with no mortgage involved. Has anyone done their own conveyancing and can pass on some tips? Thanks
The book was called "The Conveyancing Fraud" by Michael Joseph. It was written in the 1970's (updated in the 80's) but unfortunately the author has since passed away. It's a brilliant book (still available through Amazon very cheaply) and was invaluable as my my 'bible' on the 4 occasions I did my own conveyancing. Although the procedure has changed slightly since it was written, most of it is still relevant. Apart from anything else, it's a very entertaining read. In my experience, doing your own conveyancing needs a good eye for detail, an enjoyment of form-filling(!) and a thick skin to stand up to all those people who try and tell you you're not allowed to do your own(you are.) Good luck.
Its very easy. We used that book but also refered to the 'Which' book, both from our local library. Which said you couldn't do leashold but the conveyancy fraud book said you could. I think they said you couldn't do your own leashold because of the additional complexity was outside the scope of the 'Which book. lenders will require you use a solicitor and I wouldn't advice if you are buying a leashold, but for selling either and buying a freehold it's very simple.
only danger you'll have is buyers put off by you not having a solicitor, or EAs who know they won't get a kick-back by you using their recommended solicitor
Originally posted by loftman: Its very easy. We used that book but also refered to the 'Which' book, both from our local library. Which said you couldn't do leashold but the conveyancy fraud book said you could. I think they said you couldn't do your own leashold because of the additional complexity was outside the scope of the 'Which book. lenders will require you use a solicitor and I wouldn't advice if you are buying a leashold, but for selling either and buying a freehold it's very simple.
Point taken about leaseholds and lenders, but doing the conveyancing on a leasehold is not much more difficult, than doing it on a freehold. One of the places I sold (doing the conveyancing myself) was a leasehold flat. It posed no problems (apart from those of ignorance and prejudice from the buyers' solicitors!) 'The Conveyancing Fraud' covers leaseholds in a lot of easy-to-follow detail. However, there is no guidance on the conveyancing of freehold flatsas they were not as commonplace then,as they are today, and for these I would always advise using a solicitor.
As for lenders, they are usually fine (and often surprisingly genned-up) about DIY conveyancing, once you make them realise that it's perfectly legal. However, they will insist that a solicitor is used for their part of the procedure (who you, the borrower, pay for.) In fact, I found a solicitor who was quite comfortable to do that, but they are few and far between, and don't generally like it. I have also come across very unenlightened buyers' solicitors (or more accurately legal executives!)who flatly refuse to deal with DIYers at all, but thankfully these are in a minority. You just have to fight your corner if you are determined to DIY, but remember, the law is on your side. And yes, Malkie, I will agree that some buyers are indeed put off by a seller not having a solicitor, but I found that buyers more often than not, are quite intrigued and want to know more about it. The whole (relatively simple) process is something most people have been through but remains shrouded in mystery - just ask anyone you know if they are aware of what happens in a conveyance, and note what they say! As the late Michael Joseph said in his book, although the process of buying a house actually involves less law than buying a washing machine, telling people you have carried out your own conveyancing, provokes a similar reaction to telling them you removed your own appendix.
Best thread in a long time. Following my (relatively) recent purchase I was amazed at how little my solicitor actually did for his fee. Perhaps there is an opportunity for reclaiming fees as has been demonstrated with the "unfair" bank charges. On the other hand, turkeys do not vote for Christmas...
I have a problem. I decided to purchase a property a few months ago and the sellers solicitor refused to allow me to do the conveyancing myself as their insurance forbade them from so doing. Anyway, the purchase was needed in a hurry and I let them do it but promised I would return to the matter. Now gone back and complained and the SRA and Law Society have found in their favour. I thought it was enshrined in our rights that we could represent ourselves where we wished in legal matters. Nice little earners for the Solicitors if they can pull this one. Imagine trying to represent yourself in Crown Court and the opposite Barrister standing up and saying "He cannot do that, my insurance will not allow it". Not finished on this by a long way but does anyone have any links that might help me when I go small claims?
What did the law society say in their ruling? I think the vendor's solicitor has a watertight case as they could simply have refused to act but you backed down. The time to make a stand was then but, as you said, you could not because of time pressure. My most recent experience of conveyancers left me with a bad taste due to their incredibly poor value for money and I would certainly consider self conveyancing in the future.
They pretty much said that as the solicitor's legal cover prevented them from conducting the sale with a non solicitor then they were right. I did say that I was unhappy and would be returning to the fray when the sale was over. I fully intent to even if I make a fool of myself in the Small Claims Court, this is a restrictive practice and they are abusing their position by obtaining insurance which disadvantages people like me. I gave them the option of providing me with a disclaimer - not interested. I did probably irritate them by questioning why an infirm old lady who was in a hurry had employed a solicitor (recommended by Halifax)who was 250 miles away - cost her a mint in courier charges to meet timeframe - no conscience.
I,m sure my stressed out client could tell you a tale or two about doing your own conveyancing! We are trying to sort out his major problem,he didn't notice that he was only buying half his house, the other half being built on someone else's land who is not willing to play ball to put the problem right.Already with counsel's opinion the costs are up to 2000.00. but he has lost two buyers and is under the GP for stress. Strange that most people are willing to pay 1.5% commission to agents for advertising in a window but not willing to pay a professional solicitor 400.00 for the assurance of doing a job right. Don't forget we pay huge indemnity insurance premiums into a central fund so that you are protected should we be at fault,you have none of that protection with a DIY conveyancer. Also much of the practical conveyancing goes smoothly because solicitors rely on solicitors undertakings which the DIY conveyncer is not able to give.It still bemuses me that people are willing to make the biggest purchase of their lives without the correct advice ,which only costs the same as a washing machine. Believe you me there are few solicitors who get rich from the fees for conveyancing.You may be lucky and not have any problems and I hope you don't but you are always taking that chance.
It sounds a load of rubbish that a seller's solicitor could not act if the buyer did not have a solicitor. It may be inconvenient for the seller's solcitor but that does not make it right.
Apart from the fact that if the seller has a mortgage he will have to for a solicitor to represent his mortgage lender, there is also an issue about ID.
If my clients are buying a house from Bill Bloggs they will to make sure (and more importantly their mortgage lenders will want to make sure) that the documents have actually been signed by Bill Bloggs and the money has been given to Bill Bloggs. If a solicitor is acting for a seller he warrants that he is acting for the real seller and the buyer' solicitor doesn't have to check the point.
If the seller acts for himself then the buyer's solicitor has to verify the seller's identity which involves going to see the seller (who could live some distance away - at extra cost the buyer, which he would not be happy to pay and would want to pass on to the seller) to exchange contracts and again to complete. The alternative is for the seller to come to the buyer's solicitor's office with ID.
As Lawyerlady says solicitors accomplish a lot between themselves by giving each other undertakings (you get struck off if you don't comply) but a lay individual is not in the same position to giving such easily enforceable undertakings.
A year or so ago I did do a transaction where my client was buying from a seller acting for himself. This seller was prepared to travel 60-70 miles each way on a couple of occasions to come to my office. He didn't have a mortgage to pay off so that issue did not arise.
It is possible to do it and it is not illegal but please understand that there are inevitable hassles involved.
As a conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful but I accept no liability except to fee-paying clients.
As in any profession there are good conveyancers and bad conveyancers. Competence is not measured by qualifications alone and due diligence is incumbent on all parties to any transaction, represented or not. Perhaps my experience was atypical, but having been misled by vendor's solicitor on aborted purchase (discovered by me, not my solicitor) and then inordinately delayed by my own (different) solicitor on eventual purchase you will appreciate that I have an unfavourable view on their worth. I appreciate that in the majority of conveyances the parties may not have the competence or motivation to handle the details themselves, but it really is not difficult and not always time consuming. Also, there are ways to comply with verification of ID and money laundering requirements that do not require a professional conveyancer. However, back to OP's original question: if the vendor's solicitor had refused to act for the vendor due to an unrepresented purchaser I cannot see how that solicitor could be compelled to act regardless of any moral issue; after all anyone providing a service can choose not to provide that service unless it is on grounds of sex, religion, race, disability or age. Since none of these are in question here. surely it would have been for the vendor and purchaser to then decide how to proceed. They did and the transaction was concluded. End of. I sympathise with the OP, but I do not see that there is a case to answer.
You are right that there are good and bad in every profession or trade but you know what really annoys me is that a lot of people confuse solicitors and conveyancers.There is a difference and sometimes people who say they are conveyancers are clerks sat infront of a computer programme following the dictates of a machine and holding the rest of the chain up.I am selling a leasehold house for a client which should be straightforward but we have a conveyancing factory on the other side with an 18year old clerk who recently worked for a mobile phone company and dosen't know his leasehold from his freehold(most of you on this forum know more than he does and thats a compliment)His case management system won't let him progress until he has ticked the box saying he has management company accounts. There isn't one so after much arguing he suggested I make one up so his box can be ticked!It is so frustrating but my point is that cheaper isn't always the best(turns out that in reality they are more expensive than we are)and that there are diffrent levels of competence so please judge us individually on the quality of service you receive, I'm sure many of you have been happy with the solicitor you have used.
For anyone thinking of doing their own conveyancing, things just got more difficult. From 1st March you now have to provide much more ID to the Land Registry including a form signed by a solicitor, conveyancer or legal executive. I can tell you for a fact that no solicitor is going to risk doing that unless they are related to that person . Fraud in transfers of property have escalated by about 200% in the last six months and incidents of fraudulent discharges of mortgages have trebled in the same period.Most of the information to commit a fraud is on line but as this Govt. have ignored our repeated warnings, this is only going to get worse. This is not scare mongering, keep an eye on your property, especially if you are a buy to let landlord. Always make sure that the land registry has your current address.If you have a relative who has died and their house is empty regularly collect the post as these seem to be properties particularly targeted.I was told today of a case where someone had died, a fraudster got hold of ID details and used them for a false passport and managed to sell a house for over 300,000 without the beneficiaries knowing.How sick can you get?So just be vigilant,they are getting very clever!
