I have just discovered the excellent blog from Landlord and Tenant specialists Painsmith Solicitors. It has some really interesting posts, as one would expect, and I shall certainly be reading it in future. Highly recommended to anyone interested in landlord and tenant.
A few weeks ago, I was (initially) somewhat flattered to receive an invitation from a financial organisation (who will remain unnamed) regarding the delivery of a new possession proceedings service.
"I am aware of your expertise in the field of residential landlord and tenant law" ran the letter, "and am writing to you to explore whether we can work in partnership together". Happy to know that at least one person is aware of my expertise, I rang to find out more. However after speaking to the gentleman, my interest diminished considerably, in fact down to zero. The situation was this.
The company wants to offer a cheap and cheerful possession service to the public. However as they are not a firm of solicitors they cannot (as yet) issue the proceedings themselves. They therefore need a firm of solicitors to do this for them. "We will draft all the paperwork" said my correspondent, "all you have to do is issue the proceedings and then, if necessary, instruct the bailiffs".
Sounds good? Well not really. The claims would be issued under my firms name. So if there was anything wrong with them and a negligence claim followed, it would be my professional indemnity insurance which would be on the line. Therefore I would have to check all the paperwork before issue to make sure that it was correct. So there would really be the same amount of work as if I were drafting it up myself. And they were offering to pay me £50.
When I first heard him say £50 I found it difficult to believe that I had heard him correctly. For that I would have to receive the paperwork, open a file, check it was correct, send it off to court, log the details on receipt, instruct the agent to attend the hearing, and then deal with their report. That would be for the straightforward cases where there is no defence filed. As gently as I could, I told him that it was not something I was really interested in.
I don’t know if he will find a firm prepared to work for him. I suspect not. In fact I would hope that no solicitors firm will be prepared to issue proceedings which have not been drafted by a partner or member of staff. And although the company were offering to ‘work in partnership’ I feel pretty sure that if there were any Tesco law type rule changes which allowed them to issue the claims themselves, the 'partnership' would be fairly swiftly ended.
But is this the future I ask myself? Large financial organisations mopping up all the customers and using solicitors at knock down rates, to do the grunt work? Well hopefully not in my firm.
But it would be interesting to know if any other firms have had similar approaches.
It has now been officially confirmed that the introduction of the tenancy deposit scheme has been put back to April 2007. One of the reasons apparently is that during consultation the landlords organizations complained that the way the scheme was set up, if the tenant did a runner leaving rent arrears, the scheme would not release the deposit to the landlord who would have to go to court to get a CCJ first!
I sometimes wonder what the people in charge of things nowadays use for brains. Surely it must have been obvious that this is unfair? Why was it necessary for the landlords organisations to have to point this out?
Another backtrack that has taken place recently is the decision to remove the home condition reports from HIPS (or at least not make them mandatory). Conveyancing is not my subject but colleagues who specialize in this work have been saying for months that the system is misconceived, was designed to solve a problem that did not really exist, and that it would probably prove to be unworkable. Now the government are looking silly. Why don’t they listen to advice?
Another own goal is their attempt to destroy the legal profession by threatening their independence, which as reported in The Times today is the subject of severe criticism by a parliamentary committee. Indeed the new President of the Law Society has said that the new wide and "unnecessary" powers taken by the Lord Chancellor will allow him to intervene in law firms - or even dictate that "every solicitor should have a blue-screen saver", if he wanted. Already foreign bars, for example Germany, have warned that if other proposed ‘reforms’ to allow firms to be owned by businesses go ahead they will not be willing to deal with them. The legal profession, particularly in the city, brings in huge sums to this country and is widely respected – why should the government wish to threaten this? What good will it do? Apart from removing the possibility that a vigorous legal profession might undermine half baked government initiatives, that is.
One reason for all of the above may be the desire to appease the consumers organisations (who support all these initiatives) at all costs, and accepting what they say without question. I have no quarrel with ensuring a fair deal for consumers, but the consumer organisations do appear to be unnecessarily skewed against landlords and the legal profession. But it will be dangerous to undermine either as this country needs landlords (to house those who cannot afford to buy) and an independent legal profession.
I met a friend the other day, who was absolutely incandescent about the fact that her (new) solicitors had asked her to provide proof of her identity. "What about my opponent?" she kept asking, "They don’t ask her to prove who she is!"
I explained to her that most solicitors are obliged to do this now, we don’t particularly want to (all that extra administration) but if we innocently act for a client who is not who he says he is, and who is involved in money laundering, we can be jailed along with the client. She was unmoved by the prospect of innocent solicitors being jailed because of the shenanigans of their clients, but exclaimed "Oh what an untrusting world it is nowadays!". Well that’s true enough.
