Back in 2013, at the start of the journey as far as the Conveyancing Association (CA) was concerned, we – along with representatives of panel management companies – drafted our very first Technical Protocol. The document was (and remains to this day) designed to collate a range of guidance from various organisations, bodies and case law in order to provide our member firms with a ‘single point of reference for best practice’.
This, as the Protocol was initially described, is the industry itself taking control and producing a ‘common-sense approach to the conveyancing process, agreeing certain service levels between our members in an effort to improve the service to their clients and the timescales of each stage of the process’.
Of course, in this market change can happen very rapidly – we produced a second edition of the Protocol back in November 2015, however given the metaphorical water that has passed under the conveyancing/housing market bridge since then, it’s quite clear that, while the fundamentals are sound, there needs to be a further iteration during 2018 in order that we’re as up to date as possible when it comes to ensuring we have a robust and efficient conveyancing service. And of course, there has been much change in terms of the organisations and institutions that exist and would feed into a Protocol – we need to ensure we work with all these partners in order to get the right document.
For that reason, we’re currently in the process of looking at the Third Edition of the Protocol, and in particular we’re seeking views and input from both surveyors and lenders around how we can create a more streamlined process by the application of law, case law, with of course an understanding of each other’s processes and viewpoints. This is an important point that sometimes gets overlooked – only through quality collaboration can we get the most efficient and stakeholder-friendly conveyancing service, and if we can only see this in terms of ‘dealing with the enemy’ we’re going to get nowhere fast.
Where we would like to make ongoing process is around cutting out the number of Post-Valuation Queries (PVQs) that are generated. It’s always been our view that the considerable resource and time that is spent on PVQs, is in many cases, not required if we can get things right prior to this point. There are of course many reasons why some conveyancing transactions take longer than others, but where possible, we should be looking to cut out a vast array of PVQs.
We see the major issue currently as being around building regulation and planning enforcement, and the subsequent impact this has on the valuation. This is where a surveyor or valuer says, “We understand that works have been completed to the property and assume that Local Authority consents have been obtained.” Given the Cottingham v Attey Bower Jones case decision we, as the conveyancing firm, have to go back to the surveyor/valuer if consents are not available, whether or not they are enforceable, and ask them whether it would change their valuation. In virtually all cases the answer would be “No” because they will advise based on a visual inspection, but this clearly takes time and can mean the overall process takes longer.
What we have at present is essentially four scenarios:
- Firstly, it looks good and is outside of enforcement period – therefore no impact on the value.
- Secondly, it looks good but is inside enforcement period – there is no impact on the value if an insurance policy is taken against the cost of enforcement.
- Thirdly, it looks bad and is outside of the enforcement period – therefore it’s a structural but not a legal issue and the repairs will impact the value.
- Finally, it looks bad and is inside enforcement period – repairs and enforcement will impact the value.
Our best-case scenario, and one which would undoubtedly cut down on the need for the conveyancing firm to have to keeping going back to the surveyor/valuer is to have them commit to a ‘to the best of our knowledge’ type response upfront. Essentially, they would be saying that, ‘We understand works have been completed to the property, and our visual inspection of the exposed works appears structurally sound. It is assumed that Local Authority consents have been obtained for the amendments and alterations, however, if they are outside of the enforcement periods of 12 months for a building regulation, four years for planning permission, 10 years for change of use or satisfaction of a condition, then this will not affect our valuation.’
A similar-type response could be generated when it comes to leases – again one that would cut down on the to-ing and fro-ing that mean such cases drag on. Again, they could say that, ‘We are advised that the lease has 145 years left to run…our valuation is based on the assumption that there are at least 85 years left to run on the lease. If there are more than this then this would not affect our valuation and should not be referred to us for review.’
Tackling some of these key issues, and delivering tangible and common-sense solutions, will undoubted inform our work with regard to the next iteration of the Technical Protocol. We cannot afford to stand still as the market moves on, and as solutions to many issues present themselves – we look forward to engaging with all stakeholders on this and to developing a Protocol that works for all.
Beth Rudolf is Director of Delivery at the Conveyancing Association
