Am I correct in assuming that the fact that my conveyancer in Temple is not listed on my lender's conveyancing panel that there is a problem with the quality of the firm’s work?
It would not be wise to jump to that conclusion. There are all sorts of perfectly plausible explanations. A recent report by the solicitors regulator indicated 76% of law firms surveyed had been removed from at least one lender panel. The top 5 reasons are as follows: (1) low volume of transactions (2) the lawyer is a sole practitioner (3) as part of the HSBC panel reduction (4) regulatory contact by SRA (5) accidental removal. Should you be concerned you should simply call the Temple conveyancing firm and ask them why they are no longer on the approved list for your bank.
We are nearing an exchange on a flat in Temple and my mum and dad have sent the exchange deposit to my lawyer. I am now told that as the deposit has been received from someone other than me my conveyancing practitioner needs to disclose this to my bank. I am advised that, in also acting for the bank he must inform them that the balance of the purchase price is not just from me. I advised the lender concerning my parents' contribution when I applied for the mortgage, so is it really necessary for him to raise this?
Your solicitor is duty bound to clarify with lender to make sure that they know that the balance of the purchase price is not from your own resources. The solicitor can only reveal this to your lender if you agree, failing which, your lawyer must cease to continue acting.
Is there a reason why leasehold purchase conveyancing in Temple costs more?
The conveyancing costs on a leasehold property in Temple is frequently greater when contrasted to a freehold residence. This is due to the additional work necessary in dealing with the freeholder and management company to collate the information about whether the rent and maintenance fee have been discharged and whether there are any major works due in the foreseeable future on repairs or maintenance of the building.
I'm purchasing my first flat in Temple with a mortgage from Coventry Building Society. The sellers refused to reduce the amount so I negotiated £7000 of extras instead. The sale representative suggested that I not to tell my lawyer about the deal as it may jeopardize my mortgage with the bank. Is this normal?.
All lenders require a Disclosure of Incentives Form from the builder of any new build, converted or renovated property, It is available online from the Lenders’ Handbook page on the CML website. CML form is completed and handed to the lender's surveyor when the inspection is done.
Lenders have different policies on incentives. Some accept none at all, cash or physical, while others will accept cash incentives up to 5%.
Hard to understand why the representative of a builder would be suggesting you withold information from a solicitor when all this will be clearly visible on forms the builder has to supply to its solicitor, the buyer's solicitor and the surveyor.
I need to instruct a conveyancing solicitor for residential conveyancing in Temple. I happened to discover a site which looks to be the perfect answer If it is possible to get all this stuff completed via web that would be ideal. Do I need to be wary? What should out be looking out for?
As usual with these online conveyancers you need to read ALL the small print - did you notice the extra charge for dealing with the mortgage?
My hope is to purchase a ground floor maisonette in Temple. Conveyancing lawyer is waiting for, from the seller, building insurance schedule. This afternoon I was advised that the vendor needs to send the insurance schedule for the flat above as well. Why does my conveyancer need to review the insurance for the other flat? Is it strictly required? We have been stalled for the previous fortnight…
It is not unheard of in leasehold conveyancing in Temple to discover Conveyancing in Temple in a minority of cases reveals that the lease provides for the tenant's to insure their individual flats as opposed to the freeholder insuring the complete property - which is clearly preferable. Do double check with your conveyancer but it would seem that your conveyancing practitioner is seeking to verify that the complete building is insured. Insuring a ground floor residence is no help when it comes to rebuilding after a fire if the other flat cannot be reinstated due to lack of insurance cover.