JPMorgan Conveyancing Panel Information

In operating open conveyancing panels, lenders such as JPMorgan face a number of fraud and negligence risks. While there is no authoritative source of data on lender exposure to solicitor–led mortgage fraud, anecdotal evidence from lenders indicates exposure on individual cases are often in the millions of pounds. The National Fraud Authority estimates that £1bn per year is lost in mortgage -related frauds in total, which is seen as a conservative estimate.

These risks are exacerbated by the lack of a comprehensive set of data on all conveyancing firms (which, for the avoidance of doubt, would include solicitors and conveyancers across the UK) which is in a readily accessible format. Currently, lenders vet the suitability of their panel firms against a variety of disparate, incomplete and potentially inaccurate sets of information. One top 5 lender pointed out to us that it is almost impossible to track individual fraudsters who move from firm to firm, especially where they are no longer registered or no longer hold a valid practicing certificate.

JPMorgan and other lenders are in varying stages of reviewing their approach to vetting firms on their conveyancing panels, to ensure their ongoing exposure to unsuitable firms is reduced. There is also regulatory impetus on lenders to ensure that they have satisfactory oversight of their third party panels, including a due-diligence process.

As is the case with the Law Society the Council of Licensed Conveyancers has initiated dialogue with lenders and their representative bodies to see whether and how the risks that lenders wish to mitigate could be addressed through the regulatory framework rather than via ad hoc arrangements that can differ from lender to lender. We expect that that the CLC have been in touch with lenders such as JPMorgan since 2008 which is when lenders started being more restrictive.

When a solicitor is acting for both JPMorgan and borrower there is potential for conflicts to arise. You owe duties to both clients. All information received by you from your client is confidential and cannot be disclosed without the client’s consent. In the situation you find yourself in if the purchaser will not consent to the information being passed on to the lender the solicitor must cease to act for the JPMorgan and it may well be prudent you to cease to act for the purchaser as well. You can not tell the JPMorgan the reason for termination of the retainer over and above the fact that a conflict has arisen. The fact that you can no longer act should alert even the most somnambulistic of lenders that something is wrong with the borrower and/or purchase. The fact that you have disinstructed yourself should not affect your JPMorgan conveyancing panel status.

It would be advisable to provide details of the date of removal, information on the reason for removal, date of appeal and any reason given for reinstatement. This should not adversely impact your firm’s application but gives the Law Society a complete picture of what has happened.

You would be advised to contact JPMorgan to obtain standard documents. The The Council of Mortgage Lenders Handbook includes a specific section for banks to cite who to contact to obtain standard documents. JPMorgan in their Part 2’s state: Always remember to disclose your JPMorgan solicitors panel reference.