Platform Conveyancing Panel Information

In operating open conveyancing panels, lenders such as Platform 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.

Platform 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.

There are many reports available, five of which are as follows:

• Number of conveyancing cases by lender
• Average time frame to register charges at the Land Registry
• Analysis as to the nature of clients (e.g.existing/new/seen in person)
• Average mortgage advance
• Current and historic missed priority dates

In the same way that there is a unique Platform conveyancing panel most building societies, operate a conveyancing panel for solicitors and other conveyancers that the lender will instruct. Terms and Conditions and criteria for inclusion on a building society conveyancing panel vary from lender-to-lender. Having CQS accreditation may be a requirement. Institutional lenders, such as a building society, is a client and is entitled to instruct the solicitor or conveyancer of its choosing (who, in turn, is free to accept or refuse instructions). Therefore, if lender and borrower cannot agree which solicitor or conveyancer should represent them jointly, they would usually proceed on a separate representation basis. The BSA have not published the equivalent of the UK Finance Lenders’ Handbook Part 3s.

During 2013, 65 sections of the UK Finance Lenders’ Handbook P2 were changed by Platform. Some changes are more important than others but as a firm on the Platform conveyancing panel you are of course obliged to comply with individual lender requirements, as set out in Part II of the UK Finance Lenders’ Handbook. Locktons have recently pointed out in an article that non-compliance with Part 2 requirements account for a number of high value claims, and it is therefore important to be aware of any particularly onerous terms that an individual lender may impose.

Remember: CML requirements are not guidelines; they are the lender client’s instructions.

It would be advisable to supply 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 application but gives the Law Society viability as to what has happened.

You need to get in touch with Platform to obtain standard documents. The CML Handbook has a specific question for banks to reveal who to contact to obtain standard documents. Platform in their Part 2’s state: Please remember to disclose your Platform conveyancing panel reference.