T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,954
You cant definitively state that it is unnecessary though. The opening post above confirms exactly why the solicitor has requested it, and the reason given appears to be perfectly valid. The OP has already produced a 3-year old version of the letter which sounds like an implicit acknowledgement on their part that it's essential. But a 3 year old declaration is clearly of poor evidential value.A fair question. The solicitor seems to be insisting on something (the Deed of Confirmation) that is in all likelihood unnecessary, and it seems probable that MandyD will miss out on a lower interest rate as a result.
You should have noted this when you suggested to the OP that she should make a complaint.But perhaps the solicitor is perfectly entitled to do so, in which case there are no grounds for a complaint.
Again please read the opening post. It's the solicitor, not the bank, who requires the deed, and she has explained why she needs it.On the other hand, MandyD provided strong evidence to the solicitor that AIB do not require a Deed of Confirmation and the solicitor has ignored that.
The delay is on the part of the OP and their parents, not the solicitor.Do her actions amount to an unreasonable delay?
There is no power imbalance. There is an applicant whose mortgage may be slightly more expensive if rates go up in the meantime, and a solicitor who stands to be sued by the bank in the event of a default if they have relied on a 3-year old declaration in the course of certifying title. Whatever about a power imbalance, there certainly is an imbalance in the liabilities to be faced if things go wrong.That is indeed the main difficulty: a power imbalance. It's never easy to know what to do in such situations.
Last edited: