Flat rate conveyance

Ikeanoamback said:

Price does not always equate to quality!

Click to expand...

Exactly - this is why choosing a conveyancing solicitor on price alone might not be the best approach. In my opinion it's better to get recommendations from trustworthy/reliable people (family, friends, colleagues etc.) about solicitors who have done a good job for them and only then use price as a secondary selection criterion.

Sarah W said:

On €200k the fee is €1995 + VAT (€2413.95) and outlays and the commission refund would be €2000 hence net fee, including VAT and solicitor but excluding outlays, is €413.95.

Sarah

www.rea.ie

Click to expand...

Do u have to get mortgage through rea to get those rates. ie if i have mortgage of 300k already from elsewhere and get a solicitor from rea does that mean it would cost me r€413.95, if so how do i go about getting one.

Ubiquitous,

Im sure plenty of high price solicitors have also failed to incorporate this element of the criteria for exemption from stamp duty when advising their clients,

I agree that a client should alwys have the opportunity to meet with their solicitor prior to completion of their purchase, however meeting with your solicitor will not increase his/her competence level, he/she could provide poor advice either on the telephone or accross a desk.

Their are numerous reasons why a solicitor could be providing a service at a reduced rate (increase market share, a belief that the service is overpriced elsewhere, efficiencies in their practice etc) , competence is unlikely to be one of them, ie. "Im so bad at this conveycing craic, I couldnt possibly charge any more than € 800 + outlay + vat"


Regards,

Ikeano

Just on this point : first AAM broke this story ( actually I did following publication of Revenue notes to Law Society ) on May 13th 2005 but the papers have just picked it up.

Secondly, go back and look at some of the gung ho threads/ contributors on the board - so many of them advising people to put one name on the deeds but two on the mortgage precisely with the intention of getting the FTB stamp duty rates. I have always expressed reservations about the practice - for a variety of reasons.

So who takes the blame? Revenue for not making it clearer, our FTB's for not reading up on status, solicitors for not taking full instructions and advising fully? I think I've made my position on conveyancing fees quite clear - I don't believe that you can provide a decent service for the fees regularly quoted on this board. I'm fascinated by how on the one hand conveyancing is seen as a no-brainer that a monkey could do ( and therefore should be charged accordingly) and how on the other hand so many issues arise on this board that regularly arise in even the most standard conveyances that people are shouting get onto your solicitor immediately - its what you're paying them for. The regular problems I come across in a variety of different guises are planning issues, CGT, CAT, access problems, boundary problems, life policy problems, matrimonial issues and, the biggest of all, messy people messing everyone around.

So who takes the blame? I don't have the answer - it comes down I suppose to when is an FTB an FTB? Revenue have taken a stand. Are they right? Will they enforce? Will someone challenge it? Watch this space.

mf

mf1,


" I think I've made my position on conveyancing fees quite clear - I don't believe that you can provide a decent service for the fees regularly quoted on this board."


Its the responsibility of the solicitor to decide the cost of providing their service, do you feel that solicitors who quote lower fees do this on the basis of completing less than 100% of the required work.

If this is so, then the law society need to play a part in ensuring that solicitors who do not complete a full service ( as that is the requirement of the client regardless of price paid ) are suitably dealth with. A client will only pay the price quoted, if a solicitor is quoting a low fee to garner more business, he/she is not exempted from the responsibility of supplying a full and complete service.


CM, i thoroughly agree a number of aspects including price and reputation etc should be considered when employing a solicitor and price should by no means be the determining factor, my point is that a higher fee does not mean a higher quality of service, and this is true regardless of industry or sector.

Regards,

Ikaeno

Deleted accidentally by ubiquitous. Apologies.

MOB,

"With respect Keano, you seem in effect to be pushing the idea that all solicitors have an obligation to give a level of service as good as the best!"

I believe that a solicitor should provide a full and complete service incorporating all aspects of the required work involved in the conveyance of the property no more no less.

"As in all service industries, the solicitor certainly has an obligation to give at a minimum an adequate and competent level of service. Does this mean that there is absolutely nothing a solicitor could do to give a level of service over and above the minimum required? Clearly not."

All the client requires is the "minimum an adequate and competent level of service" as this should fullfill all aspects of the conveyance of the property.


"Does this mean that a solicitor should be able to predict that a particular tax treatment currently acceptable will next week be challenged by Revenue? I don't think so"

I neither inferred nor stated that a solicitor should employ any type of psychic powers when interpreting tax law, neither is it neccessary when Revenue expressly state the following available on www.revenue.ie

What is the position where the purchase monies are not provided entirely by the first time buyer?

To qualify for the relief the entirety of the purchase monies, including any borrowings, must be provided by the first time buyer. Any person, who provides part of the purchase monies or who is a party to any borrowings relating to such purchase, is also regarded as a buyer of the house and the relief will not be available unless that other person is also a first time buyer.


"Certainly in the case of the FTB restriction, I think the Revenue have overstepped the mark."

Personally I dont agree.

Regards,

Ikeano

"......... the law society need to play a part in ensuring that solicitors who do not complete a full service ( as that is the requirement of the client regardless of price paid ) are suitably dealth with"

Click to expand...

Oddly enough if the Law Society did this, I would imagine their move would be challenged by the Competition Authority on the grounds that its effect would be to drive up prices to consumers!

Ubiquitous,


"Oddly enough if the Law Society did this, I would imagine their move would be challenged by the Competition Authority on the grounds that its effect would be to drive up prices to consumers!"

Thats a ridiculous point, Im not going to continually debate the price issue with you because you dont seem to understand the context or reasoning of the argument being put forward.

MOBs points however were relevant to the debate, can they be restored? or are they lost forever!

Regards,

Ikeano

Thats a ridiculous point

Click to expand...

Why? Surely increased action by regulators will push up compliance costs for firms and hence prices for consumers? I would have thought that this point would be an obvious one?

IKeano, you don't seem to understand the history of events here:

From Revenue Guide of 2003:

The following is a short explanation of some of the terms used.

Who is a First Time Buyer?

A First Time Buyer is a person, (or, where there is more than one buyer, each of such persons):

§ who has not on any previous occasion, either individually or jointly, purchased or built on his/her own behalf a house (in Ireland or abroad) and
§ where the property purchased is occupied by the purchaser, or a person on his behalf, as his/her only or principal place of residence and
§ where no rent, other than rent under the rent-a-room-scheme, is derived from the property for five years after the date of the current purchase.


The text quoted by you represents a new position adopted only this year by Revenue. Until the Revenue adopted this position (and published it), I don;t think any solicitor could be faulted for having failed to predict it. Obviously, some solicitors might not have become aware of the Revenue change as quickly as others, but that is a relatively minor point. I stand by my comment that a solicitor would not be expected to have predicted this change in Revenue position, and that solicitors (such as MF) who warned of this were in fact going above and beyond the call of duty.

MOB,

"Who is a First Time Buyer?

A First Time Buyer is a person, (or, where there is more than one buyer, each of such persons):

§ who has not on any previous occasion, either individually or jointly, purchased or built on his/her own behalf a house (in Ireland or abroad) and

§ where the property purchased is occupied by the purchaser, or a person on his behalf, as his/her only or principal place of residence and

§ where no rent, other than rent under the rent-a-room-scheme, is derived from the property for five years after the date of the current purchase."

Surely MOB in anyones estimation a parent who "on any previous occasion, either individually or jointly, purchased or built on his/her own behalf a house (in Ireland or abroad)" and is party to the relevant property transaction nullifies the exemption from stamp duty on the FTB basis, thats just common sense.

The Revenue may have clarified the point recently, however the extract you provide merely emphatises the basis for the Revenue position.

I couldnt agree that a solicitor taking full account of all possible tax ramifications from a particular transaction is going above the call of duty.


Regards,

Ikeano

Ikeano, you still aren't seeing the point. If a first time buyer simply buys a house in their own name, they are not buying it jointly with anybody. That was the commonly understood position until May this year.

What Revenue are now saying is that if you buy a house in your own name, for yourself, you will be regarded as having bought it jointly with your parents if they co-sign the mortgage, even though they don't own any share of the house, but only have a share of the liability to pay for it. In other words, the Revenue are saying that they are prepared to "look through" the registered ownership and to regard anyone who has undertaken a liability to pay for the house as having an ownership share in it.

Now do you get it?

I get it but can they do it MOB? My understanding is that the FTB is the sole owner of the house and the parents have no right to the property - the title is in the buyers sole name. I wonder if it will also throw up a CGT liability to the parents when the house is sold.....

Sarah

www.rea.ie

Its ridiculous really, following the revenues logic, is it the case that anyone who even contributed to their childs purchase of a house, regardless of whether they executed a deed of confirmation would invalidate their childs ftb status?

"Revenue are saying that they are prepared to "look through" the registered ownership and to regard anyone who has undertaken a liability to pay for the house as having an ownership share in it. "

Therefore going beyond the registration documentation & taking into account the actual substance of the transaction, if the "FTB" making the purchase was unable to access the required funding without the name of the third party appearing on the mortgage documentation, then that third party has become a party to the transaction and therefore should influence whether or not the exemption from stamp duty should apply.

Sara,

They say they can do it. It remains to be seen. In truth, the parents helping out their children are an unintended casualty. The real problem the Revenue sought to address was the common situation where you have a couple - either married or unmarried - where one of them is a previous house owner and one is not. In these circumstances, these couples have been buying houses in the sole name of the partner who didn't previously own a house. While perhaps ethically questionable, this seemed permissible. Revenue, in seeking to stamp out this perceived abuse have used the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.

i built my house in 1976 and am the sole named person on the deeds. If my wife purchased a property in her name only would she be a ftb? I ask this in the event we moved house, would it be advisable to put the new house ( still our only residence) in her name and made a suitable will to cover, probably not i suspect but is there a definitive answer?

Hi Cucchullain

Under the recently announced Revenue interpretation of the law, if you don't need a mortgage in both your names (i.e. if your wife is able to qualify for a mortgage on her own or, indeed, if you are lucky enough not to need a mortgage) then she should qualify as a FTB. Ethically, I don't think your wife is the sort of person that this relief was intended to target, and there is always the danger that further "clarification" from Revenue would therefore seek to exclude her from the relief (including retrospective exclusion).