You hire a solicitor to do work that:Advising against a particular course of action is not the same thing as refusing to act on a client instruction.
Maybe the OP’s solicitor should have emphasised the risk of drawing down funds before receipt of the signed contract from the vendor (although I would have thought that was pretty obvious). But failing to do so is not a ground for a formal complaint and won’t resolve the OP’s problem.
The OP's solicitor failed to outline the risk and impacts and failed to advise against.
Hi BrendanIf I were a solicitor, I would advise the client of the options, in writing.
I agree Brendan. We dont know. But we do know that the OP is now in a less advantageous position than he would have been in had he recieved the correct advice. Thats a solicitor problem.We don't know this.
If I were a solicitor, I would advise the client of the options, in writing.
1) You can draw down now and lock in the lower rate. But as we have not received back the signed contracts, we might have to return the money. This is low risk. But it could happen
2) We can wait until we get the signed contracts, but you miss the deadline for the lower rate and you will pay a higher rate for the next 5 years.
Which would you like me to do?
It is very odd that the OP says that he had not realised that the signed contracts had not been returned. In most cases I have been familiar with, the buyer keeps asking their solicitor "Have you got the contracts back yet?"
Brendan
The whole reason you go to a solicitor is to get guidance so your choices, options, outcomes and consequences are clear so they should spell it out. Potentially expensive mistake.Hi Sarenco
If I were a solicitor, I would make sure that if a client undertook a risky approach, I would point out the risks.
I don't think it's screamingly obvious to most First Time Buyers what is happening.
I would include the drafting of the letter in my overall fee.
Brendan
We're not exactly clear on the timeline and precise nature of the advice so it's still premature to be pinning anything on the solicitor.I agree Brendan. We dont know. But we do know that the OP is now in a less advantageous position than he would have been in had he recieved the correct advice. Thats a solicitor problem.
Even if he instructed the solicitor - the solicitor should have said no. Thats best practice and sensible.Lots not clear here
Did OP instruct the solicitor to drawdown funds. The language used is ambiguous..'I discussed drawing down to get a lower interest rates' and 'because it was so close to closing the solicitor decided to drawdown'. The poster then goes on to say they were not aware the vendor had not signed contracts. From what is stated this seems secondary getting a lower interest rate.
The OP could clarify if they were aware the funds were being dewan down.
On a side note, where is it confirmed the OP is 'he', hence I use 'they'
Even if he instructed the solicitor - the solicitor should have said no. Thats best practice and sensible.
I dont agree Brendan!I don't agree.
Personally, in the same situation, I , as the buyer, would have taken the risk. Most signed contracts are returned. If it meant guaranteeing a lower rate for 5 years, I would have taken that risk.
The OP has not lost out much through it going wrong. He would have had a considerable upside had it proceeded as planned.
Brendan
“Forcefully instruct”! Seriously, what does that even mean?If the OP did not forcefully instruct the drawdown, I would see the problem being caused by the solicitor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?