My Solicitor is too anal about little details that will prevent me from closing.

My solicitor seems to be waiting on details that according to vendors solicitor are unnecessary.

He said he is acting on behalf of bank as well as me, so has to be very careful, seems like he is working more for them than for me and is too anal about little details that will prevent me from closing, anyone any issues with their solicitor?

Would you prefer that he was less "anal"? And perhaps missed something that might make it difficult for you to sell in the future?

Do you understand the levels of responsibility that a solicitor has to your bank, to satisfy them that you are getting good title, so that they will release funds for the purchase?

mf

Would you not prefer the job done right and done watertight.
So many deals were not done properely and years later (now) they are causing people big problems.
I've heard 'ohh the solicitor should have sent this to such and such a place'
multiple times this year.
Friends house is in limbo exactly because the last solicitor did not do his job correctly.
As frustrating as it might be for you, it is ultimately in your interest.

If the bank says that the funds don't get released until the is are dotted and the ts are crossed, then its the solicitors job to get it done. Sorry, but if you dont like it, then refuse the mortgage.
Its harsh, but thats the rules of the game.

I don't understand when you say that your solicitor is acting on behalf of the bank as well as you - is the bank paying him to finalise the deal? If it's your solicitor, his priority is to focus on your requirements only - if you're paying him for acting solely on your behalf, then he is not delivering if you feel he is also acting on behalf of the bank.
So, maybe a new independent (of the bank) solicitor is required for you - specially if you feel so strongly that your current one is not delivering. In the current climate you are in the strong position as a buyer and you are entitled to have a solicitor working solely for you.

Up until the mid 80's there used to be 3 solicitors involved in house sales. You had the sellers, yours and the banks. Then they decided to simplify things by allowing the buyers solicitor act for the bank also.

I don't know if you can even do the 3 solicitor thing anymore, but I can tell you that you will be paying for the bank solicitor.

Eithneangela said:

I don't understand when you say that your solicitor is acting on behalf of the bank as well as you.

Click to expand...

So the Bank that is providing the money shouldn't have any representation ? How is the Bank's security meant to be copper fastened ? It's a fact of life that those providing the money for a deal are allowed to ensure the security of the asset they are lending against.

Understood, but why does the OP's solicitor look after the bank's interests - why does the bank not have their own solicitor. Surely working for 2 masters can cause confusion?

In commercial purchases now, for land or investment properties or commercial buildings, where the loan is over 70000 then the bank has to have their own solicitor.

In the case of an owner occupier mortgage, one solicitor must act for both. Theoretically there is no conflict, since both the mortgagor and the mortgagee both need clear title. Also one solicitor means cost saving for the buyer.

In reality there is a slight conflict because title is rarely straightforward and sometimes there is a judgement call to be made by the solicitor. The solicitor is both under pressure from their client who only wants to get closed and get into their house and from the bank. There is a qualification on title system which allows the solicitor to give details of any perceived flaw to the bank and let them either agree or not to the proposed qualification on title.

If the system changed for owner occupier mortgages ( as it has for commercial) and two solicitors were required, the buyer would have double the cost and would also experience more delay. But it might be ultimately a better/cleaner system.

Eithneangela said:

Understood, but why does the OP's solicitor look after the bank's interests - why does the bank not have their own solicitor. Surely working for 2 masters can cause confusion?

Click to expand...

The idea was to cut down on costs for the purchaser. As Time says above, it used to be the case that the Vendor, Purchaser and Lender each had their own solicitor. And when it came to closing, it was a three way closing with the Bank's solicitor handing over the funds at the closing to the Vendor's solicitor. It was cumbersome and there were fees payable by the Purchaser to the Bank's solicitor but yes, there were merits.

The Purchaser's solicitor now "certifies" the Title to the Lender and , on foot of that certificate and an undertaking, the Bank release the funds to the Purchaser's solicitor to facilitate closing. The Purchaser's solicitor does not act for the Bank but, clearly, if there is a problem with the title, they cannot simply over look it. I always say to clients that , if they are spending their own money, they can take any risk they like - just sign the form confirming they were told of the risks. But when they are spending someone else's money, they do not enjoy that luxury.

mf

If our solicitor had been a little more anal, he might have noticed, as part of his planning inquiry, that the house we were buying had not been built in accordance with planning permission granted. Would have saved us a lot of hassle & a few hundred quid years later when we applied for permission for an extension and discovered we also had to apply for retention permission for all but one wall of the house.

It can seem like a complete pain and waste of time when all you want is to get into your new house, but in the long run it will be worth it.

I am all too familiar with "the anal solicitor" "type" which luckily is not my experience with all Solicitors.

A little while back i was involved in negotiating a short term lease (2 years) on a commercial premises. This premises was previously empty for a long time and the owner was absolutely desparate to get it rented. There was no shortage of very similar units in the same area, also for rent

I knew we were in trouble when we were presented by this thick, leafy lease document by the owners solicitor. Reading throught it, he wanted personal guarantees, he wanted bank references, he wanted supplier references, he wanted indemnities for X Y and Z. He wanted unbearable deposits and everything was a problem for him. There was no flexibility whatsoever. All communication had to be done by written snail mail
and progress ensued at a snail pace. It wasnt long at all before his unending nagging inflexibility wore us down

In the best way possible and after supplying excellent bank and trade references, I tried to explain to him that we needed to strike a balance between his legal "wish list" and the commercial reality that we live in.
He wasnt having a bit of that, so in the end,we just pulled out......

We eventually viewed another premises two doors away. After I told the owner we would take it, he handed me the keys, told me that he trusted me and would follow up with the "paper work" after we had settled in.
Now, There's two completely different approaches and I dont believe either one is the correct one.

Now the first solicitor in my view was no doubt trying to get the best and tightest agreement possible for his client but he had no commercial acument whatsoever. His head was in the cloud and he couldn't see beyond the very fine legal and intrinsic details that he seemed to love so much. His client, the owner is still calling me about the unit, which remains unlet four months on. The sad thing about it is that this very diligent, very serious solicitor ended up blowing the deal to the detriment of his client.