Cheap conveyancing a costly affair

B, a sole practitioner trading as A B & Co, advertised in the press that his firm would undertake conveyancing work in relation to any value property for less than £200 plus VAT and disbursements.


G instructed the firm in a purchase of a flat. The purchase was to be taken in the name of an off-shore company whose shareholder was a trust fund based in the Isle of Man, of which G was sole beneficiary. The purchase was to be part funded by a new mortgage to be secured on another property owned by G.


The transaction was far from straightforward and the requirements of the lenders were exhaustive. G became frustrated by the delays in meeting his lender's requirements, which threatened to create a situation where the sellers would not continue with the transaction.


G sent e-mails to B on a daily basis and rang B's office several times a day. The tone of his communications became increasingly hostile and rude. B, who was suffering from ill-health at the time, responded to few of the calls or e-mails.


Eventually contracts were exchanged but completion was delayed because, again, the lender's requirements were not dealt with expeditiously. B was taken into hospital and, for a significant period, left the day-to-day management of the office to an unadmitted member of staff.


No proper financial statements were prepared and on the day of eventual completion, the sellers demanded compensation for the delays that included not only contractual interest but also a sum to represent the sellers' inconvenience and consequential loss.


To complete the matter, B paid the additional total without taking instructions from G. B was then unable fully to redeem a previous mortgage, which led to a further dispute with G concerning a lack of accounts information and additional losses he had suffered as a result of the delays.


Although B eventually settled the financial shortfall out of his own funds, G complained about the service that he had received. B did not respond and, as a result, a referral was made to the Law Society's Consumer Complaints Service.


The adjudicator identified a list of service failures and awarded compensation for distress and inconvenience, noting that when a solicitor accepts a fixed-fee retainer, he cannot later complain if the matter turns out to be more complicated and time-consuming than anticipated. A client instructing a solicitor in good faith is entitled to expect a reasonable quality of service, whatever the fee agreed and whatever the personal difficulties of the solicitor.


Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts. This case study is for illustration only and should not be treated as a precedent