A high-rate error

Ms W purchased a property in July 2000 but the solicitors failed to register the transaction. In 2002, when she chose to re-mortgage, Ms W discovered the position and wrote to the solicitors pointing out the difficulty. They ignored her letter. She wrote again with the same result.


Eventually, she consulted new solicitors who wrote to the original solicitors and they too were ignored. A complaint was made to the Law Society and an attempt was made to contact the solicitors. At that point, the solicitor who had conducted the matter in 2000 said he was proposing to register 'immediately' and apologised for omitting to do so earlier, saying: 'Our file was not where it should be.'


Despite the solicitor's assurance, no application to register was made, and further communication took place. Ultimately, an application was submitted and the solicitors finally concluded the matter.


As a result of the inordinate delays and the solicitors' failure to respond to Ms W, she had to continue making payments under the terms of a mortgage at a rate higher than she would have been able to enjoy had a re-mortgage taken place. A calculation was produced to the adjudicator showing the difference as £717.50. The solicitors had been informed of that matter but they had ignored it, as indeed they had ignored a request from Ms W's new solicitors to underwrite their costs incurred solely as a result of the original service inadequacy.


The adjudicator looked at the solicitors' conduct and the inadequacy of service that had taken place. The alleged misconduct was considered to be sufficiently serious to be referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for determination. In dealing with the distress and inconvenience caused to Ms W by the repeated refusal of the solicitors to attend to registration, and in respect of which she had suffered significant anxiety and distress, a compensatory award was made in the sum of £750. In addition, the solicitors were directed to reimburse costs incurred by Ms W in rectifying all the outstanding matters and they were directed to reimburse her in respect of her losses sustained by the delay in being able to complete her re-mortgage.


Because the solicitors had failed to complete the original retainer, they were directed to refund part of their original costs on the ground that the inadequacy had reduced the quality of service by such a degree that a costs limitation direction was justified.


It is particularly frustrating that cases of this nature continue to come to adjudication as an overwhelming majority of the profession carries out its duties fairly, properly and expeditiously.


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