header-logo header-logo

15 August 2012
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Santander panel fury

Law Society fights bank’s conveyancing panel cull

Santander and the Law Society are in discussion over the bank’s decision to drop hundreds of solicitors from its conveyancing panel.

Last year, Santander introduced a one-off fee of £199 plus an annual £99 compliance fee for solicitors on the panel. In July, however, Santander sent letters to many firms informing them they could no longer remain on the panel because they had not carried out enough conveyancing transactions.

A Law Society spokesperson says the number of solicitors affected could be a few hundred, although neither the Law Society nor Santander would know the exact figures for some weeks as an appeals process is on-going.

Some firms have appealed successfully, while others have been told their removal from the panel was a mistake, he says. Solicitors have expressed annoyance at the fact they paid a renewal fee only to be told a few months later that they had been dropped.

The Law Society has urged all affected firms to appeal, and will meet with Santander representatives shortly to discuss a possible “sustainable solution”.

Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson says: “We retain grave reservations about the methods they are using and are concerned about the effects both on firms and consumers.”

A spokesperson for Santander says: “We continue to manage our conveyancing panel in relation to both quality and activity. Firms which do not meet our expectations are removed from the panel but always have a right of appeal.”

In January, HSBC cut the number of solicitors and conveyancers borrowers could use from several thousand to just 48, but backed down four months later under pressure from the Law Society and other user groups. Customers of the bank complained the decision, which meant they had to pay additional legal fees for HSBC’s part of the transaction, caused delays and increased the risk of house sales falling through.

Issue: 7527 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll