After the summer, when the property market got back to normal (or as Daily Mail readers were told, “has catastrophically collapsed with dire consequences”) concerns about the house buying and selling process were knocked off the top of the LinkedIn whinge list.
Which is surprising, given that a more normal level of transactions should result in more people focussing on this. In particular, the problems of sales progression are so significant that companies have setup to offer “progression services” (which roughly translates to “nagging and blaming services”) that promise to address this. Which is nice.
They, and various Proptech offerings promote the concept that if everyone involved in a deal could access and automatically update the same checklist, this would solve this knotty progression problem. We’d exchange properties in six weeks and life would be fabulous.
Sadly, this flawed thinking is based on misunderstandings of the process, which does mean that we’re going to be stuck with 22-week exchanges for the foreseeable future.
Which is not quite so nice.
The fundamental flaw
The idea of a common, shared checklist that is updated automatically makes total sense, but currently, this faces some serious obstacles.
The fundamental problem is most law firms don’t have a consistent set of checklists. We know this because one of our favourite interview questions is “Does your company have a consistent set of checklists?” as well as the equally impossible question “How do you manage pre-contract enquiries?” Both are followed by embarrassed silences.
Although the more enterprising candidates proudly explain how they print out their personal lists and staple them to the cover of their file, this 1980’s approach does not lend itself to an integrated technology solution.
Even where people do have systems, most have no built-in checklists, which are then knocked up by enterprising inhouse software developers who then proceed to fail to get them to talk to external applications.
The really tricksy issues
Concerns about a lack of co-ordinating systems are a sunny afternoon stroll in Vicky Park compared to the other issues involved with the automatic updating of a common checklist.
Contrary to most proptech marketing materials, checklists don’t solve progression problems. They show which basic steps have been taken, but these are just historic flags whose primary value is to identify scapegoats to be blamed for delays in the process. Which actually causes friction rather than accelerating the joyous onward march towards the holy grail of collaborative conveyancing.
Checklists can also generate misinterpretations. For example, we share ours with clients, agents and brokers and have been asked for a tickbox to show when searches are returned. We know that showing this by default will cause more problems. Although our search provider gives expected return dates, these can be missed, but also, searches may be wrong and they will need to be interpreted and enquiries raised. We could automatically set a flag but clients and agents would naturally ask “the searches are back, so we’re good to go” and we’d have to spend time explaining why this actually wasn’t the case.
Similar issues arise if we were to automatically flag when we receive replies to enquiries. If we did, clients and agents would naturally ask, “we’ve got replies to enquiries, so we’re good to go”. However, there is a fundamental difference between “replies” and “answers”. The most common “reply” we get is “replies to follow” and many require more questioning – we rarely receive replies that contain full answers the first time.
Mortgage offers provide even greater scope for problems. We could automatically flag when an offer lands in our system, but our clients and agents would no doubt again ask “we’ve got the mortgage offer, so we’re good to go”. There are numerous reasons for a mortgage to require re-issuing; the wrong amount, wrong property or just spelling our client’s name “Pholip” because the “O” key is SO awfully close to the “I” key.
What information IS going to help the process?
Attempting to share checklists that are updated using basic automation does not work for complex processes such as house sale and purchases. We are not yet at a point where machines have access to the information needed to make informed decisions about setting checklists – humans currently must audit and interpret that information.
However, if we are to reduce friction in the progression process, we must find a way to expose and process the information behind the checklists – the enquiries that need to be raised and the answers that are received. To achieve this, we need to capture the underlying data about the property itself, and information contained in leases, the contents of management information packs and title documents.
This is achievable but needs both investment in smart interpretive technology and the means with which to share it appropriately with all parties involved.
When even the most savvy law firms are still emailing Excel spreadsheets containing checklists, this happy ever after seems an awfully long way off.
Peter Ambrose is founder of conveyancing specialist The Partnership.
So you’re moaning that you have to spend time explaining to clients the process they’re paying good money to you to enact?
They’re totally ignorant to the process. Why should they know different and who should they ask?
They’re paying you for this.
If you don’t wish to talk to the agents and repeat yourself just tell them to Foxtrot Oscar and not call back. You’re obviously under no obligation to talk to them.
Unless you’re reliant on them for your referral fee of course…..
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Morning!
Think you might have missed the point a little!
It’s not about updating or informing clients but the simplistic approach of automated checklists not being the silver bullet!
Happy Monday Matt!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I get your point. Which I agree with.
One has to ask the question regarding the setting up of professional ‘chasers’ why the gap is there for it?
I’d postulate that Conveyancers being awful at communication and EA’s failing miserably to have properly educated ‘sales progression’ staff has caused the gap.
In reality it’ll just f*&k things up even further and create an even bigger game of chinese whispers.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I agree 100% that its a solution to a problem that really shouldn’t exist.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It would be helpful and courteous if a correct and more detailed answer were given in the first place. Eg: the searches are back and we have raised (or will raise) some more enquiries to which we are awaiting replies. Then at least the ‘human’ knows where to turn to progress the sale.
Last week I was told by a buyer’s solicitor that he was ‘ready’ only to find out that he had raised a further 40 enquiries from the management company. He then commented that ‘chasing’ him would only delay matters! I appreciate that a nagging agent is annoying but an unhelpful solicitor who will get paid regardless of whether the deal goes through is much more damaging.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Amen
Last week I’ve got one home ‘exchanging later today for next Thursday’ as told to her by her Estate Agent and the one she’s moving into ‘targeting exchange for next Tuesday, with no completion date yet agreed’
Competent.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
A sensible article Peter, thank you.
However, all it really does is tell us how bad a lot of conveyancing firms are and that there is no easy way of fixing the process. If the people who work within this process day and day out think it is fundamentally broken then shouldn’t there be a movement to fix it? I sound like a broken record, but why is the system stuck in victorian times? I am not talking about check lists, but why does a conveyance have to start from scratch every time? Why can there be problems on a title, when that title has been conveyanced in the last eighteen months? Why, in this modern day, is communication in the process so difficult?
I don’t think these are unreasonable questions to ask, but in my mind they point to the fact that the process, if we want it to run more quickly, is not fit for purpose and I am not just blaming the conveyancers, but they are the one’s who hold ultimate responsibility for getting the sale through after a buyer has been found.
A final question, why do you think buyers and sellers call their agent so often after conveyancers have been instructed? They don’t phone the law firm to ask how finding a buyer is going, but do ask the agent for updates on conveyancing. Again, another demonstration of how the system does not work for the people who are actually paying the bills.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
These are absolutely valid points.
I don’t think that the system is fundamentally broken, far from it; its just a bit creaky.
The issue is that the issues involved are complex and things can change on a daily basis, which makes communicating certainty extremely difficult. The good news is that there are solutions around the corner ( none of the current crop of thinking ) and it involves analysing the data around properties – it’s definitely coming but this stuff is tricky.
In terms of why people call agents rather than lawyers, in our experience it’s pretty even – we reduce calls by pushing out updates every week but even that is now causing additional questions these days…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thanks Peter.
‘Analysing the data around the properties’ Interesting, I really have no idea what that means, but to me that would suggest there is central data that could and should be used. If it speeds things up, great, but if two conveyancers are still going to be used, with the ‘buyer beware basis’ then whatever systems of analysis are brought in, there will continue to be delays and issues.
Happy to be proved wrong on that, but as the legal basis of enacting conveyance is a virtual legal argument between solicitors rather than a legal obligation on the vendor to provide full and honest information up front that they are then legally held to, the arguments and therefore delays will continue. Hence why, in my opinion the system needs turning on its head.
But despite my opinion, thank you for engaging in discussion!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hi!
ALWAYS happy to engage. Sorry – was being a bit abstract. What I mean is that we have to find a way to break down properties into their constituent parts, eg bedrooms, location, shared areas, windows etc and then obtain the documents that are associated with these to compare them. For example; go and find a FENSA certificate, “read” the details of this electronically, and then compare to visual images of the windows themselves. Then the machine determines whether to raise an enquiry or not. A lot of work has gone into visual recognition over the years, and we can already interpret standard documents such as FENSA certificates.
Suffice to say – this type of thinking is someway off, but very practical to implement.
Just takes imagination and some lateral thinking!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Postulate” Matt! If a conveyancer used that word when explaining something to a client, I suggest (better word?) you would accuse them of committing another crime against humanity:)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
😉 Fair point.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Interesting the above looks at the current system. Surely preparing as much paperwork as possible prior to the sale being agreed, and making it available to potential buyers before they offer, will help remove some of these hurdles.
The other point that sings out is communication.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“[The Partnership] have been asked for a tickbox to show when searches are returned. We know that showing this by default will cause more problems. Although our search provider gives expected return dates, these can be missed, but also, searches may be wrong and they will need to be interpreted and enquiries raised. We could automatically set a flag but clients and agents would naturally ask “the searches are back, so we’re good to go” and we’d have to spend time explaining why this actually wasn’t the case.”
Next to each item of The Partnership’s online checklist there is an i icon to click on for more information. If the portal gave agents the ETA for the result of all the searches, which I presume from the article I’m not alone in asking from The Partnership (and other conveyancing firms), then an explanation that fee-earners need time to interpret the results could be noted in the milestone’s respective info pop-up.
Regarding your comment about being asked “the searches are back, so we’re good to go?“, The Partnership already has similar milestones on their checklist such as ‘mortgage offer received’ and ‘all enquiries resolved’ – don’t you get the same question about being ready once these boxes are ticked? Why would it be any different for searches?
Further to this, considering there is always potential for additional enquiries to be raised following review of searches, doesn’t your ‘all enquiries resolved’ checkbox remain unticked until the fee-earner had reviewed the searches and was satisfied that they had no additional enquiries or that all their subsequent enquiries had been settled? If I am correct that this box remains unchecked, why would the client and agent assume the fee-earner was ready to report or exchange?
“Mortgage offers provide even greater scope for problems. We could automatically flag when an offer lands in our system, but our clients and agents would no doubt again ask “we’ve got the mortgage offer, so we’re good to go”. There are numerous reasons for a mortgage to require re-issuing; the wrong amount, wrong property or just spelling our client’s name “Pholip” because the “O” key is SO awfully close to the “I” key.”
Yet, The Partnership’s portal does in fact have a “mortgage offer received” checkbox on their portal. Clicking its i icon explains that the mortgage offer needs to be checked. Why can’t this be done for the ‘searches ETA’ and ‘searches received’?
“We are not yet at a point where machines have access to the information needed to make informed decisions about setting checklists – humans currently must audit and interpret that information.”
Then please can conveyancing firms share information on the ETA and receipt of searches so we may interpret it and manage the expectations of homemovers and other agents’ in a chain?
I will invariably ask lawyers the date they expect to receive the result of their local authority search, so it would be helpful if The Partnership could share the ETA you receive from your search provider so it saves me having to email your fee-earner and your firm the time responding.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thank you for taking the time to reply – and for the really positive feedback.
We are always really keen to implement new solutions – we can of course add the ETA if we can be sure that it will all be positive – could you please contact me directly and we can talk about this!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Interesting article, thanks.
We tried to implement a shared checklist system with our conveyancers, buyers, and sellers but ran into opposition from some of the solicitors. I still think it’s a good idea, but realize the innovation really needs to come from the conveyancing side.
In my experience, solicitors are mostly hostile to agents who call on their clients’ behalf. Why is this? Why should the homeowner have to contact a solicitor to chase up when they have hired an agent to act on their behalf? Agents want to help push the sale through, we should all be on the same side.
I also do not understand why the average residential conveyancing process takes over 4 months! I’m from the USA where most sales complete within 30 days, and even a complex sale there will take a maximum of 45 days. How do people put up with this here?
Solicitor fees should be contingent on the sale of the property, currently, only the agent and homeowner have any skin in the game, and solicitors are paid regardless. If solicitors were only paid if the sale completes, then I think we’d see the conveyancing timeline shrink significantly.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Devils Advocate here,
The Estate Agents has been employed to sell the property.
The conveyancer to facilitate that process.
If the client is paying the conveyancing charge then the client is that person, not the EA. The conveyancer only answers the client. This is not the EA.
The total lack of proper guidance in mandated form in the UK is the main issue. You can argue that the conveyancer has absolutely no requirement to discuss their clients affairs with an EA. You can also make a solid case that an EA has a right to act for their client in chasing the sale.
Both parties tend to forget that during their wrangling the paymaster is the one that suffers.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The agent is just that, the seller’s agent. Agents (more often than not) do not get paid until the sale exchanges contracts. Our job isn’t just posting photos online and it doesn’t end once we find a prospective buyer, we represent the seller over the course of their sale and help coordinate the move. The seller’s lawyer is instructed to play the part of the conveyancer, and should be working with their client’s agent to achieve a stress-free transaction.
But, then you have the buyer’s lawyer…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The issue is and always has been the “old guard” of the conveyancing process. With no interest in changing the system because they largely cannot be bothered and are unwilling to learn anything new. The “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach is still widely used, but it is broken and has been for the past 15 years.
Technology and marketing has propelled the property market and its related professionals forward whilst the dinosaur that is conveyancing is still lumbering and complaining. Until this section of the property buying process catches up, we will remain at each others throats.
Another factor that needs to be curtailed is these law professionals/conveyancers/solicitors assume that estate agents don’t know what they are talking about. In my experience, I have just as much knowledge (if not more) than the majority of the fee earners I speak to. Just because I don’t have a law degree, it doesn’t make me any less of professional. Respect is needed by both parties and some conveyancers are seriously lacking in this.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“The issue is and always has been the “old guard” of the conveyancing process.”
Not sure this is true anymore lots of the “old guard” have retired, merged, fallen off their perches, or shut up shop. The majority of practice owners or heads of departments are well under 60. Although, I guess, whether that is considered old or not, depends on how ageist one is.
“Another factor that needs to be curtailed is these law professionals/conveyancers/solicitors assume that estate agents don’t know what they are talking about.”
Lots of agents have said they would welcome more training and regulation, and whilst there are a number of agents (maybe the “old guard”) who do know what they are talking about, there are a good number that don’t (when it comes to the conveyancing process).
The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that conveyancing has changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so. But more on that later.
I don’t have a law degree either
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register