Vince Cable scraps £1.2 billion Land Registry sell-off!

Hip Hip Hooray! Such good news!!

But wait… the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) have not yet confirmed the news that Vince Cable has shelved the plans to privatise the Land Registry. They are not saying anything until the official report on the New Service Delivery Company consultation is published.

We emailed BIS asking for confirmation and this was their reply:

“As you are aware, we have carried out a public consultation on the introduction of a Land Registry service delivery company, which looked at a range of options – including the status quo. We will publish the Government response shortly.


The usual stock answer – lacking in imagination! But there won’t be smoke without fire. Vince Cable may well be wanting to scrap the plans, but if the ‘Wider Powers’ gets passed through Parliament, the threat of privatisation will always be there. If everything goes according to Government plans, the Bill will be passed and the Land Registry will become the sole provider of Local Land Charges searches and official search results.

These are the building blocks that will pave the way to privatisation at a later date. In anticipation of the Bill being successful the Government can afford, at this stage, to say they are scrapping the idea.

So whilst we can celebrate the effect that #peoplepower is having on the plans, we know that the campaign is not over yet!



Please sign and share the Petition and help keep the Land Registry public!

Follow the latest news on Facebook


Posted in Campaign | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Land Registry Wider Powers and Local Land Charges Consultation Response

We were concerned that the Government’s consultations to the Land Registry would turn up in the Queens Speech. It seemed to us that the very short consultation period was deliberately timed to coincide with the Queens Speech.

No surprises then when it did! Not easy to find contained within the Infrastructure Bill!

The Bill would transfer statutory responsibility for the Local Land Charges register and delivery of Local Land Charges searches to the Land Registry supporting the delivery of digital services and extend Land Registry’s powers to enable it to provide information and register services relating to land and other property.

"This proposal does not demonstrate an improvement or enhancement to the service"

Local Land Charges

The Local Land Charges in their response to the consultation, state their concern, which is shared by many, that Land Registry has failed to demonstrate its understanding of the service provided and the vital part this plays in the housing market and wider economy.




The Governance guidance on consultations state that a response is to be published 12 weeks after the date of closure.  The response to the consultation was finally published on the 16th June. Only 15  days late! I wonder what took them so long?

The campaign goes on!





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Save The Land Registry Campaign

Save the Land Registry! Not because it is failing – it has 95% customer satisfaction, paid £98m to treasury last year and reduced fees to customers. We can’t talk highly enough of their services. So why does it need saving? It needs saving from being sold!

Postcards for Public_ front page

Front of Postcard to Vince Cable

At the beginning of the year, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) were asking for views on granting the Land Registry ‘Wider Powers’. This would enable the Land Registry to provide the Local Land Charges searches as other property related searches instead of the Local Authorities and compete with the Independent search companies.

The consultation was in two parts:
the first part related to its proposal to extend Land Registry‘s powers to enable it to provide services relating not only to land registration but also to land and other property.

The second part related to Land Registry‘s proposals to amend the Local Land Charges Act 1975 to enable Land Registry to provide a more consistent, standardised Local Land Charges searches system.

The purpose of this consultation was to give all persons with an interest in the property sector the opportunity to consider and comment on the proposals.

The consultation ran for just short of eight weeks from 16 January 2014  – 9 March 2014

A week later the Land Registry asked for stakeholder’s views on proposals to create a new service delivery company to take over responsibility for processing land and property registration from HM Land Registry.  The proposal is to retain a separate Office of the Chief Land Registrar within government, which will mainly perform regulatory and fee-setting functions, to make sure customers’ interests continue to be protected.

The eight week consultation ran from 23rd January 2014 – 20th March 2014.

The Land Registry’s Chief Registrar Ed Lester, and Executive Board and BIS asked for the views of stakeholders promising that no decisions would be made on either consultation until all the responses to the consultation were published.

The Stakeholders are:

  1. The Local Land Charges and the Independent Search Agencies (IPSA & CoPSA) because they provide the searches required when purchasing a new property or taking out a mortage.
  2. The Land Registry Staff  (PCS Union)
  3. Conveyancers
  4. Land/Property owners
  5. Lenders

In our opinion, a Key Stakeholder is the property owner because they pay monies to the conveyancers to pay for the searches and the Land Registry fees (called ‘disbursements’)

But don’t be surprised if you knew nothing about it! Hardly any of the stakeholders knew about it. The consultations were not well publicised at all and it was confusing to understand what the ramifications of the proposed changes would be.

We think it is outrageous that the public have not been properly consulted on such a major issue because the changes, if they are successful, will lead to the Land Registry being privatised. As John Manthorpe, the former Chief Registrar says:

“the Land Registry must remain as a commercially neutral department of government – as it has been for over 150 years.”

We have prepared some postcards for members of the public to sign and send to Vince Cable. Please contact us if you would like us to send you some.

What happens nest means a lot...BackWe arranged for some of the stakeholders to come together to explain the situation and to share their concerns.

Each stakeholder has a different reason for opposing the plans, but the one thing we all agree on is that the Land Registry must remain in the public sector. That is why we are campaigning.

Many other High Street law firms up and down the country feel the same and are also standing up and campaigning on behalf of their clients.

If you feel the same way, pleased join us in telling the Government NO to the privatisation of the Land Registry by signing the 38 Degrees Petition.

All the latest updates are on the Facebook Page.

Posted in Campaign | Leave a comment

Locate A P Bassett Solicitors – Allsorts of Legal Problems Resolved in Lostwithiel, Cornwall

Locate A P Bassett Solicitors – Allsorts of Legal Problems Resolved in Lostwithiel, Cornwall.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

POLL: If you were buying a property with a mortgage, which would you prefer….

Joint Representation or Separate Representation? 

What is at stake:

For you the consumer:

  • Consumer choice
  • The right to independent legal advice

For the high street and community:

  • Access to Justice; for many local High Street law firms, conveyancing is a mainstay of their business. When a firm closes down because it has been excluded from the property market by the restrictive practices of the mortgage lenders, it doesn’t just take the conveyancing services with it, but access to all the other areas of law it once provided.
  • The local economy; local firms play a vital role in the success of high streets and the small business economy.

Here are the facts…

Under the current system, joint representation is the lender’s preferred choice and it is the most common arrangement used in the vast majority of transactions. It was introduced in the 1980s to bring about a smoother conveyancing process. The risk of conflict of interest between the borrower and the lender was minimal. But things have changed.

Joint Representation:

  1. There is one lawyer involved, acting for you and the lender. It doesn’t cost the lender anything when one lawyer acts for both parties because the cost of acting for the lender is included in your bill of costs.
  2. The lender is, like the buyer, a client, although it doesn’t pay the legal costs, it still has full rights of indemnity against the lawyer. When things go wrong, the lender is able to claim against the lawyer for any losses.
  3. Because the lender is considered a client, they have the right to choose who acts for them; therefore they are at liberty to decide who they have on their conveyancing panel. However that also enables them to control who acts for you, the buyer, giving rise to a potential conflict of interest.

Separate Representation:

  1. There are two lawyers involved. Lender and borrower/buyer have independent legal advice avoiding any conflict of interest.
  2. Both parties are free to choose their lawyers based on what is important to them; whether it is a local preference, previous dealings/history of transactions, the type of service – basic or top of the range, a face to face service or internet based.
  3. Significantly lowers the risk of mortgage fraud. The involvement of a 2nd lawyer is another safeguard against being unwittingly caught up in a fraudulent property transaction.

What has changed:

For any lawyer to act for both parties requires the lender’s agreement. In the 1980s any conveyancing lawyer could be on a lender’s panel if they chose to be. But the lenders in the past two years have removed thousands of law firms from their panels, purportedly as part of their strategy to manage the risk of mortgage fraud. The culling of their panels also demonstrates the lenders’ preference for high volume, low cost, process driven, internet based conveyancing firms.

This now means the chances of your local lawyer being on the panel are greatly reduced. As it is a requirement of the lender for the law firm to be on their panel, you the consumer are now restricted in who you can choose to act for you on one of the biggest financial and emotional transactions of your life.  More than likely you will be offered an internet based conveyancer as first choice.

Therefore it is really important that the buyer has access to independent legal advice when buying a property as the risk of conflict of interest is now growing.  The lender has to be satisfied that they are able to recover their monies should the buyer not be able to keep up the mortgage payments. That was always understood as an acceptable risk.  However the banking culture has changed and banks are not simply there to lend money. The lender has a vested interest in selling other products such as insurance and legal services.  The work done on behalf of the buyer is somewhat different to the work done for the lender, even though they relate to the same transaction.

The Law Society of England and Wales are also against Separate Representation that is why the campaign Big Banks Bad for Local Business is looking to government to make separate representation mandatory.

We really value your opinion as so much is said “in the interest of the consumer”, but has anyone actually asked you what you want?

Please read the Separate Representation Working Party Final Report from the Law Society of Scotland to help you be better informed about the facts.

Thank you for taking part in our poll.

It is what YOU; the consumer thinks that is going to help make a difference.

Posted in Campaign, Poll | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Add your voice – we value you comments…

Please read the letter to Vince Cable in response to recent decisions taken by the banks that affect you the consumer and many other small law firms like ourselves and the communities that we serve. 

Link | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Success of the High Street; how much is it worth to you?

An article by Paul Bassett that looks back to what the High Street used to be like and how our shopping and business opportunities have been shaped. Is it irreversible?

Link | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment