Brokers say free legals firm’s proposed solution is ‘not good enough’…
Last week, the noise around a certain free legals provider continued and brokers weren’t happy with the proposed solution of an updated system for engagement…
That is not really good enough, Brendan. I have found there is no response to letters or emails for several weeks on some occasions.
Your firm has too much work and should turn it down until this is resolved.
…and excuses don’t count after firm’s poor service ‘for months’…
This firm has had very poor service for months, so you really can’t fob us off by saying you have been inundated with high work volumes.
The solution offered is not going to work at all. I would rather our lenders offered cashback so we could use a different firm [of] solicitors that don’t have these issues.
…so Breezeplus should turn down new work until its process is fit for purpose
This is a professionally offensive statement and course of action by Breezeplus. It has not been fit for purpose for many months, not just recently!
I agree with the other poster: Breezeplus feels the best course of action is not to reply to clients or advisers and to hope the ‘problem’ goes away.
It should cease to accept new instructions until it has a process that functions in a modern-day, fit-for-purpose manner, where it has respect for all members of the food chain.
Calls for lenders to prevent over-capacity or dump free legals…
Meanwhile, whether free legals should be done away with altogether was also debated…
We had five cases recently with a Yorkshire-based lender that failed to complete on time due to the conveyancing outfit it used, which eventually cost it over £1,000 in compensation to our clients after we presented complaints and claims for lost rate benefit on their behalf.
The lender admitted during discussions with us that it had “a 21-day completion timeline clause in the background with the conveyancer”.
The onus is squarely on the lending community to either ‘police’ service levels against capacity or, indeed, dump free legals in favour of cashback.
…or just provide more choice, but lenders must ease this pressure point..
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Rather than a switch to cashback legals, let’s have a choice for the client of free legals or cashback across the board, as some lenders already do.
Admittedly, £250 cashback doesn’t touch the sides of the costs of own representation, so perhaps £400 would be a more workable and real-world choice.
It is a pressure point that brokers and clients need to push with lenders, though, and lenders can win big time by moving quickly on this.
…but based on the cashback remo solicitors get, they can’t do much
The problem with hoping that lenders will increase remortgage cashback is that some firms of remortgage solicitors get paid only £75 per case by the lender.