In a recent discussion led by Liz Syms, CEO of Connect for Intermediaries, the focus was on the pitfalls of conveyancing, with a notable case highlighting a significant error – a staggering £200k inadvertently sent to a client instead of the intended lender. The growing concern revolves around the increasing instances where legal proceedings contribute to unwarranted delays in the mortgage application process.
Despite lenders’ concerted efforts to optimise their operations through technological advancements for smoother and faster application processes, efficiency is hampered when legal procedures become bottlenecks. The irony arises when, despite streamlined lending processes, the legal stage becomes the bottleneck, undermining the overall expeditious nature of mortgage applications.
While numerous lenders strive to expedite the approval process, the efficacy of their efforts is nullified if legal procedures lag. Notably, the duration of mortgage offer validity varies, with some extending to a mere three months rather than the more conventional six-month period. The ample three-month timeframe should ideally accommodate all necessary legal proceedings; however, many cases necessitate returning to lenders for offer extensions.
The discussion underscores the imperative for a seamless synergy between technological advancements in lending procedures and the legal framework. The repercussions of delayed legal work go beyond inconveniencing applicants; they risk rendering mortgage offers invalid, prompting the need for extensions and complicating an otherwise straightforward process.
As the mortgage industry evolves, addressing and rectifying issues at the intersection of legal and lending processes is paramount for sustained efficiency and client satisfaction.
Legal work | Inadequate expertise
One glaring concern revolves around the deficiency in skills, particularly within specialised fields. Major corporations resort to employing paralegals for case processing, yet the lack of proficiency often generates irrelevant or poorly communicated requests to the client or their solicitor.
In pursuing cost-effectiveness, clients frequently engage solicitors primarily based on pricing considerations, only to find themselves entangled in conveyor belt-like procedures. The aftermath of referral fee payments may leave the solicitor with a mere £150 to cover service costs, which proves manageable under smooth circumstances but becomes untenable when complications arise.
Moreover, not all solicitors demonstrate a ‘broker-friendly’ attitude, meaning they may not automatically engage with the adviser despite the pivotal role the adviser could play in addressing emerging issues. This lack of seamless communication further exacerbates challenges in navigating legal intricacies. Recognising and addressing these inadequacies is imperative to enhance legal processes’ overall efficiency and efficacy.
Legal work | When things take a turn for the worse