Comparing conveyancing scopes for a £237,900 London apartment

R

RightHarbor

Homeowner
I am comparing conveyancing proposals for a London apartment at about £237,900. The cheapest looks attractive until I list what sits outside its fee: several proposals use “conveyancing” for everything from a simple introduction to coordination through completion.

What should a genuinely complete buyer service cover, and what would differ for an owner selling? I want to compare responsibility for documents, legal enquiries, communication with the other parties, response times and any negotiation support. I also want to know who remains accountable after the offer is accepted. Examples of useful quote wording or exclusions to watch for would help more than a sales pitch.
 
First establish who is actually doing the legal work. The proposal should name the firm, explain who your day-to-day contact is and state how the matter is handed over if that person is unavailable.

For a buyer, I would want the written scope to address title and contract papers, searches, enquiries, any lender-related work, reporting before commitment, completion and post-completion tasks. Each third-party cost and possible supplement should be separated from the professional fee.
 
Is the apartment leasehold or another form of tenure, and will there be a mortgage? Those details could change both the work and the quote. I would also ask whether the £237,900 price is fixed or still under discussion, because “negotiation support” can mean legal enquiries in one proposal and actual price negotiation in another.
 
I would not put too much weight on the word “local.” A London address alone does not prove useful expertise. More meaningful questions are whether the team regularly handles the relevant apartment tenure, who examines the building documents, and whether they can explain property-specific issues clearly rather than simply forwarding papers.
 
Agreed on tenure. If it is leasehold, ask the firms to confirm in writing which lease and building-management work is included and which items trigger an extra fee. Do not accept “leasehold supplement may apply” without asking what work that supplement buys. The same goes for acting for a lender or dealing with an unexpected title issue.
 
The document trail matters as much as the headline scope. There should be a reliable record of documents received, questions raised, replies outstanding and decisions made by the buyer. Ask how updates are delivered, whether you can see what is waiting on another party, and who has authority to mark an issue resolved. That makes accountability much easier to follow.
 
A guaranteed completion date sounds reassuring, but it is the wrong promise to use when comparing firms. Even an attentive conveyancer cannot dictate when another party supplies documents, answers enquiries or resolves a lender issue.

Ask instead for standards covering matters within the firm’s control: when messages will be acknowledged, how often a no-progress update is sent, who covers an absent case handler and how an unresolved problem can be escalated. For example, a delayed management response may prevent completion, but the firm should still tell you that it is outstanding and what has been done about it. Those commitments are specific enough to monitor through the document trail.
 
The cash downside is where the cheap quote can unravel. Ask for one comparison showing the base fee, VAT where applicable, third-party expenses, apartment or tenure supplements, lender work, transfer charges and post-completion work. Also ask what remains payable if the purchase does not proceed. A low total is not comparable if essential work is merely listed as a possible extra.
 
One caveat on negotiation: I would not reject a conveyancer because they do not negotiate the commercial price. What matters is whether they identify legal or document issues promptly and explain their significance so the buyer can decide what to do. The quote should distinguish that work from bargaining over price, fixtures or timing rather than bundling both under a vague promise.
 
The fallback plan deserves its own question. If the assigned person is absent, overloaded or replaced, who takes over and how quickly can that person access the file? Also ask what happens if the firm decides it cannot continue. “Dedicated contact” sounds reassuring, but continuity depends on the wider team having an orderly file and clear notes.
 
For independent evidence, ask to see the proposed terms and itemised fee schedule before choosing, not just testimonials. Compare those documents against the sales description line by line. If a proposal says it includes document coordination, it should explain which documents, which parties are contacted and where responsibility ends.
 
There is also a buyer-versus-seller distinction in the opening question. A seller’s scope should be framed around preparing and supplying the contract information, answering enquiries with the owner’s input, dealing with redemption or title matters where relevant, and managing the legal steps through completion. A buyer’s scope is more focused on investigating and reporting. One generic package description may not serve both sides.
 
I would reduce the decision to a written table with five columns: task, included fee, possible extra charge, responsible person and expected communication. Add rows for enquiries, apartment or building documents, lender work, exchange, completion, post-completion work and an aborted transaction. Send the same table to every firm. Any unanswered row is an uncertainty you can price into the decision rather than discovering it later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top