Customer area
London 020 7822 4000
Brighton 01273 838734
CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
You are here: Home / Professional Negligence / CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
searchSearch
call-answerCall Us
new-email-envelopeEnquiry
list-menuMenu
×
×
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
    • ×
    Close up of businessman signing a contract.

    CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS

    SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE SOLICITORS THAT WIN OVER 95% OF THEIR CLIENTS' CLAIMS

    When buying or selling a property the conveyancer you use will be entrusted with a great deal of responsibility. Conveyancing negligence claims can be brought against those who are negligent in their duty and cause you to suffer a loss as a result. For many people, a property transaction will be the largest transaction they will make, involving their most valuable asset and significant emotional investment. If your conveyancer is negligent and mistakes are made, resulting problems can be particularly stressful, with financial and emotional consequences.

    If you have suffered a loss as a result of negligence by your conveyancer, we can help you obtain legal redress. Healys Professional Negligence solicitors have a wealth of experience in conveyancing negligence claims and have the necessary expertise to advise and assist you in the recovery of your losses. We have excellent relations with the leading chambers in the industry and are recognised in the field by industry directory, the Legal 500. We are also members of the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association.

    Conveyancing Negligence Claims; What Can I Claim For?

    There are many different ways by which negligent conveyancing can cause a loss, from a failure to fully investigate a property’s title, to inadequate advice relating to other matters affecting the property. It is, however, possible to recover your losses by claiming for professional negligence and the Healys Professional Negligence team can offer advice and guidance in this matter.

    Examples of Conveyancing Negligence Claims:

    • Failure in the investigation of a title e.g. failure to advise that part of a property is not within the seller’s title
    • Bad advice about matters affecting the property that causes a loss
    • Failure to advise on adverse or missing items e.g. planning permission, rights of way, building regulations, NHBC Guarantee
    • Failure to carry out property searches and enquiries
    • Failure to advise on information given by sellers or property searches e.g. provisions for maintenance of roads and sewers, proximity of a coal mine or other environmental issues
    • Failure to make further enquiries after seller’s replies or property search results suggest further enquiries should be made
    • Failure in a leasehold purchase e.g. failure to establish that the terms of the lease are satisfactory or not defective
    • Failure to advise on doubling of ground rents in leases
    • Failure to ascertain an obligation/security to build on the sale of bought land or building contract
    • Failure to advise on a listed building e.g. missing consent documents
    • Omitting important provisions from the Contract or Deed
    • Failure to register your purchase or lease at the Land Registry
    • Missing consents for Change of Use
    • Failure to define property boundaries correctly including the wrong provisions or words in the Contract or Deed
    • Mistaken sale of all or part of your land / Acting without authority
    • Conflicts of interest
    • Failure to raise Requisitions on Title
    • Failure to ensure removal of a registered charge or mortgage
    • Failure to register a mortgage or charge at Companies House on time
    • Failure to register a mortgage or charge at the Land Registry on time or at all
    • Failure to follow the mortgagee’s instructions
    • Failures on equity release or lease/tenancy back cases
    • Failures in contract races
    • Failure to protect vulnerable clients
    • Failure to advise on a survey report (Surveyor Negligence)
    Robert, I would like to thank you and your team, for your highly professional approach whilst dealing with my complicated professional negligence case. If asked, I would not hesitate to recommend Healys.
    Katherine Tsang
    Robert Johnson of Healys is “very thorough and commercially minded,” according to sources. He focuses on advising claimants, and assists them with disputes involving a full range of professionals.
    Chambers & Partners 2018

    If you feel your conveyancer has let you down, fill in the form above and one of the team will get back to you.

    Speak To Our Experts Today

    • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

     

    Call Us Today
    Call our London office on 020 7822 4000 or our Brighton office on 01273 838734. You can also contact us online.
    Call Us Today
    London: 020 7822 4000 Brighton: 01273 838734 Or you can contact us online: Contact Us
    Key Contacts
    Headshot of Robert Johnson
    Robert Johnson
    Partner
    Headshot of David Bailey
    David Bailey
    Partner (LLP Member)
    Meet the team
    CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS capabilities
    CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS experiences
    • Our client, a property developer was in the process of obtaining a property. The case involved two law firms that acted for the buyer & seller. After the transaction was complete, the client discovered that the seller had committed identity fraud and lost a considerable amount of money. Issues included breach of warranty of authority and breach of trust on the part of the solicitors who acted on behalf of the fraudster; the scope of the duty of care of the firm acting on behalf of our clients and whether the clients’ consequential loss of profit was recoverable at law. Our client decided to contact Jerome O’Sullivan and Healys’ Professional Negligence team in order to make a claim. Solicitors’ legal obligations in such circumstances are unclear and this matter may lead to clarification of the law in this regard. The team, led by Jerome O’Sullivan was able to successfully make a claim against the two firms for £1.5million.
    • Our client divorced with his wife and asked his former solicitors to take on his case. After completing procedures, he realised that the law firm had not protected his interests & assets. His wife dissipated all the assets leaving him very surprised and unsatisfied by the service that they had provided. Our client decided to contact Robert Johnson and Healys’ Professional Negligence team in order to make a claim. Robert Johnson and the Healys Family team acted extremely promptly to guarantee our client a success in his claim. They were able to successfully make a claim in the sum of £50,000 for failure in acting for our client’s best interests.
    • Our client’s claim arose out of the failings of her former solicitors to deal with her divorce. This included the dissipation of assets held by the husband in Hong Kong by way of freezing orders. The claim focused on conflicting evidence between the client and husbands solicitor. After lengthy negotiations with the other side, Robert Johnson was able to secure the client £650,000 in compensation.
    • Our client had a previous claim with another law firm in relation to his property being undervalued when sold. Unfortunately our client received poor advice from the previous law firm which resulted in him loosing the initial claim against the mortgagee and valuer. Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim against the previous law firm for loss in opportunity. After lengthy mediation with the other side, Robert was able to secure our client £800,000 in compensation.
    • Our client needed advice regarding an Under-Lease, and so they approached a firm about their issue. However, our client soon realised that the firm had given incorrect advice. He decided to contact Healys in order to make a claim against the law firm for failure to advise properly in relation to the purchase of an under-lease, the terms of that under lease, the status of the head lessee and rental payment terms. The team, led by Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim for £150,000 against the firm.
    • Our client decided to make a claim against their former solicitor in respect of the failure to advise properly with regard to rights of appointment of LPA Receivers leading to the adoption of the wrong strategy, appointment of receivers and subsequent losses. The team, led by Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim against the firm for £4 million in failing to advise on the risks of the strategy.
    • Our client instructed a firm of solicitors to deal with a claim in regard to his former employer. He was unfortunately unaware that the firm he instructed was in financial difficulty. Subsequently the firm went into liquidation. This lead to the solicitor dealing with the case to be negligent towards our client’s case. The team, led by Robert Johnson was able to successfully make a claim for £200,000 against the firm for failure in treating our clients claim with due care and diligence. Nick Evans, our employment law expert, also took part at the claim. We acted for the client under a CFA and since the case the firm in question has been dissolved.
    • The client’s wife was involved in an RTA which led to a claim on the client’s insurance. The insurer instructed a solicitor in the client’s name to commence proceedings to recover the insurer’s losses from the other party involved in the RTA. The solicitor negligently allowed a judgement in default to be entered on a counterclaim against our client. The client was unaware of the judgement until he applied for a mortgage some 15 months later. As a result our client suffered numerous heads of losses including increased mortgage costs and potential loss of earnings because of his job as a police officer. The case was led by Ben Parr-Ferris who made a claim against the solicitor for negligently allowing the judgement on his wife’s RTA insurance claim. The aim of Ben and his team was to safeguard the client’s career and make sure the judgement does not affect his progression. A number of negotiations were attempt with the insurer in order to revert the decision made by the solicitor as an insurer debt. However, both of them failed. Although the team were able to get assurances from our client’s employer that the judgement should not impact the client career in any way. The solicitor has since accepted liability and Ben Parr-Ferris was able to secure our client £30,000 in compensation.
    • While in the process of buying their new home, our clients contacted Property Survey Company in order to complete the required checks on their potential new property. The Property Survey Company completed all the checks and informed our clients that no defects were found. Unfortunately after purchasing the property our clients noticed a number of defects in the property and after getting a second opinion it was found that the original survey was incorrect. The team was able to successfully make claim against the property surveyor as they failed to provide our clients with the survey they asked for but also they failed to identify certain defects in the property. Robert and the team were able to secure £50,000 in compensation for our clients in an out of court settlement.
    • Our client had a significant property portfolio. She found out that a number of her properties had been sold without her knowledge under her ex-husbands name. The properties in question were equally owned by our client and her ex-husband, so no sale should have taken place without her knowledge. After instructing a number of expert witnesses that included a hand writing expert, it was found that the property was unlawfully sold. With this information, Robert Johnson and the Professional Negligence team at Healys was able to secure £750,000 in compensation after lengthy mediation with the other side.
    CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS insights
    • Type 1 Diabetes Sufferer Wins Direct Disability Discrimination Claim

      18th October 2021

      When employees disclose that they are suffering from a disability, it is an important moment that should always put employers on their mettle. The point was powerfully made by the case of a business development manager who was dismissed within days of his employer learning that he had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.

      After the man launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his dismissal was significantly influenced by the employer’s knowledge of his disability. He had been subjected to two acts of direct disability discrimination: his dismissal and the refusal of two of the employer’s founding directors to acknowledge his ill health. The employer’s contention that he had been dismissed solely for the non-discriminatory reason of poor performance was rejected.

      The ET found that all three of the employer’s directors, who worked closely together, were aware of his condition prior to his dismissal. The employer had moved virtually directly from learning of his disability to terminating his employment. When he complained about his dismissal, two of the directors colluded in maintaining their assertions that they had no advance knowledge of his ill health.

      The ET also found that, in seeking to embellish the employer’s dissatisfaction with the man’s performance and bolster its case, one of the directors had altered an email so as to give the impression that a client had specifically named him as the person responsible for a serious overcharging error.

      Anyone aware of his diagnosis would have known that type 1 diabetes is a lifelong condition that, unless controlled by medication, can have a significant effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The man testified that the condition caused tiredness and digestive complications that made it difficult for him to perform his extensive role in entertaining clients.

      In dismissing the employer’s challenge to those findings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the ET had rejected several other complaints put forward by the man in what was a long and hard-fought case. It could find nothing perverse or unfair in the ET’s careful and balanced conclusions. If not agreed, the amount of the man’s compensation would be decided at a further hearing.

      For more legal advice regarding Employment Law and legal claims, please don’t hesitate to contact Healys LLP today.

    CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS awards
    • Chambers & Partners 2021 : Professional Negligence – "Robert Johnson has considerable expertise representing individuals in negligence claims against solicitors, accountants and real estate agencies. ‘He has excellent analytical skills, strong commitment to his clients and commercial astuteness.‘ ‘He is very easy to work with and always available to respond to any queries.‘ ‘He is able to describe complex details in layperson’s terms while guiding clients through the legal details of the case.'”
    • Legal 500 2021 : Professional Negligence - "Healys LLP ‘compares very favourably with other larger law firms’ in advising individuals and companies on claims against a range of professions. In recent years, the practice has primarily acted against solicitors, though practice head Robert Johnson has a ‘wealth of experience’ in advising on claims involving barristers, architects, surveyors, financial advisers and accountants. David Bailey handles large group claims and fraud issues."
    CONVEYANCING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS news
    • Type 1 Diabetes Sufferer Wins Direct Disability Discrimination Claim

      18th October 2021

      When employees disclose that they are suffering from a disability, it is an important moment that should always put employers on their mettle. The point was powerfully made by the case of a business development manager who was dismissed within days of his employer learning that he had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.

      After the man launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his dismissal was significantly influenced by the employer’s knowledge of his disability. He had been subjected to two acts of direct disability discrimination: his dismissal and the refusal of two of the employer’s founding directors to acknowledge his ill health. The employer’s contention that he had been dismissed solely for the non-discriminatory reason of poor performance was rejected.

      The ET found that all three of the employer’s directors, who worked closely together, were aware of his condition prior to his dismissal. The employer had moved virtually directly from learning of his disability to terminating his employment. When he complained about his dismissal, two of the directors colluded in maintaining their assertions that they had no advance knowledge of his ill health.

      The ET also found that, in seeking to embellish the employer’s dissatisfaction with the man’s performance and bolster its case, one of the directors had altered an email so as to give the impression that a client had specifically named him as the person responsible for a serious overcharging error.

      Anyone aware of his diagnosis would have known that type 1 diabetes is a lifelong condition that, unless controlled by medication, can have a significant effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The man testified that the condition caused tiredness and digestive complications that made it difficult for him to perform his extensive role in entertaining clients.

      In dismissing the employer’s challenge to those findings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the ET had rejected several other complaints put forward by the man in what was a long and hard-fought case. It could find nothing perverse or unfair in the ET’s careful and balanced conclusions. If not agreed, the amount of the man’s compensation would be decided at a further hearing.

      For more legal advice regarding Employment Law and legal claims, please don’t hesitate to contact Healys LLP today.

    Call Us Today
    London: 020 7822 4000 Brighton: 01273 838734 Or you can contact us online: Contact Us
    Professional negligence