How can buying a house be made less of a nightmare?

Conveyancing solicitors ought to use email with read receipts instead of telephone call centres or snail mail. If a read receipt is not received for emails after say an hour of office time they should be re-sent. The problems with snail mail include letters being dictated and joining a queue in the typing pool and then joining another queue to be stamped and posted, and possibly the use of second class mail. Telephone call centres involve people who charge hundreds of pounds an hour (+VAT) waiting in queues listening to music interrupted every 20 seconds with lies about their calls being important to the recipient. Even telephone calls to a direct line are fraught with problems of “telephone tag”. The telephone is old technology that resolves the problem of distance but not time.

The price of a low end house is commensurate with a high end car. The latter sale and purchase can be completed quickly, so why not the house, and by extrapolation why not a more expensive house. We are supposed to live in a democracy, so if we elect MPs who are not involved with the legal profession we ought to be able to get better results than we do.

I don’t think someone can be an MP if they are involved with arms, pharmaceutical or civil engineering, so why can people involved with the administration of law be MPs? Maybe they don’t deliberately enhance the income of their industries for personal gain, but their modes of thinking would tend to favour their colleagues still in business.

Why should consumers be expected to take high risks? It is up to the legislature to provide a framework that is fit for purpose. Otherwise people are taking fees for services that are not fit for purpose, and government collecting value added tax where no value is being added.

In every sale or purchase that I have been party to over the last twenty years the bulk of the correspondence, including forms, has been done via e-mail, and quite rapidly. Certain things like documents to be signed and witnessed need to go by post and can take time but this is not necessarily on the critical path. We have always made ourselves available to attend at the solicitor’s office for formalities and, where possible, sellers should choose a local firm for one side of the process at least. It’s different if the property being purchased is remote but the speed of the solicitor or conveyancer is not the cause of the hold-ups these days; it is more likely to be the buyer’s hesitation over details, funds, survey, indemnities, and general prevarication, plus the chain reaction for sequential transactions.

most people in call centres know about anything is what is on the computer screen in front of them they can be helpful but often have not got the answer to your question as it is not on the computer

I can’t remember the last time I had a problem like that when dealing with a call centre. In my experience the staff are usually well apprised of the situation and capable of giving good advice or executing whatever has to be done. I think call centres have improved a lot in recent years, at least for the companies and organisations I deal with, and even the waiting times do not seem unreasonable on most occasions – or they have call-back facilities which I like.

It is the call-back facilities that promise to get back to you within 24 hours that are annoying especially if they take that long to get back to you.

You have everything prepared, any documents laid out in front of you, know what you are going to say, and they ring you back when you are in the middle of something else. 😟 Grrr.

Exactly! So why don’t companies let customers and potential customers have access to a web site that provides this information. Confidential information could be accessed with a user name and password as with banking.

I suspect the reason is that they make money from them queuing listening to music interrupted by lies about the call being important every 20 seconds.

If the same service was available on line, then the pressure on telephone call centres would be much less and only from illiterate people.

Given that the proportion of solicitors who become MPs is far higher than the proportion in the electorate, and given that government charge VAT on their fees, this isn’t likely to happen that soon. If they were only allowed to charge fees and VAT on successful transactions maybe market forces would sort it out.

What are the respective percentages, John? I was not under the impression that there were many solicitors in the House of Commons overall or that the introduction of new legislation was hampered by a professional blockade.

Referring back to your earlier comment, so far as I am aware there are no restrictions on people becoming MP’s by virtue of their interests in the arms trade, civil engineering or the pharmaceutical industry, nor in any other legitimate commercial or professional occupations.

The success of a sale or purchase is not usually under the solicitor’s or conveyancer’s control so massaging away the fees in failed transactions is not an appropriate answer to any of the problems. The costs would remain in the system and would have to be recouped somewhere. If a solicitor or conveyancer has been negligent and a conveyance has collapsed because of it there are remedies but it is a very rare occurrence. I believe insurance cover is available for this risk but would only be of nett benefit if the transaction was extremely critical and contingent on other factors. Despite its many deficiencies, the England & Wales process does appear to work in nearly every case. It is fraught with multiple uncertainties however which give rise to much of the anxiety and stress. If we could chip away at these one step at a time the system would never be perfect [because some other niggle would supervene] but at least it would become less imperfect.

Googling produces some relevant articles.

I do agree that the costs would remain in the system, but making them fall elsewhere may motivate people to speed up or otherwise improve the system.

The amount of time the process takes gives rise to the greatest uncertainty. Things happen that make people change their minds. Once a sale is agreed, sometimes buyers instruct their solicitors to deliberately string the process out in order to see which way the market is going, especially in times of financial crisis like 2008/9.

“On an annual basis government revenue from residential stamp duty receipts were £8.9 billion,
This tax would have to be replaced from elsewhere. So, for example, VAT could increase to 22%, or 8.8% on NI contributions, 19% on excise duty……The choices are several.

It could be fairer though.

Where we live can depend on many things, roots, family, relationships, work,etc. We don’t always have a choice.

If you buy in a cheap area, not only is the property cheaper, but all costs associated with it are probably cheaper too including mortgage payments.

Is it really fair if you live in an expensive area to be hit for higher selling fees and higher stamp duty on the same type of property as one in a cheap area?

It would not be fair on those who never buy a house – renters for example. It is simply another way of raising tax revenue, not devised to be fair. Why should more expensive houses be subject to a higher rate? I agree. I’d think the tax rate should be uniform; the tax paid would still be more on the higher-priced houses. VAT on all the fees does not change – still 20% irrespective of the size of fee.

I would be more sympathetic if the £8.9 billion raised in stamp duty were directly used to fund real social housing – where subsidised accommodation were built for rent to those who are in genuine need and are unable to pay market rents. But not for subsequent purchase, nor to continue when the renter has the means to join the open market. They should remain as subsidised accommodation.