|
| |
|
Archive for the ‘Law’ Category
Friday, September 2nd, 2011
Homebuyers face bowing to lender’s choice of conveyancer or paying twice to use their own solicitor
As if finding a property, saving for a deposit and passing credit and salary checks weren’t enough for would-be homebuyers, lenders have thrown in a new issue: your solicitor. An increasing number of borrowers are finding that their lender will not work with the law firm they have chosen to do their conveyancing – a situation that is reducing consumer choice and can add costs, hassle and delay to the homebuying process. And the problem is likely to grow.
Mortgage lenders have always had panels of law firms they are willing to work with, but in the past few months big names such as Santander, Nationwide and Lloyds Banking Group have all reviewed and reduced those lists – in some cases removing solicitors who have worked with them for more than 20 years.
Lenders blame a rise in fraud as the reason for the cull – criteria have been tightened and a smaller panel should be easier to keep an eye on. No lender will say how many solicitors have been dropped, claiming the information is commercially sensitive, but the Law Society says it is hearing daily from firms that have been removed from panels, or have other concerns about them. Some do not even realise they have been dropped until contacted by a borrower who has instructed them.
“As a client you have no sway over the decision. This means if you wanted to use your small local family solicitor’s practice, which doesn’t appear on your mortgage lender’s panel of approved solicitors, you may end up paying twice if they continue to represent you, as the lender will also instruct their own solicitor to act for them in relation to the mortgage,” says Gary Score, partner at law firm Hart Brown. “Your alternative is to go with a solicitor who is on the lender’s panel. Indirectly, this gives lenders power to dictate which firms borrowers can, or cannot, use.”
Borrowers may only find out their solicitor is not approved when they apply for a mortgage – by which point those who are selling as well as buying are likely to have instructed someone and incurred costs. For those who are only buying, switching may not mean a fee, but it could mean using someone unknown rather than a solicitor you have used before or have had recommended.
As Score points out, continuing to use the firm of your choice will mean paying twice.
“Using two lawyers will undoubtedly add costs, and it’s going to add delay as you have another set of people involved,” says Jonathan Smithers, chair of the Law Society’s conveyancing and land law committee.
Most people will opt not to – a situation Smithers says is reducing consumer choice. “It’s fundamental that you be able to choose your adviser and not be put to hundreds of pounds of extra expense because your solicitor is not on a lender’s panel.”
The Council of Mortgage Lenders is unapologetic, saying mortgage companies have been forced to act. “There has been a significant amount of fraud and loss to lenders and their clients out of conveyancing in recent years,” says the CML’s Sue Anderson. She says the Law Society’s recent creation of a conveyancing quality scheme is “a tacit admission of this fact”.
While the Law Society argues that lenders can be assured that members of its new scheme meet strict standards, Anderson describes it as “untried, unproved, untested” and says “it is reasonable for lenders to take their own steps to control their risk”.
However, Smithers says the way the panels have been restructured has, in some cases, been arbitrary. Many of the firms cut are small businesses, or ones that have only done small volumes of work with lenders over the past couple of years while the mortgage market has been slow. They may be fully up to speed with issues in the local property market, but simply not have done work for a borrower using Halifax or Nationwide in recent months, or have too few partners to fit the lender’s criteria.
Unfortunately for borrowers who want to choose their own lawyers, the issue looks likely to rumble on. Some lenders say their lists are closed, so those firms that have been dropped through lack of business will not be able to get back on, and the chair of the Conveyancing Association, Edward Goldsmith, says he expects panels to go on shrinking. “In two or three years those panels will be further reduced – they will be almost like super-panels,” he says. He suggests that, ultimately, this will be good news for consumers. “The firms that remain on the panel will be those who do a good job.”
Posted in First-time buyers, House News, Law, Money, Mortgages, News, Property, Solicitors, The Guardian, UK news | Comments Closed
Friday, July 15th, 2011
A mystery shopping exercise found that as many solicitors produced poor-quality wills as unregulated will-writers
You’re better off going to a solicitor to do your will than to some bloke who collars you in a shopping centre and offers to do it for £49, right? That is the view, of course, of the Law Society’s chief executive, Des Hudson, who extolled the “excellent advice” solicitors provide in his response to Thursday’s Legal Services Consumer Panel report on the will-writing market.
Unfortunately, the panel’s research does not bear this out. A mystery shopping exercise involving 101 consumers seeking wills from a variety of providers found that as many solicitors produced poor-quality wills as unregulated will-writers, concern over whose practices, prompted by Panorama among others, sparked the whole investigation. One in four wills produced by each group failed to pass muster from a panel of experts. On the basis of the findings, you’re better off going to a bank to get your will done.
Though not a big enough sample to be anything more than indicative, it still makes embarrassing reading for the Law Society, which has long campaigned against unregulated will-writers. And it is arguably of greater concern given that, according to the panel, solicitors produce two-thirds of the 1.8m wills written every year, compared to will-writers’ 10% market share.
The panel told the Solicitors Regulation Authority that it needs to look at the training of solicitors in will drafting and, more broadly, the question of ensuring their ongoing competence, which is not checked once they have qualified.
The report identified problems with the unregulated sector, such as sharp sales practices and lost wills where companies disappear without trace, but equally the panel found that will-writers “provide a valuable alternative to solicitors as they tend to be cheaper and the key element of their business model – providing wills and related services in the home – appeals to consumers due to the flexibility of service”.
It added: “The best will-writing companies at least match the service provided by solicitors.”
A survey conducted by the panel found that 90% of people would recommend their will-writing company to others.
But then none of those happy consumers would know if their will was actually defective. The big difference is that if something goes wrong with a will drafted by a solicitor, there is a raft of consumer protections – including a complaints procedure, indemnity insurance and a compensation fund – to fall back on. With many will-writers, there is nothing.
While the panel said more could be done by trading standards officers and the Office of Fair Trading to improve current standards, it called on the supervisory regulator, the Legal Services Board, to make will-writing a so-called reserved activity. This means will-writers would need proper training and regulation to continue in the field.
As a result, the board has launched its first statutory investigation into whether to extend the scope of regulation, although this will actually go further by looking at what measures are required to protect consumers in the linked probate and estate administration markets as well. There’s not much point in making sure a will is properly written if it is easy for a rogue administering the estate it distributes to run off with all the money.
A danger of regulation is that it drives up costs, which could discourage people from making wills – which not enough people do anyway – and could drive providers out of the market, reducing choice. However, the panel thinks the case to regulate is sufficiently strong and these risks can be mitigated. Research shows that people are not that price sensitive when it comes to wills, recognising the importance of getting it right.
Will-writing, a big market with many services that can be cross-sold, is likely to be a key battleground when new providers enter the law later this year with the advent of alternative business structures (ABSs). Already the Co-op, which has built a £25m legal services business in less than five years largely on the back of probate and personal injury work, has signalled its intention to expand its operation by becoming an ABS at the earliest opportunity. Combining its funeral and probate services would be, dare one say, a classic example of horizontal integration.
Neil Rose is the editor of legalfutures.co.uk
Posted in Comment, Consumer affairs, guardian.co.uk, House News, Inheritance tax, Law, Money, Property, Solicitors, Writing a will | Comments Closed
Wednesday, July 13th, 2011
Impact assessment admits law may hit vulnerable people, and says councils must find other accommodation
The government’s own impact assessment of plans to criminalise squatting has acknowledged that it could boost homelessness and rough sleeping, and target those who are already suffering from mental health and addiction problems.
The admission follows warnings from campaign groups that the squatting plan will end up “criminalising the homeless” in the middle of a housing crisis.
The justice ministry’s assessment of the proposal, published alongside a consultation paper, acknowledges concerns that it will target individuals who are already leading chaotic lives, and says that the police and local authorities will have to find alternative accommodation for those evicted under the new powers.
But ministers insist that there are other avenues open to help the “genuinely destitute” who need shelter, which do not involve occupying someone else’s property without authority.
Lawyers have also warned that the decision to make squatting a criminal offence and to withdraw legal aid in alleged trespass cases could also be used against Travellers, Gypsies and protesters engaged in direct action.
In the Ministry of Justice consultation paper, published on Thursday, the options include creating a new criminal offence of squatting in buildings, which would enable the courts to jail the most persistent offenders and repeal “squatters’ rights”, which prevent legitimate occupiers of commercial property from using force to re-enter their squatted buildings.
Although the act of squatting or trespass is not a criminal offence, it is illegal to enter somebody’s home as a trespasser and then refuse to leave when asked by the “displaced residential occupier”. But the offence does not extend to squatters who refuse to leave non-residential property, although they may be open to prosecution for criminal damage, burglary or unauthorised abstraction of electricity.
Whitehall officials admit they have no idea of the scale of squatting in England and Wales but say that unofficial estimates put the number at as many as 20,000 squatters at any one time. There is also little research on the proportion who occupy empty, abandoned or derelict buildings. The justice minister, Crispin Blunt, said that ministers wanted to end the “misery, expense and incredible hassle” caused when squatters take over a property.
“Law-abiding property owners or occupiers who work hard for a living can spend thousands of pounds evicting squatters from their properties, repairing damage and clearing up the debris they have left behind,” he said.
Blunt said the government did not accept that squatting was a reasonable recourse for those who were homeless as a result of social deprivation: “No matter how compelling or difficult the squatter’s own circumstances, it is wrong that legitimate occupants should be deprived of the use of their own property,” he said, adding that an “empty homes strategy” would be published over the summer.
But Leslie Morphy of the homeless charity Crisis, referring to Blunt’s wish to end the misery of squatting for property owners, said: “What about the misery facing homeless people who are so desperate for a roof over their heads that they are often forced to sleep in abandoned buildings without heat, light or water?
“Criminalising squatting does nothing to tackle the underlying issues faced by homeless people, and that is their homelessness.”
Paul Reynolds, of the campaign group Squash, spoke of criminalising the homeless during a housing crisis: “Very strong laws already exist to protect the rights of owner-occupiers. This bill will only serve the interests of property speculators who are deliberately keeping properties empty simply to up their profits, and unscrupulous landlords who will abuse these powers to illegally evict tenants.”
Posted in Homelessness, House News, Housing, Law, Money, News, Politics, Property, Society, The Guardian, UK criminal justice, UK news | Comments Closed
Wednesday, June 15th, 2011
Harry Hill’s venture, In-Deed Online, becomes the first property-linked legal company on the Alternative Investment Market
An online conveyancing service set up by Rightmove founder Harry Hill will become the first property-linked legal company to list on Aim today. In-Deed Online allows people buying or selling a home to track the legal process from instruction to completion. The website was launched by Hill, the former chief of estate agents Countrywide, and Peter Gordon, a former partner at private equity group 3i. Former Nationwide chief executive Philip Williamson and former Wall Street trader Boris Zhilin are non-executive directors.
The firm which has raised £2.9m in a pre-IPO placement is raising £1.6m by selling up to 3.7m shares at 42p to institutional and other investors. The business is set to join Aim with a market value of £8.6m.
Hill and Gordon will keep a stake of 10% each and are locked in to their investment for a number of years. Other investors include Octopus Investments and fund manager Henderson, as well as Andrew Black, the co-founder of Betfair. He invested in the pre-IPO round in May at 42p and owns nearly 3% of the company.
The firm has signed up law firms O’Neill Patient and Breeze and Wyles to do the conveyancing work, which will operate under the In-Deed Online brand, and hopes to sign up another two. Gordon said InDeed might take stakes in these legal firms, providing them with capital to support their expansion so they can handle more cases.
“As far as customer service is concerned, conveyancing is still in the dark ages,” he said. “We’re not setting out to be cheap and cheerful – this is a high-quality service at a very fair price.” A quick quote reveals the website charges £450 in legal costs, plus £90 VAT and £716 in other costs for a freehold purchase of £250,000.
In-Deed’s ambitious goal is to become a market leader in the highly fragmented £1bn conveyancing market within three years. At present, no single firm controls more than 3% of the market. Its service features a price guarantee, a no completion – no fee promise and a team of regional property lawyers who commit to updating homebuyers every two days.
“I’m not very good at being second or third,” said Hill. “Together with a team I built Countrywide from a small estate agency group to the largest of its type in the UK, and developed Rightmove which,valued at upwards of £1bn, is best in class.”
Posted in Business, Financial sector, House News, Housing market, Investing, Law, Money, News, Property, Real estate, Rightmove, The Guardian | Comments Closed
Friday, May 6th, 2011
Essex bungalow at heart of test case over how unmarried partners who split up should divide their property
A bungalow in Essex is at the heart of a test case over how unmarried partners who split up should divide their property.
The supreme court decision on whether the assets should be shared 50/50 or predominantly awarded to the woman who alone paid the mortgage for 13 years could influence the rights of millions of couples.
Five supreme court justices will have to resolve whether a court can decide what consitutes a fair distribution between Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones, who separated in 1993 after sharing the home in Thundersley, Essex, for eight years.
There are thought to be two million unmarried couples living together in England and Wales and the case is being eagerly followed by family lawyers.
Kernott, 51, an icecream salesman, moved out after the break-up, leaving Jones, 56, to pay the mortgage, maintain the house – valued at £240,000 in 2008 – and bring up the couple’s two children, the court heard.
In 2008, a county court judge sitting in Southend ruled that Jones should get 90% of the value of the house and her former partner 10%. That decision was upheld by the high court in London in 2009.
Last year, the court of appeal overturned the lower courts’ rulings, deciding that Kernott was entitled to half the value of the house because the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had done anything to change the situation since.
One appeal judge, Lord Justice Wall, said the case was a “cautionary tale”, which all unmarried couples contemplating buying homes together should study.
Lawyers for Jones are seeking to overturn the appeal court decision. The court heard that Kernott, now of Benfleet, Essex, had waited until his children were grown before making a claim on his old home in 2006.
The judges wrestled with what constituted fairness, acknowledging that different couples had different ideas of what constituted a just division of their shared possessions.
“There will be some couples who think only in terms of financial contribution,” observed Baroness Hale, a supreme court justice. “They will think it only fair that the beneficial interest should reflect their contributions.
“There will be other couples who think that’s nonsense and that they contribute in other ways. Most couples do not make identical financial contributions. So one is trying to see what this couple thought is fair, not impose the court’s view.”
But another justice raised the question: “How can you get a common intention, even of the most spectral sort, when the [couple] have not spoken to each other for 15 years?”
Family lawyers have been urging the need for clearer precedents in the runup to the hearing. Meredith Thompson, a family law specialist at national law firm Mills & Reeve, said: “The law relating to the property interests of cohabiting couples is currently an unsatisfactory muddle.
“It relies on an unholy mix of express and implied trusts, and in some circumstances enables a court to retrospectively infer what the parties intended as to the ownership even if they intended nothing of the sort.
“If the supreme court upholds the court of appeal’s decision that joint ownership means a 50/50 split, this will put a stop to the recent tendency of the courts to infer intentions of the property owners as to how they share the equity in property.
“This will amount to a strict interpretation of property law and an end to judges attempting to introduce some element of fairness into what can be a very harsh reality for some people.”
After hearing argument from both sides, the supreme court reserved judgment to a later date.
Posted in Cohabitation, House News, Law, Life and style, Money, News, Property, The Guardian, UK news, UK supreme court | Comments Closed
Thursday, May 5th, 2011
How to protect yourself financially in case you and your partner split up
The website advicenow, which runs a Living Together campaign to make cohabitants more aware of their legal status, points out that there are three things that don’t exist: the Loch Ness monster, cats’ nine lives and common law marriage.
Couples who live together have hardly any rights compared with married couples or civil partners, and most only discover this when their relationship has broken down or their partner has died.
But there are things you can do to protect yourself, provided you are sensible about recognising that you might one day split up, however romantic your relationship is now.
1. Buying a home
Get advice from a solicitor – how you establish ownership of your home can make a big difference to your rights if you split up.
If you own your home as joint tenants, you own it jointly and equally. If you split up and sell it, you will normally get half, no matter how much you contributed to it. If one of you dies, the other will automatically inherit the other half.
If you buy your home as tenants in common, you can own uneven shares in the property, so one partner could own 40% and the other 60%. If one of you dies, that person’s share will go to the beneficiary named in the will.
But even if the property is owned in one person’s name, it is still possible for the other partner to prove they are entitled to a share if they split up. To prevent unpleasant surprises, draw up a living together agreement on moving in that sets out what you have agreed about the home. If you do not intend the non-owner to get a share, spell this out very clearly, or if you do intend to share the home, spell out the shares very clearly.
In all cases, if there are children a court can order the transfer of the home to the parent who is mainly looking after them under the Children Act 1989 to ensure the children are housed. If part or all of the home is still owned by the other partner, however, it will revert to that partner when the youngest child reaches the age of 18.
2. Renting a home
Consider putting both names on the tenancy. If only one is named, that person can evict the other if the couple split up, although reasonable notice should be given. If the named person decides to leave, the remaining partner can ask the landlord to put his or her name on the tenancy, but he doesn’t have to unless ordered by court because you are vulnerable or have children.
3. Draw up a living together agreement
This is the cohabiter’s equivalent of a pre-nup, forming a record of what each party is contributing to the household. The Advice Now website points out that it can help you sort out the day-to-day workings of living together, as well as enabling you to split up with a minimum of squabbling.
Like pre-nups, a court can decide to ignore the agreement, but it will generally uphold it if what you agreed still produces a fair outcome for both of you, neither party was under pressure from the other and you were both honest about your finances when drawing it up.
However, James Thornton, partner with Stowe Family Law in Harrogate, says if you have it drawn up by a solicitor as a formal legal deed and independently witnessed, it will be legally binding just like any other legal contract.
4. Make a will
This is imperative if you want your partner to benefit from any of your assets or even to be able to stay in your home. However long you live together, all your property and assets will go to your blood relations rather than your partner if you die.
5. Children
If you are the father of children born before 1 December 2003 and you have not married their mother, you do not automatically have parental responsibility for them. This means you do not have the right to be consulted for big decisions concerning their lives, such as caring for them if the mother dies or making decisions about medical treatment. Fathers in this position can either make an agreement with the mother or apply to court for an order if she refuses to agree. Fathers who are named on the birth certificates of children born after that date will automatically have parental responsibility.
6. Beware of relying on your partner’s savings for your retirement
You will have no right to these if you split up, and if your partner dies, some pension schemes do not pay survivor’s benefits to unmarried partners. Nick Bamford, of independent financial adviser Informed Choice, suggests cohabitants try to build up separate pensions: even those who are not earning can save up to £2,880 a year into a personal pension, and this will benefit from a further £720 in tax relief.
7. Ongoing financial support
If the couple have had children, the parent looking after them, typically the mother, can apply for child maintenance through the Child Support Agency providing she can prove paternity, says Thornton. However, as a cohabiter she is not usually entitled to financial support herself.
8. Visit the Living Together section of Advice Now
This contains information on all aspects of how to establish a safe and secure cohabiting relationship, and a template for a living together agreement.
Posted in Cohabitation, Family finances, Family law, Features, guardian.co.uk, House News, Law, Life and style, Money, Prenups, Property, Relationships, Renting property, Savings, Writing a will | Comments Closed
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011
Aggrieved UK investors call on Spanish banks to honour deposit guarantees on troubled properties as country launches drive to attract overseas buyers
A publicity roadshow aimed at encouraging foreigners to buy Spanish holiday homes has been branded “an insult” by groups of Britons caught in legal difficulties over the status and funding of their properties on the Costas.
Spanish housing minister, Beatriz Corredor, and public works minister, José Blanco, visit Britain this week at the start of a six-nation tour. The Spanish authorities said the ministers will use the roadshow to encourage individuals and institutional investors to buy some of the estimated 1m new homes lying empty in Spain.
“We must revive the holiday housing market to speed up the ‘digestion of stock’,” said a Spanish government spokesman, while Blanco claimed the exercise will “highlight the strengths of our economy [and] transparency and legal certainty of our planning legislation”.
However, protest bodies such as the Spanish Bank Guarantees Petition and the Finca Parcs Action Group are organising online petitions calling for the roadshow to instead address long-standing grievances on the alleged refusal of Spanish banks to honour aval bancario, or bank guarantees.
Since the late 1960s, Britons buying homes off-plan from Spanish developers have been told their deposits go into third-party reserve funds set up by Spanish banks. If a developer goes bankrupt or fails to build a property the banks then refund a purchaser’s deposit. But in recent years, the groups claim, many banks have allegedly refused to honour the guarantees of several thousands of British buyers.
Keith Rule, a spokesman for the campaigners, said: “Many estate agents, lawyers and banks were negligent and acted with a complete lack of professional due diligence. We, as innocent victims of the Spanish housing market, demand action and recompense.”
Ruth Genda from Wymondham in Leicestershire put down a £75,000 deposit on a Spanish holiday home in 2003. Construction was delayed, but as the apartment was finally completed it was declared an “illegal build” as it didn’t have formal planning permission. Genda took Banco Popular Hipotecario (BPH) to court, which declared her guarantee valid and ordered the bank to refund the purchase. But BPH appealed and the ruling was overturned.
“The case was eventually dismissed and my deposit was never returned. We believe thousands are in the same position. Where is the transparency and fairness which the government ministers now want others to believe in?” Genda said.
The Spanish government says the roadshow is a “pioneering initiative” targeting countries with national economies that are recovering from the downturn and which have historically provided many of the foreign buyers for properties on the Costas.
This week’s publicity events in Britain will be followed by similar exercises in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, with Russia later in the year.
Michael Cashman, a Labour member of the European parliament and long-time supporter of British buyers seeking bank guarantee repayments, has written to the Spanish government. “What about those that have already invested and who have found absolutely no results through the Spanish legal system?” he asked, adding: “I would not advise any investment in Spanish property until this problem is resolved.”
Posted in Buying property abroad, guardian.co.uk, House News, Law, Money, News, Property, Spain, UK news, World news | Comments Closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where there’s a will should there be regulation? | Neil Rose
Friday, July 15th, 2011A mystery shopping exercise found that as many solicitors produced poor-quality wills as unregulated will-writers
You’re better off going to a solicitor to do your will than to some bloke who collars you in a shopping centre and offers to do it for £49, right? That is the view, of course, of the Law Society’s chief executive, Des Hudson, who extolled the “excellent advice” solicitors provide in his response to Thursday’s Legal Services Consumer Panel report on the will-writing market.
Unfortunately, the panel’s research does not bear this out. A mystery shopping exercise involving 101 consumers seeking wills from a variety of providers found that as many solicitors produced poor-quality wills as unregulated will-writers, concern over whose practices, prompted by Panorama among others, sparked the whole investigation. One in four wills produced by each group failed to pass muster from a panel of experts. On the basis of the findings, you’re better off going to a bank to get your will done.
Though not a big enough sample to be anything more than indicative, it still makes embarrassing reading for the Law Society, which has long campaigned against unregulated will-writers. And it is arguably of greater concern given that, according to the panel, solicitors produce two-thirds of the 1.8m wills written every year, compared to will-writers’ 10% market share.
The panel told the Solicitors Regulation Authority that it needs to look at the training of solicitors in will drafting and, more broadly, the question of ensuring their ongoing competence, which is not checked once they have qualified.
The report identified problems with the unregulated sector, such as sharp sales practices and lost wills where companies disappear without trace, but equally the panel found that will-writers “provide a valuable alternative to solicitors as they tend to be cheaper and the key element of their business model – providing wills and related services in the home – appeals to consumers due to the flexibility of service”.
It added: “The best will-writing companies at least match the service provided by solicitors.”
A survey conducted by the panel found that 90% of people would recommend their will-writing company to others.
But then none of those happy consumers would know if their will was actually defective. The big difference is that if something goes wrong with a will drafted by a solicitor, there is a raft of consumer protections – including a complaints procedure, indemnity insurance and a compensation fund – to fall back on. With many will-writers, there is nothing.
While the panel said more could be done by trading standards officers and the Office of Fair Trading to improve current standards, it called on the supervisory regulator, the Legal Services Board, to make will-writing a so-called reserved activity. This means will-writers would need proper training and regulation to continue in the field.
As a result, the board has launched its first statutory investigation into whether to extend the scope of regulation, although this will actually go further by looking at what measures are required to protect consumers in the linked probate and estate administration markets as well. There’s not much point in making sure a will is properly written if it is easy for a rogue administering the estate it distributes to run off with all the money.
A danger of regulation is that it drives up costs, which could discourage people from making wills – which not enough people do anyway – and could drive providers out of the market, reducing choice. However, the panel thinks the case to regulate is sufficiently strong and these risks can be mitigated. Research shows that people are not that price sensitive when it comes to wills, recognising the importance of getting it right.
Will-writing, a big market with many services that can be cross-sold, is likely to be a key battleground when new providers enter the law later this year with the advent of alternative business structures (ABSs). Already the Co-op, which has built a £25m legal services business in less than five years largely on the back of probate and personal injury work, has signalled its intention to expand its operation by becoming an ABS at the earliest opportunity. Combining its funeral and probate services would be, dare one say, a classic example of horizontal integration.
Neil Rose is the editor of legalfutures.co.uk
Posted in Comment, Consumer affairs, guardian.co.uk, House News, Inheritance tax, Law, Money, Property, Solicitors, Writing a will | Comments Closed