New app to ‘revolutionise’ conveyancing process

Published by Hannah Nemeth on 19 September 2017.
Last updated on 19 September 2017

New app to ‘revolutionise’ conveyancing process

A new app has been developed that aims to revolutionise how homes in the UK are bought and sold.

The free to download app (pictured below), which has been launched by property transaction platform When You Move,  enables buyers and sellers to track in real time every stage of their property transaction from when the sale has been agreed right through to completion.

Everyone involved in the property transaction can use the free mobile app to receive live updates of their conveyancing case – from estate agents and mortgage brokers to solicitors and/or conveyancers, reducing the amount of paperwork and the bureaucracy found in the current system.

The pros

Simon Bath, chief executive of When You Move, says the service will transform levels of transparency, speed and efficiency in the house-buying process.

He told Moneywise: “The huge problem with conveyancing is that there is a black hole of nothingness. There is no communication; you have the solicitor who doesn’t pick up the phone, who still uses Dictaphones, second-class post and fax machines.

“What we’ve implemented is a bit of functionality whereby – almost like a tweet – every 72 hours the client, the mortgage broker and the estate agent receives information from the conveyancer. For example, it could be: ‘Still waiting on the estate agent to send the sales memo.’”

The app (pictured) aims to speed up the conveyancing process, but there are other benefits, such as the automation and sending of client letters. Once a client has signed up, the app will auto-generate the client’s details, property details, and documents and email them immediately. Only the contract requires a ‘wet’ signature.

Documents such as searches can be pdfs loaded on to your account, which you can access whenever you need them.

Mr Bath adds: “In the traditional world, someone will have to type up a letter, and then it will have to be checked and sent by second class post – so we’ve potentially shaved seven days off that.

“Clients will be able to message their solicitor through the app – typically the reasons for the delays is that no one knows where that blockage is and no one is responding. There is a kind of lethargy in the consumer market and we just accept that’s OK and we will still pay £1,500 or £2,000 for that service.”

The cons

However, to use the app you need to pick from one of five specific property law firms: Gordons Property Lawyers; Leadenhall Law Group; Right Choice Conveyancing; WYM Legal, and one other that is yet to be named.

The companies vary in terms of customer service, as well as their fees, so check the terms and conditions, price, and customer reviews online before going ahead. 

For the app to be successful you’re also reliant on your estate agent and mortgage broker to sign up and send direct messages via the app.   

The When You Move app, which is designed to handle property sales, purchases and remortgages, is available for free from Google Play. The app will be available for Apple users in future, although When You Move has yet to confirm a date.  

Leave a comment

With mortgage fraud being a

With mortgage fraud being a topic of intense interest across the nation is it wise to launch a new way to simplify that fraud?
This app does not consider that already conveyancing is being examined by the public.
The whole mortgage industry is now being piecemeal exposed for all the none disclosure issues and the use of false instruments to gain control of properties .Banks, Solicitors in the conveyance industry, the council of mortgage lenders, the Land registry, and other organizations all handle transactions without consideration as to if the documentation used would stand up to scrutiny.
It has for far too long become the accepted policy not to disclose what goes on in the background that is hidden from the public.
This none disclosure is rife, it is a requirement in law that all information should be disclosed in order for a contract not to be exposed to fraudulent practices.
Yet 99 % of all transactions are never fully disclosed to the applicant of a mortgage!

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 is being circumvented with all home sales and purchases as it is.
This app fails to take note of the need for verified origional certified instruments to be in place throughout the process. In fact it does go so far as to ignore the vitally important legislation in place in favour of a speedy house sale.
The app and it's function encourages the already questionable industry standards to be ignored or worst of all, used to gain control of property from not complying with current legislation.

Should this be allowed to continue, no one can rely upon keeping a home simply because it can be taken anytime by anyone with the knowledge of how the new signature less system works.

This is very much against the interest of the prospective purchaser.
It only facilitates simpler means to defraud the public.
Before you condem this post as nonsense, take a look at the lpmpa act. • The common law rules governing the form and delivery of a deed were abolished, and were replaced by requirements that:
• a deed is valid only when expressed as such,
• it is either signed by an individual in the presence of a witness who attests to it, or at his direction and attested by two witnesses, and
• it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.[2]
This app makes mention that ONLY the contract needs a wet ink signature. ( misleading ) as you can see from the previous extract from the LPMPA act.
Subsequent jurisprudence[edit]
Validity of execution under Mercury[edit]
S. 1(3) of the Act provides that:
“ An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—
(a)it is signed—
(i)by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or
(ii)at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and
(b)it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf. ”
In 2008, the High Court of England and Wales expressed in obiter that the recycling of signature pages from earlier drafts rendered the agreements in question invalid as deeds under the Act.[6] Taken together with previous jurisprudence on the execution of documents in the Court of Appeal for England and Wales,[7] the Law Society of England and Wales has issued guidance as to what steps are necessary in order to validly execute deeds and other documents executed in counterpart in electronic or virtual closings:
Available methods of execution by type of document[8][9]

Type of Document Option 1- Return entire PDF/Word document plus signature page Option 2 - Return signature page only Option 3 - Advance pre-signed signature pages
Deeds Yes No No
Real estate contracts Yes No No
Guarantees (stand-alone or contained in simple contracts) Yes Yes Yes
Simple contracts (not incorporating any of the above) Yes Yes Yes
Land contracts covered by the Act[edit]
Section 2 deals with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land, and not with documents that transfer such estates or interests.[10] The required scope for such contracts is defined in s. 2:
“ (1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.
(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract. ”
The Court of Appeal has noted which types of agreements fall either within the Act or outside of it:
“ ... Section 2 is concerned with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land, not with documents which actually create or transfer such estates or interests. So a contract to transfer a freehold or a lease in the future, a contract to grant a lease in the future, or a contract for a mortgage in the future, are all within the reach of the section, provided of course the ultimate subject matter is land. However, an actual transfer, conveyance or assignment, an actual lease, or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all.[11]

The "single document" requirement is strictly applied:
“ ... Its effect is merciless. An appropriately signed document purporting to amount to a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land will not in fact create a valid contract unless it includes all the expressly agreed terms of the sale or other disposition. If it fails do so it will be void...[12]

The Court has given guidance on circumstances where a land contract can be avoided under s. 2:[13]
1. A party seeking to avoid must identify a term which the parties have expressly agreed, which is not to be found in the single, or exchanged, signed document.
2. It is not sufficient merely to show that the land contract formed part of a larger transaction which was subject to other expressly agreed terms which are absent from the land contract.
3. The expressly agreed term must, if it is required by section 2 to be included in the single document, be a term of the sale of the land, rather than a term of some simultaneous contract (whether for the sale of a chattel or the provision of a service) which happens to take place at the same time as the land contract, and to form part of one commercial transaction.
4. S. 2(1) does not prohibit parties from structuring a transaction, for example, for the sale of the whole of a company's assets, in such a way that the land sale is dealt with in a different document from the sale of stock, work in progress or goodwill, unless the sale of the land is conditional upon the sale of the other assets.
Proprietary estoppel[edit]
S. 2 of the Act repealed s. 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, thus abolishing the equitable doctrine of part performance with respect to dispositions of interests in land, which had been recommended by the Law Commission of England and Wales.[14] Although the Commission believed that the equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel would still be available to provide relief,[15] the House of Lords has subsequently held[16] that such relief was not available. As Lord Scott of Foscote stated in his speech:
“ 29.... proprietary estoppel cannot be prayed in aid in order to render enforceable an agreement that statute has declared to be void. The proposition that an owner of land can be estopped from asserting that an agreement is void for want of compliance with the requirements of section 2 is, in my opinion, unacceptable. The assertion is no more than the statute provides. Equity can surely not contradict the statute.... ”
This mirrors the observation that "The doctrine of estoppel may not be invoked to render valid a transaction which the legislature has, on grounds of general public policy, enacted is to be invalid,"[17] which has been cited in other cases in the matter by the Court of Appeal.[18][19] The constructive trust remedy that is available under s. 2(5) of the Act, however, operates under principles distinct from those of estoppel, which can lead to problems in application and enforcement.[20] Academic discussion suggests that estoppel may still be available in situations outside of s. 2 on its own terms.[21]
Further reading[edit]
• Deeds and Escrows (Law Com. No. 163) (PDF). The Law Commission. 1987. ISBN 0-10-200188-X

My oh my, right under our noses is a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate current legislation.
This is outrageous!

I for one am letting the public know that this new "easy method" not only misleads people, it exhibits traits that are in breach of law and legislation.
The very fact it encourages fraudulent activities to become acceptable is not on!
What's laughable is the very page this is posted on names a reputable recognised body as accepting a publication to this effect.
One that has a sub headline of https://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2017-08-03/scam-watch-cyber-fraudsters-...
This article warns of the dangers of cyber fraud.

Whilst it publishes an article that inevitably will gain interest by unsuspecting readers as the modern means to buy or sell their home.

All that follows the launch of this new method will be instantly fraudulent activities. That IAM CERTAIN OF.

Public awareness of the industry and it's unlawful practices is rising.
The whole mortgage industry is undergoing a a microscopic investigation by more and more home owners that have encountered the use of false instruments, fraudulent documents, false and inaccurate information used, the abuse of court process to gain repossession of homes. In fact the corruption goes right to the very top of our judicial system. Yes the highest court has corrupt judges handing out false repossession orders even down to
the bottom in magistrates courts.

This app should not be allowed to go live without amendments to the application to include ALL documents and instruments handled in a mortgage to be handed over to the purchaser / seller as they are available but hidden from them to facilitate a financial gain to all mortgage lenders, banks, and the chancellor.
The current process puts every individual wanting to buy or sell their home at a complete and utter disadvantage in the very deal that this app sets out to add to.
False misleading launch of the perpetuated morgage fraud.
Trading standards, law society, where are you now? Stop this and allow us to redress the balance of power in this industry.
To back up my claims of fraudulent activities I show a link to a group of individuals hell bent on exposing this despicable fraud.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/tgbms/?ref=bookmarks

Thanks for your comments and

Thanks for your comments and for highlighting the growing concern over property
fraud. I agree that with any technological innovation, there is an increased risk
that cyber criminals could look at ways to target property buyers, which is why we include a link to Moneywise's scam watch article on this, where the advice is for
buyers to phone up and verify the solicitor's bank details before transferring
any money.

I asked When You Move for their comments and they say:
Hi Tony, Sorry to read of your frustrations. Having read your points,
we are in complete agreement that fair and ethical practice should and is a
fundamental priority for the industry, and are keen to ensure our solution enables
this to happen in a fluid manner. Our premise is solely tech innovation to increase connectivity among progressive, ethical practitioners within the mortgage arena.

 

People, you have a right to

People, you have a right to know what transpires in this transaction.
One of the best r ecco mend at ions I can give to all of you is.
Do a data subject access request to those you are dealing with
Insist on retaining your original documents.
Get all instruments & above all.
Get computerised records of every transaction that happens behind the scenes.
You are entitled to all documents.
Failure to supply is not acceptable.
Information vital to the sale / purchase of ANY property is deliberately being withheld.
This action boarders on fraud easily.
Do not fall foul to mortgage fraud.
Fraud they would have you believe is predominately coming from hackers, scanners etc. When the industry is the market leader / instigator of such any and all major fraud.
They will try and Denis it. They will try to placate you, give you a multitude of plausible excuses.

But they are caught backing themselves into a corner now.

Evidence and factual at that is coming to the fore ever day.
The great British mortgage swindle and others have already exposed shocking goings on..
Google is our friend.
Use it !