header-logo header-logo

02 October 2019
Issue: 7858 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Regulatory , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Confidence in conveyancing despite threat of no-deal Brexit

The thought of no-deal Brexit may be spooking the housing market, but it hasn’t shaken the confidence of the conveyancing profession.

According to research by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), published last week, nearly half (45%) of conveyancing practitioners expect their work volumes to rise in the next 12 months. A further 42% expect work volumes to remain the same, with just 13% expecting work to shrink over the next year.

A mere 4% of conveyancing practices reduced prices in the past year in order to compete, while more than one third (37%) of firms raised their prices.

Brexit was the most commonly cited business risk over the coming year, with 30% of firms highlighting it, compared to 19% last year. More than a quarter were concerned about cybercrime, but fewer firms identified fraud/money laundering as a risk (25%) compared to last year (34%). Only 12 of the 212 firms licensed by the CLC were victims of fraud last year and only three incurred a cost as a result.

CLC chief executive Sheila Kumar said: ‘Against the background of uncertainty created by Brexit there has been remarkable consistency in the performance and outlook of the practices we regulate. It is encouraging to see how many firms expect to keep growing in the coming year.

‘We as a regulator and our regulated community have worked hard to identify and combat the risks of fraud, money laundering and cybercrime, and the signs are that this is paying off. But we are all too aware of how quickly criminals adapt, so focusing on these dangers remains one of the central priorities of our monitoring work.’

Issue: 7858 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Regulatory , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll