header-logo header-logo

22 February 2012
Issue: 7502 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Surrey HSBC-free zone

County loses out following cuts to HSBC's conveyancing panel

HSBC’s decision to slash its conveyancing panel from thousands of firms across England and Wales to just 43 firms has left the county of Surrey bereft of representation.

According to law firm Hart Brown, the new panel does not include a single firm of solicitors from Surrey. Consequently, it warns, consumers may need to make a long journey if they wish to have a face-to-face meeting with their solicitor, may incur additional expense if they need to have forms witnessed by a solicitor, and will miss the benefits of local knowledge and additional advice on specialist areas such as inheritance tax planning.

David Knapp, partner at Hart Brown, says: “How can these 43 firms possibly offer the same breadth of experience, knowledge, and quality of service for consumers, when thousands of firms were managing this same workload up until a month ago?

“There are many individuals who prefer to use the same solicitor to handle all their personal affairs, yet HSBC’s approach undermines that choice by making this option more expensive than it needs to be.”

HSBC announced its new panel last month. The Law Society is campaigning against the decision and is in talks with the bank. An appeals process is in place for law firms whose application to join the panel has been rejected.

Victor Olowe, chief executive of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, has expressed concerns “that such a limited size panel risks inadvertently restricting consumer choice and distorting competition in the conveyancing market” and is calling on all lenders to “put consumer choice, transparency and fairness first”.

Issue: 7502 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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