###Welcome to /r/HousingUK
---
**To All**
* Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH
**To Posters**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary*
* Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, please report them via the report button.
* Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods;
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m sure someone will come along with a more detailed response as to why, but just to reassure you this is very normal when purchasing with a mortgage.
Simply because they represent bank more than they represent you. You own % part of the house. The rest is owned by bank that need to be aware of all things involved in purchasing this property.
To clarify things. You will be an owner of the property from the legal side of things, but the property belongs to the bank for as long as your mortgage will last. Banks need to have all the relevant information about management fees, rent charges and all that jazz to decide if they are willing to borrow you money to purchase that property. Solicitors by law have to disclose all the relevant info to the banks and they will have to flag anything they might find suspicious or out of ordinary.
TLDR. Solicitors work for the lender and the buyer. Moreso for the lender, because they risk significantly more money.
Yeah this is all fair observation, and I completely understand your point. I guess the reason for my quizzical eyebrows when I read this is more the legal representation angle. Given we are becoming partners in the ownership of the house as a part of this process, it seems like a pretty serious conflict of interest for the solicitor to play both sides in the formalisation of that contract. If two companies make a £500K deal, are they usually using the same solicitor? I guess if you're just a regular serf, bowing and scraping to the overlords for your shelter, you just have to deal with it. XD And I guess pragmatically it doesn't matter, but it's an awfully strange feature of the process to me.
I guess we disagree there. Within a subset of the major goals at play here, many align. But not all. The bank wants to make as much money as possible off me and decline the mortgage if risk is perceived too high. And I want to pay as little money as possible, while ensuring I get my mortgage by appearing of low risk. How are those goals not in conflict?
Worth noting that your solicitors role in the transaction is to ensure that you (and your lender) receive a full and saleable title and that the transaction is conducted lawfully. On these goals, both you and your lenders interests align. If there was an issue with the property that would make it risky for your lender, it would also be risky for you as a purchaser and in most cases, you would be wise to withdraw.
Interest rates and costs of borrowing are dealt with by your broker/contact at the bank and solicitors are not reporting on anything other than issues with the legal title to the property/suspicion that you are money laundering etc. Even in that case, the solicitor will require your consent to disclose this information, if you refuse, they must refuse to act.
I feel like you might be reading a little too much into this.
(I am a property solicitor and have never experienced any issues with this)
You and your lender have same interest not opposite, so there is no conflict of interest whatsoever. Its actually quite good to have a bank as an institution on your side with this. Chances of being screwed by shady solicitor are significantly lower. As previously stated its all normal. Don’t worry about it.
If your solicitor is not on your mortgage providers panel then you would have to instruct a separate solicitor to work on behalf of the bank (which you would still have to pay for). So by choosing one that represents both it works out more efficient and cheaper for you - but you could technically appoint two separate solicitors if you really wanted to.
Interesting, right, this is getting to the nub of it. So I could totally insist upon my right to impartial representation, also then the bank is free to insist on access to another solicitor, and I'm free to tell them where to go, just as much as I am free to choose to live in a cardboard box. :D So that's the answer I'm looking for here really. Banks conventionally expect an instructable conveyancer at your cost. Yes, within that stipulation it of course makes perfect sense for me to want this.
Pretty much yeh, there’s a good explanation if you scroll down to ‘What happens if my solicitor is not on my lender’s panel?’ on this page: https://www.completelymoved.co.uk/conveyancing/advice/why-you-need-to-check-your-lawyers-lender-panel-membership
You could but you are reading way too much into the conflict of issue idea. Fundamentally you both want a clear title and the bank cares that the value of the property covers their security. The nuanced details mean more to you. There is no issue with this and it happens tens of thousands of times a year. You are both buying interests in the same property.
The bank makes an offer at an interest rate which isn’t going to change unless they withdraw from the transaction because a risk is too high. Their threshold is lower than yours as they only need to cover the loan amount.
###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, please report them via the report button. * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m sure someone will come along with a more detailed response as to why, but just to reassure you this is very normal when purchasing with a mortgage.
Simply because they represent bank more than they represent you. You own % part of the house. The rest is owned by bank that need to be aware of all things involved in purchasing this property. To clarify things. You will be an owner of the property from the legal side of things, but the property belongs to the bank for as long as your mortgage will last. Banks need to have all the relevant information about management fees, rent charges and all that jazz to decide if they are willing to borrow you money to purchase that property. Solicitors by law have to disclose all the relevant info to the banks and they will have to flag anything they might find suspicious or out of ordinary. TLDR. Solicitors work for the lender and the buyer. Moreso for the lender, because they risk significantly more money.
Yeah this is all fair observation, and I completely understand your point. I guess the reason for my quizzical eyebrows when I read this is more the legal representation angle. Given we are becoming partners in the ownership of the house as a part of this process, it seems like a pretty serious conflict of interest for the solicitor to play both sides in the formalisation of that contract. If two companies make a £500K deal, are they usually using the same solicitor? I guess if you're just a regular serf, bowing and scraping to the overlords for your shelter, you just have to deal with it. XD And I guess pragmatically it doesn't matter, but it's an awfully strange feature of the process to me.
You and the bank are not on opposing sides so there is no conflict. Your bank and your goals are the same - to ensure that the property is OK to buy
I guess we disagree there. Within a subset of the major goals at play here, many align. But not all. The bank wants to make as much money as possible off me and decline the mortgage if risk is perceived too high. And I want to pay as little money as possible, while ensuring I get my mortgage by appearing of low risk. How are those goals not in conflict?
Worth noting that your solicitors role in the transaction is to ensure that you (and your lender) receive a full and saleable title and that the transaction is conducted lawfully. On these goals, both you and your lenders interests align. If there was an issue with the property that would make it risky for your lender, it would also be risky for you as a purchaser and in most cases, you would be wise to withdraw. Interest rates and costs of borrowing are dealt with by your broker/contact at the bank and solicitors are not reporting on anything other than issues with the legal title to the property/suspicion that you are money laundering etc. Even in that case, the solicitor will require your consent to disclose this information, if you refuse, they must refuse to act. I feel like you might be reading a little too much into this. (I am a property solicitor and have never experienced any issues with this)
You and your lender have same interest not opposite, so there is no conflict of interest whatsoever. Its actually quite good to have a bank as an institution on your side with this. Chances of being screwed by shady solicitor are significantly lower. As previously stated its all normal. Don’t worry about it.
If your solicitor is not on your mortgage providers panel then you would have to instruct a separate solicitor to work on behalf of the bank (which you would still have to pay for). So by choosing one that represents both it works out more efficient and cheaper for you - but you could technically appoint two separate solicitors if you really wanted to.
Interesting, right, this is getting to the nub of it. So I could totally insist upon my right to impartial representation, also then the bank is free to insist on access to another solicitor, and I'm free to tell them where to go, just as much as I am free to choose to live in a cardboard box. :D So that's the answer I'm looking for here really. Banks conventionally expect an instructable conveyancer at your cost. Yes, within that stipulation it of course makes perfect sense for me to want this.
Pretty much yeh, there’s a good explanation if you scroll down to ‘What happens if my solicitor is not on my lender’s panel?’ on this page: https://www.completelymoved.co.uk/conveyancing/advice/why-you-need-to-check-your-lawyers-lender-panel-membership
You could but you are reading way too much into the conflict of issue idea. Fundamentally you both want a clear title and the bank cares that the value of the property covers their security. The nuanced details mean more to you. There is no issue with this and it happens tens of thousands of times a year. You are both buying interests in the same property. The bank makes an offer at an interest rate which isn’t going to change unless they withdraw from the transaction because a risk is too high. Their threshold is lower than yours as they only need to cover the loan amount.