Updates to the Conveyancing Quality Scheme

USER by Duncan Finlyson

Introduction

Despite there having been a fairly substantial update of the Conveyancing Quality Scheme in February of this year, there has not been a great deal of comment, either on the Law Society’s website or in the legal or other press, about those changes. Having come into eff ect on 1 May, the changes mean that all CQS accredited fi rms are now expected to have updated their processes to comply with the requirements of the new Core Practice Management Standards (CPMS). The lack of clear information, however, means that many fi rms will not even be aware of those changes and may struggle to know what is expected of them, given that there has been very little explanation from Law Society, who have simply referred fi rms on their website to the out-of-date CQS Toolkit which was published back in June 2019.

Background to CQS

The Law Society introduced the CQS in 2010 as a means of addressing not only the increasingly widespread practice of illegal property fraud that was, and continues to be, prevalent but also as a means of enabling solicitors to demonstrate best practice in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

It is described by the Law Society as “a recognised quality standard for residential conveyancing practices” with the potential to “minimise your practice’s risks of claims and protect your brand’s reputation”.

Whilst there can be no doubt that, if the requirements of the CPMS are implemented and followed, there will inevitably be an increase in the quality of the work undertaken by fi rms. Unfortunately, the lack of any vigorous quality checking has meant that for many fi rms, compliance is very much a question of paying lip service and hoping that they will not be one of the fi rms subject to what even the Law Society describes as “a small number of on-site visits each year”.

The result of this is that many remain unconvinced as to the eff ectiveness of the Scheme, with many seeing it simply as a means for the Law Society to raise funds from a lucrative area of practice, with the limited range of “authorised” CQS training providers (the Law Society and The Access Group), combined with the requirement for accredited training, ensuring that yet further fees are garnered by the Society.

So what are the changes to CQS?

The most obvious change to the CPMS is that many of the paragraphs have been renumbered and regrouped and there are now seven sections rather than the previous six. Sections entitled “Structure and Strategy” and “People Management” have been added whilst “Supervision and operational risk management” has been dropped. There is also a glossary of core terms preceding the seven numbered sections.

IT IS DESCRIBED BY THE LAW SOCIETY AS “A RECOGNISED QUALITY STANDARD FOR RESIDENTIAL CONVEYANCING PRACTICES”

Those who are Infolegal members can access a destination table showing how all of the former and new provisions inter-relate and provisions and guidance dealing with the standards can be found in the Infolegal Offi ce Procedures Manual.

There has been a substantial simplifi cation of the data protection compliance requirements and the previously anomalous requirement for a fi rm to appoint a Data Protection Offi cer (DPO) has been removed. Another requirement which has also been simplifi ed is in relation to information management and security – although the reference to Cyber Essentials continues.

The new CPMS have incorporated from Lexcel the requirement to have a register of plans and policies and the requirement to have induction processes.

There are a number of new, or more onerous, requirements placed upon fi rms. These include a requirement at 5.12.k for there to be a documented individual AML risk assessment on every fi le, a documented fraud risk assessment on every fi le and enhanced requirements where there is a high risk of fraud. There are also enhanced requirements in relation to SDLT (including providing the client with information about SDLT and a SDLT calculation at the outset of the matter), the information provided in leasehold matters and in relation to dealings with lenders.

In several other places, the new Standards are less onerous. Among these is in relation to the information to be provided to clients at the outset of a matter. Some of the omissions come across as errors, given that in some cases, for example in relation to costs estimates, there is a duty elsewhere to provide updated information when those details change – despite there being no requirement to provide the information in the fi rst place. There is also a mistake in that there are two standards that are both numbered 5.8. This may cause problems going forward if fi rms incorporate existing numbering into manuals only to have that numbering changed at a later date. Since the second 5.8 and 5.9 used to be the same provision (3.5) possibly they can be recombined so as to cause as little disruption as possible.

Conclusion

The latest version of the CPMS has the feel of a standard that has been drafted in a hurry and is aimed at those who do not operate client portals or use the more forward-looking conveyancing management software.

The fact that it is a standard that is not rigorously checked, applies only to solicitors and yet is an essential for many panel memberships is a defi nite failing. Hopefully, however, with more thought and work, it can become something that is more relevant, and which will help conveyancing fi rms to develop and to improve the overall quality of services that the public receives.

To fi nd out more about how Infolegal can assist your fi rm with its CQS compliance, please email enquiries@infolegal.co.uk.

Duncan Finlyson is a director of Infolegal, which provides guidance on this issue, including templates and policies tailored for sole practitioner users. For more information go to www.infolegal.co.uk.