SPG opposes policies of a minority of lenders who do not allow SPs to act for the borrower and the lender. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has noted the Law Society’s position, namely that anti SP policies are discriminatory. SPG has had considerable success in convincing the majority of lenders to accept SPs and will continue it's campaign. There are some lenders, mainly small ones , who still remain unconvinced. Their argument is that the Compensation Fund does not guarantee sufficient redress if an SP is dishonest or fails. Whilst strictly this is correct , our argument is that there are insignificant losses made by lenders in SP default cases to outweigh the commercial and choice advantages to customers in instructing the solicitors of their choice.

SPG contact on anti-SP matters is Ian Lithman of Lithman & Co, 72 Wimpole Street, London W1M 7DD.

---

Fiona Woolf (President of the Law Society 2006/7) has been of great assistance to SPs, by working together with SPG to try to tackle anti-SP lenders.

Dear Mr Keenan

The providers of legal services are undergoing change that will effect customers such as your Company.

In my capacity, as Vice President of the Law Society, I believe that a dialogue is necessary between the representative body for Solicitors and their customers to ensure continued satisfaction of service and to address any problems that may exist.

The Law Society is committed to observing itself and encouraging its members and others to observe a policy of equality and diversity. There are many disadvantaged Solicitors who are women, are from ethnic and religious minorities and who are disabled. Many of the above do not practice in partnership and rely on conveyancing as their main fee source.

It is therefore of concern to the Law Society that your company has since 1993 refused to instruct sole practitioners resulting in the Solicitors in question losing clients.

The major Building Societies and Banks do accept sole practitioners to their mortgage panels and your Company is the largest of the few remaining lenders that will not do so.

I would like to suggest a meeting in London, Reading or Bristol with you to see whether The Law Society and the Bristol & West can work together to remove this anomaly.

It would also be practical at the same time to meet with Jan Karpinski Head of Legal at Bank of Ireland Mortgages, who has indicated that after the Clementi report he expects to review his Bank's policy on its decision not to accept further sole practitioners to their panel.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Woolf