Letter: Burdens we take on

Why do the Registers persist in publishing an ARTL update? I noticed this appeared again in the August Journal. I have yet to find a solicitor who uses ARTL. I presume those people using it are simply doing second securities or charging orders or similar.

Let’s face facts, the current system is dead and needs to be buried.

While on the subject of the Keeper, why do they need to “brand” the 2012 Land Registration Act? It is perhaps a symptom of the way things are going. A catchy (perhaps?) logo and a sub-brand seems to matter more than the actual substance. From my preliminary investigations the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012 puts more onus on the profession, creates less work for the Keeper, and to some extent, shifts the risk.

When will we be properly remunerated for domestic conveyancing, especially if the separate representation debate goes against separate representation? We are taking on more and more liabilities for less and less real reward. The stamp duty land tax and registration dues bill for the client is massive compared with the paltry legal fees for carrying out domestic work. It may be easier to process the paperwork that it used to be, but we are now participants in a game of pass the parcel where the liability parcel moves around and everyone’s aim seems to be to dump it on the profession.

The modus operandi of the new system is “Tell me, don’t show me”; and the subtext is “so I can blame you”. The reality of the situation is that the Registers as a public agency are better able to absorb the risk and pass on the cost through marginally increased registration dues than anyone else, but for some reason seem unwilling to do so.

On the issue of separate representation, it seems to me that the most reasonable way to proceed would be for solicitors’ firms to carry out an “execution only” service for the lenders – in other words, fill in the blanks in a proforma standard security (which the lenders will provide), register it with the title and do a personal search against the borrower and nothing else. That creates less liability for the profession, does not provide much less protection for the lender, and certainly saves the public some costs.