Stan The Man wrote:

In article k, Larry
Stoter wrote:

(snip)

The owner went through the process of getting a Certificate of Lawful
Use. No real problem, since the neighbours didn't want anybody keeping
pigs or hens on the land! However, this process took over 6 months!

Once the certificate was finally issued, the lender was prepared to
proceed. Something that did come out in all this was that our solicitor
was not only acting for us but was also acting for the lender, creating
a clear conflict of interest. Apparently, this is standard practise. I
would, however, strongly advise anybody buying a house to insist that
their solicitor/conveyancer act solely for them - if we had done this,
the whole problem might not have arisen.

Indeed it is standard practice and I think it's a good thing. It's
certainly a good thing, if inconvenient, to get all permissions cleared
before buying a house, if only to ensure a) that you're not buying
something that will have to be pulled down and b) that when you come to
sell, the process will be swift and smooth. Nor would anything have
been different had separate legal advisors been operating for your
mortgage lender: they would still have to see all the documentation and
should still flag up any irregularities.

(snip)

Simon

No, it is not a good thing. It creates a potential for a direct conflict
of interest. It is not possible for the same solicitor to act both in my
interests and in the interests of the lender in the event that problems
arise.

Typical, in my opinion, of the nice, cosy sort of 'arrangement' that the
legal profession like because it is profitable.
--
Larry Stoter