Viewpoints: Arrears and errors

More on title delays

J Keith Robertson, in his letter published at Journal, March 2022, 6, asks “What do others think?” From my perspective I agree with every word he writes.

In July 2018 the Keeper said in relation to applications lodged by me in June 2017 that her “top priority was to clear her backlog”. She also said that “all applications are being dealt with in date order”. No ifs, no buts – “in date order”.

However, in her email she also said: “we do have a number of teams dealing with different levels of complexity, which may seem like some applications are being dealt with quicker”. Ah – not quite “all applications… in date order”.

After regular enquiries I was told on 8 December 2021 that the Keeper was experiencing a backlog, and her staff member also mentioned that the Keeper was “committed to providing an excellent service”. 

When the land certificates were received on 22 February 2022 there were obvious errors with the plans attached and they had to be returned. In addition the name of the property printed in the title plan was in a neighbour’s property. This was over four and a half years after submission. To compound matters, in spite of pointing out the errors and receiving an acknowledgment from the Keeper, I did not receive the correct title sheets until 21 March 2022!

J S Paterson, retired solicitor

SLCC: instigating complaints?

After the SLCC encouraged a former client to complain, the former client engaged in abuse targeting our staff, which no solicitor, no paralegal and no legal receptionist should have to face. 

I have lodged a complaint with the SLCC, because there does not appear to be any cognisance of the potential for abuse in the advice it provides to the public. Furthermore, the SLCC has never made it clear that abuse of solicitors and their staff will not be tolerated. In fact, the SLCC position is that “client conduct is irrelevant”. 

This position is unacceptable and is unlawful. In terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act and under the common law, as employers solicitors have a duty of care to ensure a “safe system of work”. We also have an obligation to protect our staff from discrimination, including discrimination from clients or other members of public. The SLCC’s current position is untenable, as it is incompatible with health and safety law, the common law and the Equality Act. 

I have therefore asked that an apology is issued to my firm for the SLCC’s conduct in this case; for an express acknowledgment that abuse from clients is never acceptable; and for the SLCC to acknowledge that client conduct is relevant to complaints, and that it should not force solicitors and their staff to face clients again who have been abusive, or allow complaints handling procedures to be used to abuse, or discriminate. 

Daniel Donaldson, principal solicitor, Legal Spark