Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
The Law Society announced last Friday the controversial “postponement” of the fifth edition of “TA6” (Announcement).
TA6 is based on key information guidance from the National Trading Standards Property and Lettings Agents Team, which is not legally binding for estate agents (MIs).
The Law Association said:
“For many members of the public, conveyancing solicitors and their teams are the face of the legal profession, ensuring hundreds of thousands of residential transfers can be carried out every year,” said Ian Jeffery, chief executive of the Law Society of England and Wales.
“Conveyancing is at the heart of the entire home buying and selling process, a process that is undergoing long-term change driven by technological advances and public policy.
“As a profession, we must embrace change, and a key role of the association is to support members through this evolution.”
“In this sense, the recent updates made to our TA6 form are intended as a practical response to the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agents Team (NTSELAT) guidance on key information. “We know that many businesses are preparing for the rollout of the new form and that thousands of copies have already been accessed.
“However, we have listened to recent feedback and recognise that we have not yet fully persuaded colleagues on these particular changes and we need to communicate further with experts about them. Taking into account the strong feelings expressed by our members on this issue, we decided this week to postpone the mandatory implementation of the TA6 Property Information Form (5th edition) (2024) for accredited CQS members by six months to permit further consultation with our members.
“To be clear, in the period up to 15 January 2025, members will be compliant with our Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) if they use TA6 (4th edition, 2nd revision) (2020) or the new TA6 Property Information Form (5th edition) (2024).
“We will be consulting further with members about the content of TA6 5 in the coming weeks.Number “We have revised the new form to ensure we have received full member feedback. In the meantime, we know that some members are using or preparing to use the new form and we ask that you continue to do so.”
The Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) has responded to the Law Society’s controversial announcement last Friday regarding the “postponement” of the fifth edition, “TA6” (Announcement).
PLAG considers this announcement unfortunate for several reasons, in particular:
+ How can the Law Society’s approach to MI be based on “pragmatism” when the implementation of MI has far-reaching civil and criminal legal implications for both members of the public and lawyers?
+ The Michigan Bar Association has not fully acknowledged the anger of its members over the lack of transparency surrounding the Michigan Bar Association’s adoption.
+ Angry members expected TA6 to be rescinded, not simply “postponed”.
+ PLAG found it odd that LS had suggested in its announcement that “until 15 January 2025, members will be CQS compliant if they use TA6 (4th edition, 2nd revision) (2020) or the new TA6 Property Information Form (5th edition) (2024)”. Jeffrey said: “This would mean that the Law Society has already made its decision.”
+ PLAG unfortunately considers the Law Society’s announcement to be condescending, particularly as one lawyer stated:
For example, he felt as if his representative body had declared war on its own members.
What next?
At the heart of the debate over TA6 is the need for transparency so that the Law Society’s actions are more clear.
Similarly, we need to have a serious discussion with our members about what 2024 has to do with legal technology.
PLAG is carefully considering its future course of action in relation to the Extraordinary General Meeting, but PLAG Chair Stephen Larcombe said: “Given the numerous objections submitted to the Law Society by PLAG, various local Law Associations and individual members about TA6 and the MI policy that underpins it, it is disappointing that the Law Society has given PLAG no choice but to begin preparations for an Extraordinary General Meeting.