Land Registry: Application rejected due to absence of forms
An assurance given by a solicitor in a conveyancing transaction was an undertaking, even if he did not use the word, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has ruled.
It fined veteran solicitor Robin Edward Stubbings £17,500 and said he could not be a sole practitioner for 18 months as a result of his failure to perform the undertakings he gave as the seller’s solicitor to remove a restriction on the title.
Mr Stubbings, 77 this year, qualified in 1975 and is a sole practitioner at CC Bell & Son in Bedford, which according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) register is currently in the process of closing.
The restriction required removing before the buyers could register their interest as owners and their mortgagor’s charge.
As a result of Mr Stubbings’ delays in responding to the buyers’ solicitors, Crofts, and then in providing forms RX3 (to cancel a restriction) and ST5 (the accompanying statement of truth), HM Land Registry rejected the buyers’ application.
It has since been resubmitted but by then the Land Registry fees had increased, “resulting in financial losses to the firm as well as considerable time spent chasing”, the SDT was told.
The sale completed in October 2021 but it was not until January 2023 that Mr Stubbings finally sent Crofts the correctly completed forms, having sent incorrect versions in March and November 2022.
Mr Stubbings did not attend the SDT hearing but in correspondence with the SRA denied giving an undertaking.
He wrote: “I clearly indicated to them during the conveyancing process that forms RX3 and ST5 could be provided to enable the restriction on the proprietorship register of the title to be cancelled.
“I do not believe that I gave an ‘undertaking’ as such. If I give an undertaking I actually use the word ‘undertaking’…
“I must accept that following completion I did not act quickly enough to provide the forms… and this could be deemed as somewhat discourteous, which I sincerely regret.”
He had previously told Crofts that the file was archived immediately after completion and stored offsite.
The SDT found Mr Stubbings had given various undertakings by agreeing to complete in accordance with the completion code. This included providing the documentation required by the end of the working day following completion.
“Further, and in any event, in his correspondence with Crofts, Mr Stubbings had provided an unequivocal and categoric confirmation that he would provide the documentation upon completion.
“That confirmation was reasonably relied upon by Crofts. That fact that Mr Stubbings did not expressly use the word undertake or undertaking did not mean that he had not provided the same to Crofts.”
The SDT also found proven the charge that he failed to co-operate with the SRA’s investigation, to the point where it had to serve a statutory notice to get him to provide the paperwork it needed.
However, this did not include Mr Stubbings’ failure to provide evidence of his gross income for the purposes of considering a fine.
The requirement to respond promptly and provide information to the SRA for its investigation “could not extend to information for the disposal of an investigation”. The SDT determined that Mr Stubbings was not obliged to provide the financial information requested.
In deciding on sanction, it said: “He was an extremely experienced solicitor. He had caused harm to the reputation of the profession and direct harm to Croft’s clients who had been subject to unnecessary delay and additional financial expense as a result of his inaction.”
The misconduct was “significantly aggravated” by his previous disciplinary record.
This was his second appearance before the SDT – in 2019 he was fined £15,000 for failing to complete several probate matters promptly, with one taking 15 years, and to co-operate with the SRA – while in 2022 the SRA fined him £2,000 for not having anti-money laundering controls in place, having failed to comply with an SRA request to undertake a desk-based review.
The failings in those cases “had been repeated” in this one, the SDT said, assessing the misconduct as “very serious”.
It found a fine of £17,500 to be “appropriate and proportionate”, while a restriction order was needed “to protect the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm by Mr Stubbings”.
This provides that, for 18 months, he cannot practise as a sole practitioner, a freelance solicitor or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation, nor hold either of the compliance officer roles in a law firm.
Mr Stubbings was finally ordered to pay costs of £5,500.
Leave a Comment