an attendance note) having been provided” to Client A. The regulator said there was “no evidence on the client file of any advice, either written (e.g. However, she was required to confirm the identity of Person B to the Land Registry and she also received £3,644 in cash from him and paid it on to the council to discharge his obligations under the lease.
Ms Ali said she did not verify Person B’s identity as he was not a client. There was a TR1 on the file, for the transfer of a registered titles, signed by Person B. The SRA said it was “likely that that the lease in question was never registered and that the property was unregistered land” – but as the lease was for a term of more than seven years, it was required to be registered. The council pursued Client A for outstanding business rates, which it had warned Ms Ali about, the lease was forfeited and Client A’s parents reached a settlement with the council. Ms Ali admitted failing to advise Client A adequately and carry out due diligence in respect of the lease, Person B’s identity and the source of funds received by the firm from him. The SRA said a solicitor carrying out a transaction for such an inexperienced client was “not justified” in expressing no opinion when “it is plain that the client is rushing into an unwise, not to say potentially disastrous adventure”. Person B, a “frequent customer” developed “what Client A believed to be” a friendship with him.Ĭlient A said that, in February 2015, Person B “advised him that he was expanding his business but was having a few difficulties and needed someone to sign some papers to rent a commercial property” for a couple of weeks.Īssignment of the lease was completed the following month, but according to Client A “he did not understand that he had taken on legal responsibility for the lease and had been duped by Person B”. The property was owned by the local authority and subject to a 25-year lease running from 2013 in favour of Person B, who was not represented by a lawyer, “apparently preferring to save on legal expenses”.Ĭlient A, aged 20, was an apprentice at a car repair shop. Ms Ali, principal of Coventry firm Maya & Co, acted for Client A between February and March 2015 in relation to the assignment of a commercial lease for the remainder of its 25-year term. also seemed to have lost sight of who was her client.” “Contrary to this basic expectation actions were ‘slap-dash’. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Ajijun Maya Ali failed to properly advise a 20-year-old client about a lease, leaving him “exposed to financial liabilities under the lease which he was unable to meet”.Īpproving an agreed outcome between Ms Ali and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the SDT said the public relied on conveyancers to “get the details right and exercise ‘eagle-eyed’ vigilance” over the whole transaction. SDT: Solicitor should have expressed opinion on transactionĪ solicitor who lost sight of who was her client and whose actions in a conveyancing transaction were described as “slapdash” has been fined £10,000.
0 kommentar(er)
