The Law Society has extended its deadline by six months for compulsory use of a revised version of the TA6 form, after property lawyers voiced concerns
However, the Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) described the extension as ‘disappointing’ and called this week for the revised TA6 to be scrapped altogether. PLAG is arranging a special general meeting for a vote of no confidence in the Law Society’s chief executive officer Ian Jeffery and president Nick Emmerson.
The Law Society says it updated TA6 as a ‘pragmatic response’ to the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team’s guidance on material information (MI).
PLAG says the guidance is not legally binding on estate agents, while MI could mean flawed information is included, putting solicitors and vendors at risk of complex litigation or of committing a criminal offence.
PLAG’s response stated: ‘How could the Law Society’s approach to MI be predicated on “pragmatism” when its implementation would have far-reaching civil and criminal legal consequences for both the public and solicitors?
‘The Law Society has not appreciated the full extent of members’ anger over the lack of transparency concerning the adoption by the Law Society of MI. Angry members expected therefore the TA6 to be withdrawn, not merely “postponed”.’
All conveyancers must now use the new TA6 from 15 January 2025.
In a Law Society message to members last week, Jeffery said: ‘We have listened to recent feedback and recognise that we have not yet persuaded enough of our colleagues on those particular changes, so we need to do more to communicate with the profession about them.
‘Having reflected on the strength of feeling expressed by members on this issue we have this week decided to postpone compulsory implementation… for six months while we consult members further.’
In April, PLAG gave written evidence to the Commons levelling up committee that the Post Office scandal shows data should be ‘openly accessible/verifiable by all persons who must rely on the integrity of such information at law… No data produced by law tech justifies the abandonment of the detailed due diligence normally carried out by property lawyers’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
