By Sheila Mckenzie-
A solicitor who wrongly advised 115 clients about the timing of their rent reviews has been fined £15,000 by a tribunal.
Carter Hughes was also ordered to pay £13,350 in costs.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
David Carter Hughes,(pictured) of Manchester firm Bannister Preston, admitted giving incorrect advice over six years and reached an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal rubber-stamped.
David prides himself in offering a personal and ‘hands on’ service, let his profession down by providing the erroneous advice with
Hughes, who is now a partner, advised the clients that ground rent on leasehold properties they were buying would double every 25 years when in fact it would double every 10 years.
Mr Hughes had conduct of all the matters in respect of which erroneous advice had been given. Application for the matter to be resolved by way of Agreed Outcome
and the parties invited the Tribunal to deal with the Allegations against the Respondent in accordance with the Statement of Agreed Facts and Outcome annexed to this Judgment.
The parties submitted that the outcome proposed was consistent with the Tribunal’s Guidance Note on Sanctions.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The firm received a complaint in 2019 from a client who said he had been wrongly advised on the terms of the lease and the cost implications. An internal investigation found that from 2008 to 2015 the firm used a precedent report on title in relation to Taylor Wimpey conveyancing matters.
The Tribunal concluded that Mr Hughes acted mistakenly as opposed to intentionally and placed too heavy a reliance upon what appeared to be bulk processing of conveyancing matters relating to Taylor Wimpey. It also concluded he had demonstrably lacked attention to detail and was directly in control in that he had conduct of the conveyancing matters and was experienced at the material time, having been 5 years qualified at the start of the misconduct and 12 years qualified at the end.
The tribunal heard that the full extent of direct harm caused by Hughes was not known, but that 115 clients had been detrimentally impacted by the erroneous advice given by
Mr Hughes which led to litigation, and the attendant stress/expense that entails, which would not have been necessary were it not for Mr Hughes’ misconduct. Claims had
been made to insurers and to the Solicitors Compensation Fund which consequentially caused harm to the reputation of the profession.
The Tribunal found that there were aggravating features in that the mistake was repeated over a protracted period and further that Mr Hughes knew or ought to have
known that inattention to detail could result in a material breach of his professional obligations and duties
The tribunal found that Hughes knew or ought to have known that inattention to detail could result in a breach of his professional obligations and duties. However, he had been open and frank with his firm, the SRA and the tribunal from the moment of the client’s complaint and showed genuine insight and acceptance of accountability.
Hughes admitted that clients should have received the correct advice but that he did not act deliberately to compromise their best interests. He explained that he had been in the process of improving client service through a more detailed report on title documents, but there had been a failure of systems and controls which led to the mistakes.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar