Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-29)
18 NOVEMBER 2003
MR JOE
TIMOTHY, MR
MIKE WESTCOTT
RUDD AND
MR FRANCIS
TWAMBLEY
Q20 Chairman: There is a disagreement
here?
Mr Twambley: I fear so, with the
greatest of respect.
Q21 Brian White: You accept that
article 11 is of doubtful vires?
Mr Twambley: As regards paragraphs
(1) and (2), yes.
Q22 Brian White: What are you doing
about rectifying it and in what timescale? What would be the consequence
of a successful challenge in the interim?
Mr Twambley: Immediately we sent
you the memorandum, we did what we promised to do, which was to
stop it. I personally sent out an e-mail to our offices to say
that in future all sums should be repaid. Our practice has been,
as regards substantive applications—for example, an application
to be registered as the owner of land—if the overpayment
exceeded £10 then we repaid the whole sum. If it were £10
or less, we retained the sum to meet administrative costs. As
regards services, for example, applying for an official copy of
the register or something, it was the equivalent of £3. Now
everybody is getting everything back. As regards overpayments,
it is really just the period from 13 October to 3 November where
there will have been some retention by us. We are not sure of
the full scale but we did a sampling exercise last week of new
applications. It appears to be about 30 applications per week.
Mr Timothy: Based on the last
financial year, each working day we dealt with 18,000 registration
applications and 45,000 of the services applications for official
copies and searches. That is, every day, 63,000 applications and
of those 30 in the course of a week have fallen within article
11(1) and (2).
Q23 Brian White: Fewer than 100 per
week?
Mr Twambley: It is 30 a week.
Q24 Brian White: It is a very small
percentage of people who could do it, but if one of them was awkward
and chose to do it, what would be the consequence?
Mr Timothy: We have placed a notice
in the Law Society's Gazette, which is the paper that the conveyancers
will read. We have put a notice on our website and we have said
that if people have reason to think they have made such an overpayment,
if they contact us, we will look into it.
Q25 Chairman: What sums have been
involved in repayments?
Mr Timothy: In the course of last
week, there were 30 cases where we made a refund of £10 or
less. Under our previous practice, those are the only cases where
we would have retained the £10 under article 11.
Q26 Chairman: Did I hear you say
you were going to advertise that on the internet?
Mr Timothy: We have placed a notice
on the internet and in this week's Law Society Gazette drawing
attention to the fact that we may have, if it was four weeks,
roughly between £1,000 and £2,000 on the basis of that
sample that people may feel they are entitled to. We would pay
the whole amount back. In the course of those four weeks, we have
probably dealt with several hundred thousand of the applications.
Q27 Andrew Bennett: What are you
going to do for the future? Are you going to just remember this
or try and amend the law?
Mr Timothy: For the future, the
law is now as it is and when we have a fees order again that provision
will be left out of it.
Q28 Andrew Bennett: You will not
attempt to amend the law to put it into line with what you hope
the position is?
Mr Timothy: It would need primary
legislation to do that.
Q29 Chairman: You answered Mr White's
question in respect of the action you have taken on the refunds
of sums collected in error under sections 11(1) and (2), when
the Department concedes it is at fault. What would be the consequences
of a successful challenge to the other powers at issue here?
Mr Twambley: It is difficult to
quantify. If the Committee would like, we could come back to you
on that question.[2]
Chairman: That would be helpful. On behalf
of the Committee, thank you very much for attending.
2 Additional memorandum not printed Back
| 
