Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I welcome to the Committee Claire McNamee, conveyancing and non-contentious business lead for the Law Society of Northern Ireland; Catherine Heyes, partner at Peter Bowles & Co Solicitors; and Simon Murray, partner at Murray Kelly Moore Solicitors. This is a really pertinent issue that the Committee is interested in hearing about. We have your written evidence, which we have read and appreciate you sending. If you do not mind, could you outline the key points in about five minutes? I am keen to come to members' questions about our understanding of what we have read and what you brief us on. Thank you.

Ms Claire McNamee (Law Society Northern Ireland): Thank you very much for inviting us. As you said, I am the conveyancing and non-contentious business lead for the Law Society. I was previously a solicitor in private practice. I am joined by Catherine and Simon, who are both members of our conveyancing and property committee at the Law Society. I will raise issues concerning property certificates and adoption of roads and sewers. Those issues pose significant risks as regards conveyancing practice not only to solicitors when they are advising on title but to any homeowner.

I will start with property certificates. In the purchase of a domestic property, a solicitor has to comply with their obligations. The home charter scheme is mandatory and sets out certain things that you need to do to certify that title is good and marketable. That means that a solicitor reviews the contents of a regional property certificate, which gives details of whether a road or sewer is adopted and maintained. The questions regarding the adoption of roads and sewers used to generate one-word answers: yes or no. From NI Water, that was particularly helpful.

We did a survey that indicated that there is a lack of consistency and that members are not always convinced by the responses. We have provided an example of two houses that are four doors apart. The property certificates were obtained weeks apart, but the responses were different. A solicitor relied on one, which said that everything was all right, but, a couple of weeks later, the response to the other one was different, which totally changed the game. That gets into the road bond, as well as the status of the adoption of the roads and sewers.

NI Water, in its response, now says only whether there is infrastructure within 20 metres of the boundary of a site. It is difficult for a solicitor to say, "Yes, this is good and marketable", because having infrastructure within 20 metres does not mean that a property is connected to a sewer. The solicitor's obligation is not only to certify title to their client but, where a lender is involved, to confirm that roads and sewers are adopted. In the example of the two property certificates that we obtained, the sewers were not adopted, the developer had left, and NI Water indicated to the individual homeowners that the works that were needed would cost about £8,500 each. Therefore, for a solicitor, there is no certainty or guarantee that they can rely on the contents.

We cannot understand how, given the undertaker's duty to connect, they say they have no knowledge of the connections, but individual homeowners can pay around £250 to get an inspection, where NI Water will come out and confirm that. We know that it has been considered in the past and that the 2012 inquiry recommended that the certificate include a legal opinion on the condition of roads and sewers and their adoption status. It is difficult to provide a legal opinion on that, because it is a matter of fact. It is our request that the property certificates contain enough information regarding the bonds so that we can do our duties in certifying titles as good and marketable.

The second issue is the adoption of roads and sewers. We welcome the private Member's Bill that will try to address that issue. We have been following it with interest. We are receiving more and more queries from solicitors on the issue. We know that bond limits were increased, but we note that, in the past, bonds were either insufficient or had not been enforced. A solicitor is required, as part of their requirements to UK Finance, to confirm whether a bond is suitable. That is increasingly difficult to do. Under the legislative provisions, individual homeowners can be liable for the costs of final adoption at a later date.

The most recent house price index for quarter 3 indicates that the average price of a new-build property is £236,410. The price of a new build is meant to account for the cost of a builder, including any works that they need to do. We need to have confidence that undertakers are setting realistic bond values that are enough to cover that work. It also needs to account for inflation, as was noted in 2012 as well.

We have highlighted an action against a developer for unauthorised connections, where the fine was £3,000, costs were £4,000 and costs were to be recovered for the remedial work at a later date. That is not really a strong message. NI Water states that buyers and solicitors should obtain robust assurances from the vendor that all sewerage and water services have been legitimately installed. How are solicitors meant to do that? That is the duty of the undertaker. They put the bond in place and enter into it, and they need to make sure that it is sufficient so that a solicitor can rely on that. Again, our issue is that we do not have enough information to do all the due diligence that we need to do. If those issues go unaddressed, solicitors cannot really advise, and, without that confidence, there is a real risk for people who are buying not only new but existing developments where adoption has not completed.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you: 10 gold stars because that was five minutes on the dot. Well done. You have obviously done this before. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: There are no bonus points, Chair. Wait until later and we have seen how it goes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you for that. We appreciate it.

What specific changes does the Law Society believe need to be made to existing provisions on road and sewer bonds?

Ms McNamee: Where a property certificate says, "Is there a bond available?", there should really be a full summary that gives an overview of the bond and the date of the bond. If it is a large development, for example, there might be five, six or seven road bonds. It could list all the bonds that affect the development and maybe also outline whether any preliminary adoption has taken place. That would mean that you get an accurate picture of what that bond is at any given point. That would be helpful for those relevant undertakers. It would be an easy way to monitor and keep track of how the bonds are going, because they have to check the database to do the property certificates.

It would be helpful if it were certified that, "Oh, this is a new development", or, "This is an old development. The bond is x years old, and it has not even got halfway to adoption". That immediately shows you that there may be a red flag, and you could say, "Maybe there is an issue. I need to do a bit more here". At the minute, you are saying, "Yes, there is a bond", or, "No, there is not". That is not enough for us to then have to try to make enquiries. You are meant to be able to rely on a bond if you are buying a new property.

Mr Simon Murray (Murray Kelly Moore Solicitors): The vendor is selling their house. Say they bought a house in 2008 or 2009, there is a bond in place and the roads have not been adopted, the vendor will have no idea why it has not been adopted. They have no information. The only thing that would come up is that, if the developer has been notified that they have not done certain works, a notice would appear. However, it is rare to see that: I think that I have seen it once. You are completely in the dark as to the status of the bond, and you are just going, "There is the bond. The bond should be OK", but that could have been 20 years ago or 15 years ago. You are assuming that the built-in amount in that bond is sufficient to cover the make-up of the roads.

Ms Catherine Heyes (Peter Bowles & Co Solicitors): Simon mentioned that it reaches a point where there is a notice recorded of enforcement action, but there must be a process leading up to that. It would be useful for there to be some information on the property certificate that that process has started or that flags have been raised, so that we know that it is heading down that road.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It is really about transparency for you and homeowners. That is really what it boils down to.

What engagement have you had with DFI to raise those concerns? You do not have to give the full history, just a brief timeline of how long you have been discussing it with DFI and where you have got to.

Mr Murray: It might be helpful to you if we discuss the whole nature of the property certificate. I am the person who is most experienced here, with respect. I have been doing conveyancing for 40 years. When I first started, the information on the property certificate was basic. It was, "Are the roads adopted? Are the sewers adopted? Yes or no?". In, I think, about 2012, the property certificates were centralised down in Enniskillen, and there was a bit more information on them. There was a change in what NI Water put on the property certificates, and they started to mention sewers traversing the property. That one word, "traversing", required us to go down a rabbit hole and obtain NI Water maps to see where the sewers were.

Similarly, as of three years ago and much more seriously for us, instead of a no or yes answer to, "Are the sewers adopted? Is the water adopted?", we now have a vague answer that will say, "Yes" but caveats that with, "There is something within 20 metres of the property". We have had two meetings with NI Water. At the first meeting, we explained to NI Water the uncertainty of the response: it says, "There is something within 20 metres", but it does not say whether it is connected. At that stage, we asked NI Water whether they could revert to a more definitive answer. From what we gathered at that meeting, there is a lack of information about whether a lot of properties are connected. That is the nub of the issue.

Ms McNamee: It is about resource.

Mr Murray: The uncertainty is dealt with through our process. In the pre-contract enquiries that a vendor completes in the sale process, they are asked, "Do you think the water is connected? Do you think the sewers are connected?". They answer yes, but they do not actually know. NI Water does not seem to know how many of its properties are connected.

Ms McNamee: In the correspondence that we have had from NI Water, its view is that, once something happens, it does not know how many houses are connected to any public infrastructure. NI Water says, "There is no way for us possibly to know that", but our view is that, especially for new builds, if a connection charge is paid for each house, surely a record should be held. I have spoken to builder developers, and they say they usually get NI Water out directly to do any water connections, as developers do not like to get involved in that stuff.

Fundamentally, it is a resource issue. When a request for a regional property certificate comes in, it is circulated to the different Departments. At the minute, the regional property certificate unit has a malfunction: its IT system was all digitised and stopped filtering questions, so all the questions went to DAERA, which is for anyone who has a septic tank, and that should be the minority. There are issues there.

When I was in private practice, I often requested a specific map from the Department for Infrastructure, and it said, "We do not have the resource to go and check every single thing". It is a systematic fact that it has not been funded and has not been a priority. I was qualified in England and Wales, where, if you have a water search done, you get a 20-page document. If you have a roads one, it may not be as specific but there are maps. Here, some of the older road maps are in crayon or highlighter and are rough. As time went on, Land Registry did a spatial mapping project with Ordnance Survey to update the maps, but the Departments do not seem to have kept pace with that. Therefore, you may be relying on a map that does not reflect your boundary. That all causes confusion for the consumer. Inevitably, a surveyor or professional mapper has to be brought in to do an overlay. In any discussions that we have had, the regional property certificate unit is as helpful as it can be, but it is limited by the constraints of the Departments that formulate the responses.

Similarly, if you get a local council property certificate for building control, it gives a full explanation of what certain things mean. NI Water does not provide anything like that. We think that it would be helpful to include explanatory notes in a property certificate. An NI Water map has a big disclaimer about the accuracy of the map and asks you to let it know if you see anything on the map that is not right.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It is bonkers that NI Water does not know the number of homes that are connected and not connected. That is bonkers. A person's property certificate could be anything.

Mr McMurray: It is ambiguous, yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We are talking not only about unadopted developments but about adopted developments. Am I right that there are property certificates that may not be valid?

Ms McNamee: Yes.

Mr Murray: We are now relying on the representation of a vendor. For example, I have lived in my property for a long time, and I am pretty sure that it is connected but do not know that definitively. If you have problems with your sewers or your water, you have to disclose that in your pre-contract enquiries. Most people will say, "No, I have no problems with my water and no problems with my sewers", but they do not know that definitively. The property certificate, in which the yes is watered down with, "There is something within 20 metres", is unsatisfactory.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK.

Ms McNamee: There are also a lot of roads, streets and developments that are, by choice, private. For example, there might be one where there is infrastructure within 20 metres but you also need 15 metres of private stuff to get there, so it really does not help you to narrow that down as to whether it is a design by choice and maybe a management company is responsible for the private bit.

It is about the cost as well: the consumer ultimately pays for it. They pay £70 plus VAT for that and then likely £19 or £20 for an NI Water map. To be honest, given the price of a property certificate versus the price of a house, which is going up, I think that most solicitors would welcome it and recommend that, if the price has to go up slightly to allow us to have certainty in the response, it is worth it, because the solicitor's role is to protect the consumer's interest. They are buying a house, and we are saying, "As of right now, when you buy it, the title is good. There is nothing that means that someone will tell you that you cannot have a dog, a cat or something like that in your title. There is nothing in it to say that someone is allowed to walk across your driveway because they have an easement over it. We can confirm that the Department will maintain the roads outside your street and that no one is going to give you a bill. It is the same for the sewers". That is the solicitor's role. We are coming into a matter of contract. We are relying on the representation and replies to pre-contract enquiries by a vendor, and that is not really it either.

It comes down to enforcement of the bond as well, which is why our submission links the two. I know that not only the Committee but the Assembly as a whole has been considering that. It is hard to separate the two.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Going back, my question was about DFI-specific engagement. You talked about speaking to NI Water. What representation have you had with previous Ministers, the current Minister or DFI officials specifically on this?

Ms McNamee: I am not long in this role, and I have had a host of things to get through. Roads is not as much of an issue, because, generally, you can trust the roads. When we did our survey of conveyancing solicitors last June, we asked, "What are the questions that you follow up the property certificate with about?", and the most frequent answer was, "NI Water issues". We also have our resourcing to think about. We have a host of things on the conveyancing and property side to get to. It is on our radar, but we have not got to it yet, because we feel that we need to sort the NI Water one before we go to roads.

Mr Murray: As far as I know, we have had no engagement with the Department on roads. I am sure that everybody in the room has come across situations where somebody buys a property and the road has not been adopted, and then there is an issue with that. The road could be in terrible condition, which makes it really difficult for people even to get to their houses. We are aware that it is still a big issue. On the property certificate for that, the answer to the question of, "Are the roads maintained?" will be no. Then, a couple of paragraphs down, it will say, "but there is a road bond." That is still difficult for us, because we do not know whether that road bond is sufficient to cover the cost of the road being adopted. It goes back to what we said: the information is just, "There is a road bond. It is there". Generally, solicitors say, "Well, I'm OK here. I know the road's not adopted, but the road bond's there, and I'm sure, in the bond, there are sufficient moneys to cover the cost of adoption". That is what we are doing.

Ms McNamee: We used to be able to rely on that, but now we see the influx of historical bonds that maybe were not priced correctly or maybe more was released. Usually, the road is not adopted because there are issues with the sewerage infrastructure. That is the problem.

Mr Murray: It could be interconnected.

Ms McNamee: Our priority has been to address the anomalies with NI Water.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Committee members will certainly be well aware of it from dealing with constituents. There are about 19,000 unadopted developments in Northern Ireland. We are certainly concerned about that.

This is my last question before I go to other members. In the society's view, how could the bond be future-proofed to protect homeowners, so that they do not face large costs for remedial works? Will you comment on that briefly?

Ms McNamee: There needs to be engagement with the likes of the Construction Employers Federation, the other warranty people and, potentially, the banks, because they give the surety. The developers that I speak to say, "Oh, it hinders us as well, because, sometimes, it takes so long for all of these inspections to take place after that 12-month maintenance period". They have all that money sitting as a bond paying interest in the bank, so there needs to be engagement from all the relevant parties involved.

There also need to be realistic bond value figures. I do not think that anybody really knows how the figures are calculated. I know that they went up massively last year or the year before, but there is no detail on how they are worked out. There needs to be transparency around how they are calculated, so that there is not just a figure. That will, obviously, have a procurement impact, because a builder will likely be able to do that work for themselves at significantly less cost than what it would cost an NI Water contractor, for example, to do it, probably because they are doing unknown works and might have to start from scratch or whatever. There needs to be more transparency around how bond values are set.

Mr Murray: If we are honest, it is a classic example of the fallout of the property crash. In 2007, when everything started to come back on us, I acted for about four or five smallish builders who did small developments of three or four houses. None of them survived that; they just disappeared. The completion of the roads and sewers was put back, because there was no developer on site. The cost of the bond at that time should have been sufficient to allow somebody else to come in, finish that work off and adopt it. Since 2007, 2008 and 2009, it has just drifted and there has been inflation. I am from north Down. That figure of 19,000 really shocks me. Most developments seem to have got round it, but, obviously, huge numbers did not. That is back to money, really.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I should have said, "1,900". Apologies. I want to correct the record.

Mr Murray: It is still a large number. It is a shocking number.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It is. A large amount of the population are living in that situation.

Mr Stewart: Thank you so much for the submission and presentation. It is really useful and topical; scarcely a day passes when I am not contacted by a constituent who is affected in this way. I thank your members, who often go above and beyond doing what they can to represent the interests of house sellers in this respect.

You talked about enforcement of the bond: that is a big frustration for me. It seems that, often, there is a real lack of willingness on the part of the Department to go down that route. I am dealing with a case that is 19 years in, in which 90% of the bond has been handed back but none of the area has been developed and we still cannot get access to the bond to complete the works that, we are told, need to be done. How often is that your experience? Why is that the case? Why is there such reluctance, do you think, to go down the road of spending the bond money to complete the works on behalf of residents?

Ms McNamee: It is difficult for us to say why that is not enforced. That is maybe a policy decision of the Department. It is maybe because of the character of people here and them thinking, "Oh, we'll give him a chance. It is tough times. We'll go".

Mr Stewart: For 19 years.

Ms McNamee: I remember seeing maybe only one where they went down the route of putting a charge on the property. They put a statutory charge on but did not follow up with any work, so there is still £100,000 worth of statutory charges on a big development. I do not know. The problem is that we do not really know how it is prioritised, and it would be interesting to know how many of those 1,900 are on track and looking as though they will go fine. The majority of them probably go quite well. The Minister was saying 8% or 10% or something. It is still significant, but how are they tracked? It would be interesting to know, when you accept a bond or enter into a bond, whether due diligence is happening in the background to say, "Well, actually, there is that developer, and they have been this company name or this company name or this company name". That would enable the tracking of repeat offenders.

Ultimately, it is about how the Department deals with it, but you would like to think that it would, if there is a bond in place and the ability to set penalties. Is it maybe an initial short-sightedness and a case of being penny wise and pound foolish? It is like, "Oh, well, we cannot afford to recruit enforcement officers", but then you have hundreds of thousands of pounds running away for work for which money has to be found from the public purse or paid for by individual homeowners. I can imagine that, if I were a homeowner, having bought a house that, I thought, was amazing, and thought that everything was fine and looked all right and then was told, "Oh, well, actually, it is £8,000 for you and £8,000 for everybody in the development", it would be a total shock. Whether it is a resource issue, we do not know. We will need to discuss that with the Department.

Mr Stewart: You are absolutely right.

Mr Murray: That is appalling, but it is probably not unique.

Mr Stewart: I know that it is not unique, because I have heard other examples.

Mr Murray: We have to make a judgement call. Say I am doing a transaction with Catherine, and Catherine provides me with the contract and title. There is a road bond in place, and it is maybe 10 years old. I am starting to ask, "What is the functionality of that development? What is the road like?". I would be saying to the client, "Are the roads potholed? Are they just about to be adopted?".

The other factor that comes into it is if it is a large development. Some of the developments in Bangor started in 2003 or 2004, and there are 400 or 500 houses. The solicitor gets a wee bit relaxed in those circumstances, because he goes, "Well, the development was finished only two or three years ago". Even going back to the one with 19 years, the development might not have been finished 19 years ago but that person maybe bought into it early on. That then causes real uncertainty, and we are just taking a risk.

Ms Heyes: We are.

Mr Murray: We are, aren't we?

Ms Heyes: If I am acting on the sale side, Simon is often asking me, "What is the issue? What is happening with the roads?", and —

Mr Murray: "Where are we?".

Ms Heyes: — I am trying to find out. There is never really any information. What I might get back is, "Oh, well, we are liaising with the developer. There is still work to be done", but it is hard to tease out what work, how long it has been going on and whether there is an issue. Yes, as Simon says, we are all having to make a bit of a call and, more importantly, advise clients to make a bit of a call. We can say to them, "This is possibly an issue", but people want their house [Inaudible.]

Mr Murray: I have only had one — Claire mentioned that she had had one; I do not know whether you have had one, Catherine — where it has said that there was an enforcement notice.

Ms Heyes: No, I have not.

Mr Murray: My client just did not buy. We just said, "It is unquantifiable what cost you will have to contribute towards this", and, basically, that development is probably one of the 1,900.

Ms Heyes: It is a messaging issue as well, because, as Simon says, if you tell a client that there is enforcement action being taken because of the infrastructure situation, they will not buy. However, if you tell them that there is a bit of a delay in getting the roads made up, people generally seem to be happy enough that. I think that they all assume, as Claire said, "We are paying for this new house. Everything is built into that. It will be fine". Even the suggestion, as we mentioned, of the enforcement action being contemplated or more information about the issues might be a better way of messaging and letting people know what they are buying.

Mr Stewart: I think that we can all agree that the bond definitely was not high enough before. It may well still not be enough, otherwise we would not face these issues. If someone took a bond for a development 15 years ago and the work still needs to be done, with inflation and the cost of repairs, it will inevitably not be enough, especially when you start digging underground, where the majority of the problems will lie. That is when they find them.

Mr Murray: There is one other thing that you touched on that is interesting. Again, I have come across this only a couple of times. Sometimes, there is a minor issue with the sewers and water that prohibits the roads from being adopted and the whole thing from being done. I had a couple of transactions where that came up. When we dug down a bit deeper, we found that they were not major issues. If that bit was done, the whole thing would be done. I wonder whether that would be worth looking into in some of these. How many of these are where the roads completely need to be done and all the sewers and everything needs to be done, or is it only a minor bit of work needing to be done and that would resolve the whole issue?

Mr Stewart: That is the case, Simon. Certainly, where I and other representatives have had success, it is by pulling together the processes, making sure that NI Water is speaking with DFI and that they are trying to get hold of the developer.

I go back to enforcement. Certainly, if a developer has not responded to four legal notices, they are not going to play ball. I know that we are a nice bunch of people in Northern Ireland and we give people the benefit of the doubt, but there has to be a point where enforcement kicks in undoubtedly.

I have two more points to ask about, Chair. On best practice, is there anywhere else around these islands or around the world that you have looked at where that surety and bond process is done better? How can we get a balance around that?

Ms McNamee: It is hard to compare the two. In England, a lot of the developers are massive companies, and they obviously have the resource. Here, we have more local builders. That is the difficulty. It is hard to compare anywhere with here, because Northern Ireland is unique in the demographic of its builders. That is another issue that we foresee with the proposal that developers might be asked to contribute towards the infrastructure. In essence, that has the potential to push those small people out of business. Where will they pass the price to? It will be to the consumer, and then, if you are talking £200,000-odd for a new house, plus whatever that infrastructure cost will be to cover any kind of bond or contribution that they have to make, it is just, "Lights out"; it makes it not feasible.

Mr Stewart: It is fair to put it on the record that the overwhelming majority of developers and builders do an excellent job. However, those who have fallen through the cracks in those 1,900 developments are paying the price. When you look at the punishments that are being handed out, you see that the fines are nowhere near enough, as you said, Claire, if they are issued at all. That, to me, is not a sanction.

Finally, I am interested to hear about how could that be better.

Mr Murray: This might be interesting for you, because it comes back to a positive in funding. On a committee that we were involved with, we looked at this with Claire's predecessor. I asked this question: "What happens in England? What does their property certificate say?". We got a copy of their property certificate, and the first question was, "Is it connected? Yes". It was not, "Do we think that it is connected?"; it was, "Yes, it is connected". When we dug more deeply, we realised that that was because of water metering. As you know, in England, you pay your rates, and you do not pay for your water in your rates. That might be a solution to it. For all new houses, when you get your building control completion certificate, that should cover, "Yes, the water is connected" and, "Yes, the sewer is connected". You have your building control completion certificate. Going forward, we would not have that issue.

The other thing is that, if we were looking at funding, water metering and water rates might be a way of bringing in money to resolve the issue of non-connections.

Mr Stewart: We will not open that can of worms today. [Laughter.]

Mr Murray: I know, but —. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We want peace and goodwill in the Committee today.

Mr Boylan: We are all suggesting things.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much for your presentation. Some of my points have been touched on.

You are the answer to all this, to be honest with you. [Laughter.]

If I am going to buy a house, there will be three people involved: the developer, the lender and the solicitor giving advice. Everybody automatically thinks that these things are there. When I bought my house, I automatically thought that there was a water connection and a sewer connection, and that was it. I have some sympathy with the developers, but we need a proper certificate that covers everything. You are right to ask those questions: they should be there.

We can argue the funding — government has a role in dealing with that issue — but I want to separate it into two things. One is about how we look at those 1,900. The Chair will introduce a Bill in the House. It will be interesting to see what we can bring in to resolve that and your participation in how it progresses. The property certificate is a major thing for us. We will not do it unless we have contact with the developer or the lenders or all those parts — the sum of its parts, really. We will not do it unless we get that down there. I am glad that you are in today as we take evidence and go through this.

Those who sit on councils and say that they will allow a development of 20 or 100 houses have a responsibility as well. We have to meet our need, but there is a broader conversation. I open those points.

It is interesting, and the more people who are involved, the better. You mentioned the New Homes Quality Board and the Northern Ireland working group: what does that constitute? Can you comment on that?

Ms McNamee: There are two things there. There is an internal Law Society group. We are examining how new builds work, and we are looking at the whole process. We are looking to see whether there is anything that we can build in, from a risk perspective, as best practice that would then be mandatory for all solicitors as part of the home charter scheme. As for the New Homes Quality Board, the Building Safety Act 2022 is in place in England but not here. It brings in the likes of an ombudsman to deal with complaints that people have about the builder, once they have built their house, or through the process. That board has developed a code, and there is a Northern Ireland working group to look at that code, with the ultimate goal of it becoming a single code that all developers have to adhere to.

There are other codes. The National House Building Council (NHBC) has its codes. Other builders have theirs. There is no single code. I think that the intention is that it would become the single code for builders over here. For now, it has its own issues, because you have to pay to sign up to be a part of the scheme and things like that. Without the legislative backing on that, where it is something that can be enforced, it is up to builders to say what they want to do. Again, that probably has an impact on the bottom line as well, when they are pricing out, per house, how much of a warranty they will get and things like that.

There is a Northern Ireland working group. The warranty people, the Consumer Council and Advice NI are on it. The Law Society is a member as well. It is something that the group could perhaps consider. If any suggestions came in, they could be raised there. You have everybody who is in the process — builders and developers as well — in that group. That is a central group that has already been established and has the expertise across the board to think about what some of the issues are and how to deal with them.

Mr Boylan: OK. I have two direct questions. I hope that you are able to answer them. Do you foresee a time — obviously, it is new builds now, because of the problems and some issues — when we will have a certificate that covers everything? I ask that because, if I go out and see a price on a house and decide to offer £250,000, I expect that everything will be there. Do you foresee a time when we will be able to get a certificate? An individual would come to you for advice and to sign the paper and that is it: they have done the deal.

Mr Murray: On a new build, in the subcommittee, what we are trying to do is say that, before you pay your money over, those documents have to be in place. As I said, for me, the building control completion certificate is always the most important one, because the building control officer comes out to say that it is all OK, but that does not cover connections.

Mr Boylan: That is the point there.

Mr Murray: Going forward, on a new build, the answer is yes. Is it really that difficult for a building control officer to say, "The water is connected. I have tested it. The sewer is connected"? Somebody buying a new house wants to know that they have their connections. The answer to that question is yes, because you have your NHBC certificate or your 10-year guarantee, you have your building control completion certificate, and you have those on completion. Our system is set up now, and you cannot complete without those. The purchaser does not pay the money without those.

The answer for a new build is OK, but an existing property is different, because, historically, we do not know whether those things are connected. To rectify that, either we get a more definitive answer from NI Water in the property certificate than the one that we get at the moment or it reviews all the properties in Northern Ireland to say which are and which are not connected. I do not think that that will happen.

Mr Boylan: Have no challenge cases been taken yet?

Mr Murray: No. Since they made the change, no solicitor whom I know has been caught out by that yet. The answer is no, but it has been a real bugbear for me in the past three or four years. I have been on a sort of crusade about protecting ourselves from this, and we have set up a special practice direction: if you get your property certificate, you check your replies to make sure that the vendor says that everything is connected and you look at your property certificate and maybe get an NI Water map. However, we have nothing definitive in those answers. So, for the second part, when you are buying an existing house, it is not 100% guaranteed.

Ms McNamee: In the discussions, NI Water said that you could assume a connection based on this kind of stuff.

Mr Boylan: Chair, let me tease this out a wee bit, please. As a consumer, I buy in good faith, so I accept those standards. Now, we have got to a situation in which one of the providers says, "We don't have that", even though there is a big sign up saying, "Come buy me". As a consumer, I have rights. That is really what I am getting at.

Mr Murray: I understand that.

Mr Boylan: You understand the point.

Mr Murray: One hundred per cent.

Mr Boylan: I understand that the Chair's point is slightly different, but I am trying to get to that point.

I have one final question. The Construction Employers Federation might not appreciate the question, but I will ask it. Have there been conversations about finishing those developments phase by phase?

Ms McNamee: The final adoption?

Mr Boylan: Yes, exactly.

Ms McNamee: The problem with the adoption is that they do not usually start at the end of the site.

Mr Boylan: I understand. I am not saying [Inaudible.]

Ms McNamee: I think that that is the argument.

Mr Boylan: Yes, that is the point. If 500 houses are going to be built over five years and I go in in the first phase, I am sitting there. There is a [Inaudible.]

There may or not be lighting; I do not know. It is not an argument, obviously. I should have asked the Construction Employers Federation.

Ms McNamee: It is maybe a planning thing as well.

Mr Boylan: Absolutely.

Ms McNamee: If there is a big site, maybe there is a development entrance, and that could facilitate that. Everybody involved in the bond process — the builders and, obviously, the legals — need to get together in a room and say, "What's your best-case situation as to how this works?".

Mr Boylan: It is back to the Chair's point. The Chair will introduce legislation.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I will fix it all. [Laughter.]

No pressure.

Mr Boylan: The point is that, if a local authority has given permission for 100 houses and there is no connection, it is left that, when you get permission to build a house, you then go after NIE for an electricity connection and NIW for a water connection. At the end of the day, you have to sign up. I have to get a legal certificate to say that I own it and then it can be connected. That is my point, and that is where the conversation lies, but it has been interesting.

Ms McNamee: We are also having discussions with Trading Standards about a new code that has come out on material information, and that does not feature for a developer. It says "any other relevant information", but the things that are included are broadband and random stuff.

Mr Boylan: That is the conversation.

Mr McMurray: I am tempted to ask straight up, "Who is at fault, and how do we settle?".

I have one question, and Mr Murray touched on it when he said that he had only one sale not going through. How many properties, would you estimate, are potentially unsellable due to the risk that this poses?

Ms McNamee: It is case by case. It is hard to know. I practised in Belfast, whereas Simon is in north Down. There are all the different locations. Depending on where you are, the frequency of when you encounter this might be different. It is a geographical lottery. Furthermore, your client might come to you, and they are from somewhere else. It is hard to quantify if you are an individual solicitor. I get a lot of emails from solicitors about historical cases, but that is because I am the sole point of contact for people who are doing conveyancing in the society, and that is all across. I get queries from solicitors all over.

Mr Murray: It would be interesting to look at the numbers of those developments geographically. You will find them in pockets; maybe in mid-Ulster, I imagine, because I have had people from there ringing me up about that. North Down seems to be OK. The reason why I have come across only one is that I practise predominantly in that area, and the developers are quite large and relatively good at this. I think that you will find that the majority of those properties are in Enniskillen and west of the Bann, where small developers may not have survived the property crash or are struggling.

In answer to the question about marketability, it is becoming more and more difficult, if the bond is, say, 19 years old. If I got a set of title deeds today, that would jump out at me. I would ask about that bond. If Catherine is the solicitor, she needs to be clued-in on giving advice and deciding whether to accept the title as good and marketable.

Ms McNamee: The example that we gave you was in Ballynahinch.

Ms Heyes: As for what is sellable today, as long as the road is not adopted and the sewers are not adopted, I could buy a house today where the bond is a year old, but that is not to say that it will not become unsellable five, six or seven years down the line. You are always working in the here and now, but it does not mean that those houses will have that perfect title for ever, depending on what happens that is outside the control of that homeowner in the next few years.

Mr Murray: If I am buying a property that is three or four years old, a common answer from the vendor to the question of why it is not adopted is that the development is ongoing, and you accept that.

Ms Heyes: Yes, and at what point do you stop accepting that?

Mr Murray: When you get to 19 years, you can see where the time factor comes in. You are starting maybe to think out of the box. You are asking the client what it is like around that development: "Are there no street lights? Is the road potholed?".

Ms McNamee: You drive up yourself.

Ms Heyes: That is exactly it.

Mr Murray: Yes, you are looking into it more deeply.

Ms Heyes: I have seen us buy a house and ask why the road is not adopted or maybe there is a little bit of work to do. Then, five years later, they are coming back to sell it, and the roads have still not been adopted. Maybe, when they were buying it, it was not such a concern, but, when they are selling it, it becomes more of a concern. It is difficult to predict.

Mr McMurray: To lead on from that, the submission states:

Where is that pressure coming from? Is there a risk of liability elsewhere? I bought a house 18 months ago, and I know the work that went on. I am curious. Your job is to protect the consumer and yourself. Where does liability begin to fall?

Mr Murray: If a purchase solicitor certifies the title where there clearly is not a bond, they will be in difficulties. One of the protections that the consumer has is that we have a minimum master policy for each firm. The minimum is £3 million at the moment. If that solicitor has been blatantly negligent and missed this, the liability will come back to that solicitor, and the consumer is protected.

Ms McNamee: The pressure sometimes comes from the developer. They are keen to get it done and say, "Oh, we are in discussions with NI Water. It is going to go through. Take this title indemnity policy, and you can rely on that" or whatever. It also comes down to the fact that, sometimes, there is a lack of awareness on the part of the average house purchaser, because you do not buy a house often in your life. They see it as a simple transaction that is the same as buying any item of goods, and we are working to raise consumer awareness about what a solicitor does. They will say, "Somebody else has completed it" or, "But the developer said that the bond is coming next week" or whatever. It is that pressure. We do not have any details on anyone who has followed through with that, but it is nearly like a house of cards, because, if one gives in, that is the benchmark for the estate agent or the developer to say, "Well, somebody bought it". It has the potential for a domino effect.

It comes down to the fact that it takes a while to get all these things set up. Our goal, as part of the new build subgroup, is to say to the developer to have their development set up right from the start. It takes a bit more time, but you have to be able to say, "Yes, tick, tick, tick. I have all the documents, before I can sell my first unit". Then there is certainty. The time has been spent at the start. It is hard because the profiles of developers are different. One developer might have a big office with people to manage different aspects of it.

It is complicated. You may have a builder in Northern Ireland who is building out a house and is then on the digger, and they have to do all that paperwork as well.

It is about having a process where you can say, "How do we do this, and what is the best use of our time in how we do it?", so that everybody understands their obligations and how to fulfil them. At the minute, nobody really knows what happens. You know that you have to apply for a bond, and you know that you have look for a bond, but nobody really knows what happens after that. There needs to be more transparency in that.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for coming along. I have a few questions. I want to focus on the property certificate. I googled this while everybody else was chatting, and my understanding — you can correct me if I am wrong — is that Fermanagh and Omagh District Council does most of the certificates, apart from those that Mid Ulster District Council does. Is that still the case?

Mr Murray: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: Who writes the questions on the property certificate?

Mr Murray: We were not involved at all in that, going back to the original property certificate. That was before my time, so I do not know whether there was a sit-down between the Regional Property Certificates Unit (RPCU) and the Law Society to agree the questions. More recently, the certificates have come from the provider in Enniskillen. It has to set —.

Mr K Buchanan: What do you mean by the "provider"?

Mr Murray: There is a department in Enniskillen. Ninety per cent of the certificate's format came in about 15 or 20 years ago.

Mr K Buchanan: Are those the right questions?

Mr Murray: That is a good question. We feel that they are OK, but we are not getting the right answers. In our meetings with NI Water, we discussed the fact that we want some more information, but it was not particularly happy to provide that to us.

Mr K Buchanan: I presume the questions that Mid Ulster council asks are the same as those in the Omagh council.

Mr Murray: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: They are the same. Mid Ulster council has copied the Omagh council, we assume.

Mr K Buchanan: How do you change the questions?

Mr Murray: We would have to negotiate with NI Water.

Mr K Buchanan: Have you done that recently?

Mr Murray: We have had two meetings in the past two years.

Mr K Buchanan: To ask it to change the questions?

Mr Murray: It was not necessarily to do with the questions; it was more to do with the answers.

Mr K Buchanan: You wanted to get better answers to the questions.

Mr Murray: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: You are going to get only a certain answer to a specific question.

Mr Murray: To go back to what you said, we definitely asked it. Again, that was Claire's predecessor. We asked, "Can you give us answers to these questions?". After the first meeting, we went back and said that we would like a bit more information, but we did not really get to an agreement on that.

Mr K Buchanan: Question 2.6 in the certificate is:

Yes, it is, but, as you said when you talked about building control, it may not be connected, and is it within 20 metres? That is the wrong question. I would ask this: is a public water main available to serve the property, and is it connected to that?

Mr Murray: We could not get the answer to that question.

Mr K Buchanan: Would you not change the question? Then you would get the right answer.

Mr Murray: We would be delighted with that change, but we got no confirmation from NI Water that it could give us that information to rely on. I totally agree with what you say.

Mr K Buchanan: I am looking at the two examples, one of which is in Ballynahinch; I suppose that it does not matter where it is. Somebody asked NI Water or DFI Roads a question, and I presume that the office in Omagh council pulled that together. If somebody buys a house and discovers that it is not connected to a sewer, who takes the fall for that?

Ms McNamee: That is the thing. Ultimately, who will that person look to? It is probably the solicitor. It will then dig into how that went, and it will depend on how it is defended and things like that. Again, if you are a solicitor, you should be able to rely on the answers that are circulated. That is why we wanted to flag that example. Those instances were weeks apart. The houses are four doors apart. How are the responses centralised, kept or processed? We need to dig into that. That happened only in the last couple of weeks. I think that the MLA in the area has been in involved. It is probably the solicitor, ultimately, who would take a call for that.

Mr K Buchanan: Say a solicitor — for example, Simon — talked to Omagh council, and Omagh talked to Joe Bloggs in NI Water. Would there be a trail to discover that Joe Bloggs made the error?

Ms McNamee: I do not know. I think that the way that it works is that the request comes in and gets emailed out.

Mr K Buchanan: So it could be a genuine mistake, not done intentionally —

Mr Murray: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: — or it could be an incorrect answer.

I will talk about an example in the Mid Ulster council area, where 40 houses were to be built in a new development. Twenty-five houses were built, and three or four were sold. People moved in and found that there was no sewerage connection. They are in those houses. The question is, "Is there a sewerage connection?". The answer is yes, but there was no article 161 agreement. Physically, there was a sewerage connection. Is that liability on NI Water, or does it fall to building control? Does building control check the physical connection?

Mr Murray: That is the problem.

Mr K Buchanan: What, do you think, should happen there to clarify that?

Mr Murray: To me, it was that point of looking for certainty. I think that that is achievable on new builds. I had a site sale up a lane, and the purchase solicitor was very good. He said, "You are saying that your client has the water down that lane, but I want confirmation that that water pipe connects to the mains on the main road". My client, who had a building background, paid £250 and got confirmation that that connection was there. That gives certainty to the purchaser to move on. On a pre-existing house, you can get certainty, but you will have to pay £250 for every property. On a new build, however, if the building control certificate covered connections as well — if building control or NI Water did some sort of check — that would definitely give certainty about a new build.

Mr K Buchanan: I want to go back to my point about questions. Let me give you the example of eight houses with a combined water supply. There is no meter, but one has a combined supply. If you ask too many questions, sometimes you will get too many answers, which could be a problem as well. The question could ask, "Is there a water connection?", and the answer could say, "Yes, but, by the way, the pipe running across the back door feeds another eight houses, and you are liable for that pipe". If we ask too many questions, we will not sell any houses.

Mr Murray: That is a really good point, because, if you remember, I mentioned this earlier. Unexpectedly, about nine years ago, suddenly the answer to that would mention traversing. "There is a sewer pipe traversing", or "There is a water pipe traversing". NI Water decided that it had better give out that information. That basically set up a little cottage industry whereby we now all get NI Water maps to see where those pipes are. However, even with that NI Water document, there are so many caveats, such as that the map might not be right etc.

Ms McNamee: The legend in the document might not have everything on it, depending on what you have.

Mr Murray: That is how that would be triggered in the example that you gave. The property certificate will say, "Yes, there is a water connection", but it will then say, "Yes, but there are pipes traversing". You would then have to explore that. That is covered off, because, if, in particular, there is a sewer pipe traversing, it would prohibit you from extending or there would be restrictions on extending because you cannot build over a sewer. All those complications can be triggered as a result of sewers running around a property.

Mr K Buchanan: I have a final question, if I may. Are you facing any restrictions in wanting to change the property certificate questions?

Ms McNamee: NI Water was definitely not amenable to suggestions that we have had about how those questions could be changed. Again, whether that is a resource issue or whether —.

Mr K Buchanan: I mean the property certificate. NI Water should not care —.

Ms McNamee: It sets the questions that relate to —.

Mr Murray: It is the big one that we —.

Mr K Buchanan: Why is it controlling what the property certificate questions are?

Mr Murray: I do not know how that functions. I do not know who —.

Mr K Buchanan: If you, as a solicitor, want to ask NI Water, "How many vans do you have on the road?", it is up to it to answer, if it is relevant to a property certificate question. The tail should not be wagging the dog. I will leave it there.

Mr Baker: You answered most of the questions that I was going to ask. Not all developers are bad, but there is frustration for homeowners whose home is maybe at the end of a development, especially a big one, and, for whatever reason, their cul-de-sac or laneway has not been adopted. I can think of examples where the developer has gone under and, after time has lapsed, comes back under a different name and continues to build in close proximity to that laneway or cul-de-sac that has not been adopted. I know that that frustration is pointed at solicitors, who are asked, "How did that happen?". That then comes to our constituency offices, and we are asked, "How can you solve this?". The answer is, "DFI cannot just come in and do your road for you or the lights, because the bond has been broken". What protections can be put in place to stop that? Historically, I know that this will be an issue. I will maybe take part in the private Member's Bill that comes from the issue, but do you have any suggestions about how to stop that happening?

Mr Murray: It is OK for the road bond. Those that are on the water side and the article 161 are not transferable. There is some mechanism in the legislation that means that, if developer A goes into liquidation, that bond is dead.

Ms McNamee: You then have to reapply, so is it a waste of resources to have to do the whole thing for, essentially, the same thing?

Mr Murray: That is definitely a problem.

Mr Baker: Do you have examples? I am thinking of cases where the road is an issue. I do not know about the bond, but the road was never really brought up to standard, so it is more about the old brick, potholes and all that.

Mr Murray: You could have a situation where there is a technical difficulty with the water and the sewer. The road could be finished off, but, because of that technical difficulty, that could not happen. That technical difficulty could be something simple, such as the first developer, A, has gone down, and developer B has not taken up that bond, or that bond by NI Water is not usable. It could be something as simple as that.

Ms McNamee: The precedent has been set in England of having a version of a section 104 agreement that provides for the assignment of a bond. We have encountered situations with solicitors where there has been a sole developer, who, unfortunately, has passed away. The case then has to wait until the whole probate process takes place. Maybe there is somebody who is willing to come in and finish that development and transfer over that bond, but they have to reapply for the whole thing from scratch. That is what happens from a practical perspective. However, from a due diligence perspective, if you are granting a bond, a simple Companies House search will show you a person's history of appointments. You might say, "Well, that's a familiar face" or, "That's a familiar name" or, "That's a repeat offender". The majority are not.

NHBC gave evidence to the 2012 inquiry. It said then that the majority of its bonds were being finished out. It was, basically, guaranteeing those things. Does it depend on the level of insurance as well? There needs to be a discussion with the developers and the warranty insurers about how it works in practice in order to really get to the bottom of it, so that you can say, "How can I do my job, finish the site out and move on to the next?". It is about getting it right from the very start. That is our priority for new builds.

Ms Heyes: Moving on to the next stage, if there were any suggestion of moving or anything like that, that information should be filtered back to the solicitor by way of the regional property certificate. I have seen one recently where, although we were buying new, it was not the original developer that had the bond. When I queried that with NI Water, it was able to tell me that another one had been applied for but it had not gone through yet. It had that information, but I had to look for it. I would never have found that information if we had not been buying new from the developer. If I were buying a house in that development from the first owner two years down the line, I would find that there would be a bond, but I would not know who the developer is because I would not be buying from them. If the certificate stated, "This development has been taken over. Another application has been made, which is pending" or something similar, that would flag up those issues as well, if there were to be that change of ownership of the whole site.

Mr Baker: I have one more wee thing. I am going off on a wee tangent with this one. It is about new developments and management companies. I do not know whether this is coming your way. When you are buying a house, the last thing that you are thinking about is what the deeds that you are signing say. There could be small print that states, "There's a management company that you have to pay x amount to every year, even though you're paying your rates to your council anyway". It could be just for cutting a verge or whatever the upkeep is. The price of that is going up every year. In a lot of the cases that I am working on, there is no accountability. That company could be based in Glasgow, for talk's sake, and your house is in Lagmore. Is that an issue that you are starting to find growing? I certainly find it growing in my constituency.

Ms Heyes: Generally, with apartment buildings — I do not know whether you have found the same, Simon — the cost of everything, including the service charges for the halls, the lighting, the heat and everything else, has gone up so much. You are right: when people buy the house, they are not necessarily aware that those costs could increase. It is an education piece as well.

Ms McNamee: We have consumer leaflets that we plan to update as part of our new-build subgroup. It is difficult for a management company. Ultimately, a developer wants to divest themselves of responsibility. If you are in an apartment with a lift or common areas, you need to have something in place, because individual homeowners do not want to have to deal with those things for the whole development. Although it is a necessary thing, how is that monitored? I know from watching Assembly business that —.

Mr Baker: I get that, when it comes to apartments, with lifts and all the other wee problems, but there are examples where there that applies to open space.

Ms McNamee: It is often about planning conditions.

Mr Murray: I will make two points on that. There is a company called Greenbelt, which is a Scottish company.

Mr Baker: That is who I am talking about. [Laughter.]

Mr Murray: I do not know the background to Greenbelt, but it is a strange situation, because you have an outside company that is relatively efficient in what it does. I have not experienced a lot of kickback on its fees, however, so I am surprised that you said that.

Mr Baker: You are paying that every year on top of what you pay in your rates, but you are getting a verge cut. That is the thing.

Mr Murray: When going through the lease, the purchaser's solicitor will see that it has a series of covenants about what Greenbelt is to do. In those, there is an accountability. You are looking for that in the management fees of Greenbelt or any provider; you are looking to see whether they have proper accounts and whether they can provide them etc. The lease document should cover that.

The final point that I will make on this is that we are talking about serious issues in conveyancing, but the issue of functionality with apartments and smaller developments is a really big issue for us. It comes back to the same issue that we have with the original developer going into liquidation. The legal complications for that in developments are as big as those that we are talking about today. That is a valid point.

Ms McNamee: It is also about planning conditions and why they are there in the first place. They will say that you have to have a certain amount of green space, for example, but they will also say, "We are not going to maintain that for you". What is the developer to do?

Mr Baker: I would sack them.

Ms McNamee: You cannot depend on one person getting their lawnmower out.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We are bang on the hour. I am keen for us to come to the end, but I want to check whether Mark wants in to ask anything. Mark, I know that you feel my pain.

Mr Boylan: Do you want a wee bit of sales advice, Mark?

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the team for that. It has been very informative. Many good questions have been asked and many good answers have been given.

I sympathise with the pressure that the profession is put under by this. You are often the meat in the sandwich, I suppose. Buying a house is stressful, and the problems that we have been talking about do not increase just the financial cost; there is a wider cost to people buying homes and an increase in anxiety. Sometimes we find that your members bear the brunt of some of the blame for those delays. What uniformity or consistency of approach is there across the legal profession? Do you get some solicitors who might be a wee bit more laissez-faire than others?

Ms McNamee: In theory, everybody is bound by the home charter scheme. It has a code of practice for building developments, and it is mandatory. It has a list of everything that has to be in place at the time that you complete for a new build. That includes things like building control, the warranty, looking at whether there is an article 161 or article 32 in place and at whether you have all the signed agreements in place. It is all that stuff. In theory, all that is there. However, we cannot say how it works in practice, if we do not have a specific new-build compliance enforcement section as part of the Law Society's regulatory side of things. We are reviewing the process.

Yes, sometimes, people say, "I trust this", "I trust this developer", "I have a special condition" or, "I have done a retention for a certain amount", but that can be individual. My version of an acceptable retention, if there were no document, for example, might be different from someone else's version. In that sense, it can be a little subjective, but, in theory, yes, there is a code of practice.

Mr Durkan: I suppose it could be site-specific. If homes have sold, previously or recently, in an area or on a street, another house might not be subject to the same scrutiny. Is that right?

You mentioned a different domino effect, but I have seen a domino effect in a local estate where issues were flagged on one sale. Some had

and then one solicitor, who did a lot of scrutiny — fair play to them — identified something, and then there was a domino effect. No one can sell anything there now. It is not the solicitor's fault.

Mr Murray: I have a good example of that from a development of about 25 houses. It goes back to that point.

The developer lives in the development, and there are a few common areas. The lease has a service charge etc, but there is no functionality. I sold two of the houses, and the purchase solicitors raised no issues. However, because purchase solicitors are now becoming a lot more aware of the functionality of apartments and common areas, the third sale fell through twice. That creates a stigma, which is exactly what you are talking about. That is now known about, and agents are reluctant. Material information coming down the track with Trading Standards will make it more difficult to sell those houses.

You are right. There can be 10 conveyancers in the room: nine think that it is OK, and one does not, and that can have a trigger effect for a development, particularly if there is a lack of functionality in it.

Ms McNamee: Sometimes it is consumer-specific, because what is acceptable to one person who is buying a house may not be acceptable to another person. The first might say, "I don't care about that", and the other might say, "No, that's it. I'm away". It is hard to juggle the two, and, while there are standard situations, there are also variables.

Mr Murray: I am involved in the institute that teaches conveyancing to newly submitted solicitors. We do a lot of continuing professional development (CPD), and every conveyancer has to do a compulsory three-hour conveyancing course as well as all their other conveyancing, and a lot of that is education, particularly on new builds. We have a good checklist that is part of the home charter and that covers all the things that we have talked about. Hopefully, diligent members who are doing their job properly will cover of a lot of that. Also, we are having a full top-to-toe review of our building agreement and procedures in connection with new builds in order to cover a lot of the issues that you have raised today.

Mr Durkan: Finally, I think that you, Simon, gave examples of cases in which a minor water issue had delayed the adoption and so forth, and delay is the biggest driver of cost. Are you aware of any examples where, due to the delay, be it at Northern Ireland Water's end or the developer's, there has been a change in policy on what is deemed acceptable for the adoption of roads?

There is a local example of a street — you will be experienced enough to remember 'Petrocelli', and it is as if he is building it — and it will never be finished. It has got to the stage where the street still has the old Lucozade street lights and DFI will not adopt them until the estate is changed to LED lights because it does not have the parts to repair the old lights any more.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Can you be brief? We are running over time.

Mr Murray: I have heard only that one example, which was something to do with the sewers and water, but I have heard about the lighting. Somebody else mentioned a minor issue in which the passage of time meant that something that the developer had not done caused a delay in the adoption. It is just bonkers, because it is having an impact on those householders. We have to see a way through this, but it will have a major impact on the people who are in the houses, because they will have difficulties when they come to sell, if the roads and sewers are not adopted.

Ms McNamee: The bonds are time-limited and have a date on them, but they need to be rigorous. The one example I have seen has been for three or four years. If you set a bond in place, you need to be specific about the review stages. It is about driving the process and keeping on top of the bonds, and, by investing the time in that process, you may save a mountain of cost on the repair works. It comes down to what the bond says and how the undertaker enforces it to make sure that the work is done.

Mr Durkan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much. Folks, we are over time, and we are pushed for time today, because we have a few things to sort out before we finish. Thank you for a really informative and good session. We appreciate your coming to the Committee.

Before you came to the Committee, we wrote to the Minister about your correspondence. Members, for the discussion, it might be worth looking at your packs, where there is correspondence from the Minister on the issue. If the Committee is content, we will share what the Minister has said about this with you. It might help you with engagement to know what the Minister has said about the issue.

I will declare an interest, because I live in an unadopted development and am trying to bring forward a private Member's Bill on the issue. I have no doubt that we will have you back to discuss the issue again.

Ms McNamee: We would be happy to do that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much for your time today. All that is left to say is, "Happy Christmas".