Disciplinary Record - Hennah Haywood Law Limited

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 17 June 2024

Published date: 3 July 2024

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication

Name: Hennah Haywood Law Limited

Address(es): 13 Clytha Park Road, Newport NP20 4PB

Firm ID: 645860

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

Who does this disciplinary decision relate to?

Hennah Haywood Law Limited (SRA ID 645860), is a firm, located at 13 Clytha Park Road, Newport, NP20 4PB, a recognised body (the firm).

Short summary of decision

We have issued the firm with a rebuke for failure to comply with an undertaking in a reasonable time in a conveyancing transaction and a failure to a co-operate with a regulatory investigation.

Facts of the misconduct

Hennah Haywood Law Limited (at the time Collingbourne Hennah Limited), acted on behalf of a borrower client in relation to loans in respect of three properties. By way of a letter dated 16 November 2020, the firm gave an undertaking in connection with the matter to the lenders’ solicitors.

The undertaking related to the completion of registration at HM Land Registry (HMLR) of the transfer of the property to the borrower, together with related charges and restrictions on title.

Completion took place on 23 November 2020. Registration was finalised in respect of the first property in February 2023, and July 2023 in respect of the two other properties.

It was found that the firm:

1. Between 23 November 2020 and 22 July 2023 failed to perform within a reasonable time an undertaking the firm had given on 16 November 2020 to the lenders’ solicitors. In doing so, it breached Paragraph 1.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019 and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.
2. Between on or around 3 May 2022 and 11 July 2022 failed to adequately co-operate with an SRA investigation. In doing so, it breached Paragraph 3.3(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019.

Reasons/basis

Decision on sanction

It was decided that a rebuke was an appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The firm was issued with a written rebuke and ordered to pay costs of £1,350.

This was because, by reference to the factors in the SRA Enforcement Strategy:

• This was not only a minor breach of the rules; undertakings are a crucial part of legal practice and must be able to be relied upon.
• Although the breaches were rectified, the periods of (i) non-compliance with the undertaking and (ii) of non-cooperation with the SRA during the investigation persisted for longer than reasonable/were rectified only when prompted.
• Some public sanction is required to maintain standards and to acknowledge there has been a breach of regulatory requirements.

A more serious sanction was not considered to be proportionate by reference to the following factors in the Enforcement Strategy:

• There were no allegations that the firm had been dishonest or acted with a lack of integrity.
• There was no financial gain or other benefit due to the breach of the undertaking.
• It was not found that the firm intentionally failed to ensure that it complied with the rules surrounding undertakings.
• Although the firm’s conduct carried an inherent risk of harm, no harm in fact materialised in this case.

SRA Principles 2019

SRA Principle 2

You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019

Paragraph 1.3 You perform all undertakings given by you and do so within an agreed timescale or if no timescale has been agreed then within a reasonable amount of time.

Paragraph 3.3 You respond promptly to the SRA and:

1. provide full and accurate explanations, information and documentation in response to any requests or requirements.