After an acrimonious divorce I was forced to sell the family house and move to a flat with my young daughter and cat. On the completion date, my solicitor, Lawcomm, confirmed the funds had been transferred and I was told to be ready to move by midday. By 4.30pm the money had still not reached the seller’s solicitor. The removal team had another job the next day, so I had to put my belongings in storage.

My child had come from school expecting to be in the new flat, but was now on the street with our cat in tow. I had to put my cat in a cattery and find emergency accommodation.

Six stressful days have passed and I gather that Lawcomm’s bank, Santander, is holding the money for “security checks”. Santander refuses to talk to me as I am not its customer. I face losing the flat and the ￡37,000 deposit for breach of contract. I am also racking up storage and cattery charges and will have to pay the removal firm a second time.
AK, London

Your anguish is unnervingly familiar. Last year, I reported on exactly the same situation involving Lawcomm and Santander, which left a young family on the street on moving day. According to YouGov research for Homeowner’s Alliance, 20,500 completion dates across the market were missed over two years because funds did not arrive in time.

Your money eventually did arrive seven days late. In the meantime, the vendor, via its solicitor, had issued a notice to complete giving you a legal deadline and charging ￡91 plus VAT for each day of delay.

Santander tells me that the receiving bank had required additional information the day after the transfer was made. Another day passed before it contacted Lawcomm about the request and the latter replied immediately. But it wasn’t until two days after that that Santander passed the relevant information to the receiving bank. All the while the money had been held by an intermediary bank.

Santander denies there has been undue delay and says its financial crime team had been reviewing the information. It seems that anti-money laundering rules may have caused an excess of caution, which is bizarre given the customers of both banks were regulated law firms.

The obvious question is: why does Lawcomm still bank with Santander after last year’s identical fiasco? It tells me it had been assured by the bank that its security checks would be more efficient.

“We should not have our reputation tarnished and our clients left in breach of contract because the banks take days to complete security checks which, having regard to modern compliance technology, could be completed in minutes,” says Lawcomm’s managing director, Bill Dhariwal.