Q&A -  Solicitors and Surveyors in the Enfranchisement process

QUESTION

In an enfranchisement process, Solicitors and Surveyors acting for the Leaseholders fail to communicate between themselves. As a result it is only ascertained after abortive Initial Notices have been served, that because of the design of the building within which the leasehold flats are situated, enfranchisement is not possible.  The leaseholders are now required to pay the legal / survey costs of the Freeholders incurred as a result of the abortive enfranchisement (£10,000.00 +) What are the respective inter related duties of Solicitor and Surveyors in regards to the enfranchisement process - particularly the need for them to carry out a thorough inspection / investigation of a buildings structure together - irrespective of whatever communications they individually conduct with the Leaseholders? The Leaseholders were advised by a separate letter, sent with the initial Surveyors’ Valuation Report, that there could possibly be a problem in relation to enfranchisement because of a shared lift shaft. The Leaseholders assumed that this important reservation would also be communicated direct by the Surveyors to the Solicitors or that it would certainly be discussed between the two professional firms upon preparation of the eventual Initial Notices. However, when the said problem did result in the enfranchisement process failing, both Solicitors and Surveyors have blamed the Leaseholders for not having disclosed to the Solicitors, the brief comment about the lift shaft contained in the Surveyors’ said covering letter, claiming that such information was privvy to the Leaseholders and would not be disclosed direct to the Solicitors without the Leaseholders consent! It seems subsequently that, in any event, the Solicitors issued the Initial Notice without consulting the Surveyors – is that acceptable procedure? In summary, there appears to have been little contact between the two firms of professionals during the course of the Initial Notice procedure. (These particular firms hold themselves out as experts in this field of work - and were accordingly appointed because of that claim). I know that the Surveyors have already referred the matter to their professional indemnity insurers, and would think that the Solicitors have done likewise - hence the very ‘thin’ straw which they are both grasping (as advised by those Insurers) in trying to blame the Leaseholders (and thus avoid having to pay the Freeholders’ costs). I appreciate you cannot discuss particular cases in detail, but surely there must be some understood and necessary guidelines to be followed in relation to the conduct of enfranchisement work as between the two professionals other - particularly where the whole success / failure of the enfranchisement procedure (as in this case) hangs upon that communication?