Start by getting your Quick Conveyancing Quote now(with no commitment) for your:

Do we really need to speak the same language? | March 9th, 2011

Business-to-business integration (B2Bi) is old-hat. A robust technology to allow the systems of two (or more) business to be integrated. An archetypal example is a direct purchase order/invoicing system between business customers and their suppliers. In these transactions, orders and invoices are being exchanged automatically and electronically, the relevant data fields being extracted and populated into the relevant ERPS and other databases on each side. Simple stuff and relatively easy to achieve, once both parties agree on the channels and the document structures that are sent to each other (the ‘language’).

The challenges with this approach arise when you have many-to-many relationships in a business ecosystem with lots of different suppliers and customers. Some solutions arise by mandate – the sheer market grunt of one or a few big players that dictate to everyone else what the rules are. But without such a driving force, you either need everyone to agree on some common standards for describing things like purchase orders and invoices, or you have to engineer custom parsing B2B interfaces for each relationship. Or, you just live with the friction and continue processing a subset of your orders via email or fax.

In the case of ‘common standards’, the example of purchase orders and invoices seems achievable universally, because they are items that are, in their most raw forms, common to every business. While such standards might exist in certain industry pockets (RosettaNet for the chip manufacturing industry comes to mind), there is no universal standard for ecommerce transactions. Furthermore, the challenge becomes even more interesting (to us, at least!) when you go beyond the ‘simple’ of purchase orders and invoices to the ‘complex’ – other types of business forms processing.

The home loan and conveyancing industry sectors, groups with which we’ve had some involvement already, are ecosystems in which the electronic exchanges are far more fiddly and fraught than online purchase order processing. The National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS) will attempt to address some of the efficiency needs in Australia. In this case you have seven or eight state jurisdictional land titles offices, each with their own similar-but-different language for describing business activities, such as transfer of land title ownership. One NECS approach could be to mandate that all state offices use the same language for common transactions. But this would require massive and disruptive changes within those agencies, some of which have been processing documents their own way for over a hundred years.

A more palatable alternative is to let the agencies continue to maintain their own language and create an 8-way dictionary – a giant look-up table, or “universal translator” that supports not only human readability, but (eventually) software integration as well. While a thorough and robust solution would accommodate modern semantic techniques and standards, it is a simple concept and certainly achievable.

Reprint from
FRICTIONLESS BUSINESS ECOSYSTEMS – NICTA

Verisign makes outlandish claims about EC’s performance | March 9th, 2011

Verisign, an American company providing digital signing technology to Land Victoria’s Electronic Conveyancing project has published a case study. There is not just the usual positive spin, but the case study makes some specific outlandish claims which are either just porky pies or I would be happy to personally challenge ECV / Verisign to a public demonstration to prove you cannot lodge a caveat electronically in 4 – 7 minutes.

The case study, page 4, verbatim says -

We’ve introduced electronic caveats — the process of issuing a financial lien on a property—the online processing of these is substantially faster than the legacy process; 4 to 7 minutes versus the time taken by an individual to travel to the office and wait in a queue to manually lodge the paper documents.”

My personal experience as a subscriber is that you cannot lodge an electronic caveat in any less than 20 minutes. Here’s a link to the screen shots for an actual case study of lodging a caveat ECV style. Dont be put off by the 57 screen shots, because that is what it takes. The last time I lodged a caveat electronically, it took precisely 26 minutes. Whilst you are counting the screen shots, ask yourself why am I digitally signing this transaction no less than 3 times?

After lodging a few caveats electronically, our legal practice has reverted to the old fashioned of lodging paper caveats, which by our experience takes just 2-3 minutes. Print, check, sign, lodge by post.

The case study goes on to make other unsubstantiated claims, such as the potential cost savings of $235 to $395 per transaction. If caveats are any guide, which they are, and caveats are the simplest Land Registry transaction to perform, I am simply overwhelmed by the cost savings / time savings claim.

Brett Hayton
Hayton Kosky Lawyers

Orchestrating a harmonious system | March 9th, 2011

Orchestrating a harmonious system
by MM Park, J Wallace, and IP Williamson
published Victorian Law Institute Journal, vol 83(5) pp 50-53 (May 2009)
ABSTRACT: the authors consider those changes to the Victorian Torrens system necessary or desirable to assist in bringing about an Australian harmonised (or even a uniform) system of land title registration.
Article

ANZ insists third-party mortgage services are fully compliant | March 8th, 2011

PERPETUAL’S mortgage services arm yesterday rejected claims that its operations do not comply with licensing rules.

It insisted legal work it performed on behalf of financial institutions was being done by qualified lawyers. The company’s mortgage services subsidiary, Perpetual Mortgage Services, which provides mortgage processing and settlement services to some of the country’s leading lenders, has come under scrutiny from property lawyers and conveyancers following a bungled outsourcing deal with ANZ. Perpetual spokesman Michael Woods yesterday defended the business against the attack from the Australian Institute of Conveyancers (AIC) and the Law Institute of Victoria. “Perpetual Mortgage Services Pty Ltd does not engage in legal practice,” Mr Woods said in an emailed statement to BusinessDaily. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage Perpetual under fire on ANZ deal Daily Telegraph, 2 days ago ANZ under fire over mortgage settlements Perth Now, 6 days ago Rush to withdraw slowing The Australian, 1 Dec 2009 ANZ reroutes mortgage processing The Australian, 8 Jul 2009 New pain for ANZ to top $300m Herald Sun, 8 Jul 2009 End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. “Perpetual provides mortgage processing services for customers. To the extent that these services involve legal work of any kind, it is carried out by . . . qualified Australian lawyers.” Thousands of ANZ customers have suffered delays and additional costs on settling property sales since December when ANZ hired Perpetual to settle transactions involving the bank’s customers. AIC president Pauline Barrow is concerned that a legal minefield is appearing as more banks outsource settlement and other mortgage functions to third parties such as Perpetual, arguing that they are not licensed to handle legal work on behalf of banks. Ms Barrow believes Perpetual’s mortgage servicing arm needs to operate as a registered legal practice or conveyancing business to comply with state laws across Australia. If the AIC’s concerns are valid, ANZ’s relationship with Perpetual may have implications for its ability to comply with outsourcing standards set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. ANZ spokesman Paul Edwards said the bank’s “arrangement with Perpetual is fully compliant with APRA’s outsourcing standards.” Ms Barrow said conveyancers who were required to adhere to licensing rules were concerned about dealing with organisations that were not licensed. “We’re having to deal with a third party when we should be dealing directly with the bank,” she said. Mr Woods acknowledged that many ANZ customers had suffered as a result of problems with the new settlements systems since December. “Perpetual is aware that as a result of changes made by ANZ to centralise its mortgage processing, which included the engagement of Perpetual to provide mortgage processing services, some ANZ customers have experienced delay inconvenience,” he stated in the email.
“ANZ has apologised for the difficulties. Perpetual is working with ANZ as part of the bank’s program to improve its settlement performance and is confident these initial service issues are being quickly overcome.”
Herald Sun

Thieves – Owner Corporation Certificate rip-off | March 8th, 2011


I write as to a concern that I have in regard to the provision of Certificates issued by Body Corporate Management companies same being necessary for a proposed sale of a property covered by an operative Body Corporate.

I fully appreciate that the State Government effected statutory changes to the operation of Bodies Corporate primarily for the protection of the property owner.

Relatively recent changes were to some extent to ensure that Management companies had proper procedures in place and these alterations I do not have any problem with whatsoever.

My concern is as follows and I set out a particular circumstance that effects me personally.

I happen to retain ownership of a residential apartment at Docklands, Melbourne.

Due to the structure, the building is covered by three separate Bodies Corporate.

I am contemplating a sale of the subject property and when I contacted the Management Company I was provided with a varying range of fees for provision of Certificates depending on the timing of issue and the urgency of same.

The base fee for a 14 day certificate is set at $150-00.

In my case, I am charged for three certificates being a total of $450-00.

With respect, Mr Minister, the fees are an absolute disgrace given the levels associated.

The certificates are effectively a “single page document” (for each of the Bodies Corporate) and from a timing perspective, would take all of one minute to generate via a computer system.

I dont at any time have a problem with companies being remunerated for fair and reasonable work performed be it on a time basis or a service basis although having today checked with a number of other Body Corporate Management companies, the fees are fairly standard and the excuse given is that these were set by Government.

It is suggested that a more preferable method of Fee charging be adopted either being a “fair and reasonable” fee or possibly as a percentage of the annual Body Corporate fees paid in regard to the unit which would actually reflect the level of workload involved by the Management company.

By way of example, if one pays say $1000 pa for fees, may be a 5% fee be charged for the certificate being $50.

Signed by a pissed off client (name withheld)
Addressed to Tony Robinson MP
Date: 13 April 2010 9:18:23 PM
Subject: Re: Bodies Corporate – Fees

Identity Verification System ‘A Failure’ | March 8th, 2011

A $28 MILLION Howard government plan to create a high-tech system to help stamp out identity crime has been plagued by technical difficulties and has failed to achieve its aims, according to the Australian National Audit Office.

The national document verification service, announced by the Coalition in 2006, is a computer network which is supposed to link federal and state government agencies that issue key identity documents such as birth certificates, passports and driver’s licences.

It is meant to be used to check the veracity of documents presented by people as proof of identity when applying for services or benefits or government clearances at a wide range of agencies.

But a report by the audit office found that despite the Attorney-General’s Department spending $17 million to establish the service and linking it to dozens of agencies, the system is not being used because of concerns over its accuracy and timeliness. The report said that since coming into operation in October 2007, the service had been used only 10 times a day on average to check documents presented at participating agencies. By contrast, the department had built the system to handle 250,000 requests a day.

The report said several major document-issuing agencies had not joined the service until well after it had started.

The Victorian births, deaths and marriages and driver’s licence authorities had still not joined nor had the Western Australian driver’s licence agency.

There were also technical glitches deterring agencies from using the system. Over its first two years in operation, the service had not identified a single fraudulent document and 38 per cent of its responses had been errors – including ”false negatives” where the system reported that a document could not be verified even though the document was genuine.

”The delivery of timely and accurate responses … has been an ongoing issue for the national document verification service,” the report says.

”Notwithstanding [testing of a prototype] and over two years of implementation, the project is still resolving practical implementation issues and is rarely used. It is unlikely in the immediate future that use of the national document verification service will significantly contribute to strengthening Australia’s personal identification processes.”

The audit office recommended that the Attorney-General’s Department should devise ways to fix the problems including ”considering the future of the national verification document service itself”.

The government established the service as part of a package of measures agreed to at a counter-terrorism summit between former prime minister John Howard and state premiers in 2005.

the age

Westpac Comes Last For Service: Survey | March 8th, 2011

Westpac has ranked as the worst bank for customer service in a survey, one day after announcing a record profit.

More than four-in-ten respondents to the Finance Sector Union Better Banking survey, or 42 per cent, said Westpac service was unsatisfactory, more than any other bank.

The poor showing by Westpac comes after the company announced a record $2.98 billion first-half net cash profit yesterday. Westpac also outraged consumers in December by hiking rates on its mortgages 20 basis points over the 25 basis point increased announced by the Reserve Bank.

”Westpac’s decisions to move too far on interest rates, provide inadequate staffing, send Australian jobs offshore… are reflected in the public’s perception of them,” said FSU National Secretary Leon Carter.

”Unfortunately all banks engage in these sorts of tactics,” said Mr Carter, who also highlighted large executive pay packets and rising fees as contributors to the banking sector’s public perception problems.

Westpac’s dissatisfaction ranking compared with 33 per cent for Commonwealth and 30 per cent for ANZ. Westpac-owned St George garnered 27 per cent of respondents complaining of subpar customer service.

Overall, the study shows that 28 per cent of customers are dissatisfied with their banks, the FSU said.

The report also showed 16 per cent of respondents were ”very uncomfortable” with their debt levels, while 29 per cent consider themselves ”uncomfortable” with debt. Australians have continued to wade into the housing market through the period of the global financial crisis, pushing the average mortgage in Australia to nearly $300,000.

Borrowers are paying nearly $300 more a month on an average 25-year, $300,000 mortgage repayment after the Reserve Bank this week raised rates for the sixth time in eight months.

The Better Banking survey, conducted by the FSU, is based on the responses of 2744 customers nationwide.

the age 6.5.10

Home Information Packs have been suspended | March 8th, 2011

The Government has announced the suspension of Home Information Packs with immediate effect from 21 May 2010.

Homes marketed for sale on or after 21 May 2010 will no longer require a Home Information Pack (HIP).

The Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) will be retained. Sellers will still be required to commission, but won’t need to have received an EPC before marketing their property.

Banks face crackdown on High Exit Fees | March 8th, 2011

Banks which charge unfair mortgage exit fees face a crackdown from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

From July 1, ASIC will also have the power to go after institutions which seek to rebadge current exit fees as upfront entry fees.

Treasurer Wayne Swan and Financial Services Minister Chris Bowen said these new powers would make it easier for borrowers to switch to a competitor offering a cheaper rate, providing a major boost for competition in the mortgage market.

“Currently, some banks are using mortgage exit fees to lock customers into their home loans,” Mr Swan and Mr Bowen said in a statement on Sunday.

“Exit fees can be so high that there is no incentive to switch to another lender, even if they are offering a substantially lower interest rate.

“The Government is determined to make the banking system work for families, not against them, and these tough new powers are a major step to delivering on that commitment.”

From July 1, ASIC will have the power to take action against any bank for charging an early exit fee considered unfair or unconscionable.

Consumers will also be able to challenge early exit fees that are unfair or unconscionable.

Mr Swan and Mr Bowen said ASIC was most likely to take action against banks trying to profit from exit fees or establishment fees rather than fees which merely recover a fair level of costs.

Any mortgage exit fee found by a court to be unfair will be declared void, with ASIC able to seek refunds for customers.

ASIC released guidance on Sunday on how it proposes to tackle unfair terms.

Following consultation with the industry, ASIC will now develop a specific framework on regulation of early mortgage exit fees.

“The global financial crisis has created some significant challenges for competition in the mortgage market,” they said.

“These can’t be solved overnight but the Gillard government is determined to take action wherever possible to boost competition and improve protections for Australian families.”

Australian Bankers Association (ABA) chief executive Steven Munchenberg said Australia had the lowest entry fees for mortgages compared to the United States and United Kingdom.

“That means it is cheaper to get a mortgage here than in other countries,” Mr Munchenberg said in a statement on Sunday.

“Banks achieve this by deferring some of the costs of establishing a mortgage and only charging those customers that change their mortgages in the first few years.”

Early mortgage exit fees included the banks unrecouped costs associated with the establishment of the loan, Mr Munchenberg said.

“Exit fees may also include the credit providers average administrative costs and any loss to the credit provider arising from the early termination.

“For example, a credit provider may agree not to charge the full loan establishment costs at the start of the loan on the basis that it may recoup those costs if the loan runs beyond a certain term.”

Deferring up-front fees such as legal service fees reduced the cost to customers of setting up new loans, the ABA said.

It was important lenders were consulted by ASIC, Mr Munchenberg said.

National Australia Bank (NAB) said it welcomed the tougher new laws.

It said it would be good for bank customers, increasing competition and giving customers a fairer deal and the ability to access better rates.

NAB Group chief executive Cameron Clyne said while the full details of the new laws had not been reviewed by the bank, it was generally supportive of the measures.

“If these new laws banning unfair mortgage exit fees encourage greater competition and give Australians more power to walk down the road and find a better deal for their mortgage then that’s a great thing for all Australians,” Mr Clyne said.

The Age 27 June 2010

A new phase for the National Electronic Conveyancing agenda | March 8th, 2011

NECDL TAKES OVER THE DRIVING SEAT

On 1st July National E-conveyancing Development Ltd (NECDL) assumed responsibility for progressing the national e-conveyancing system in Australia.

It was always envisaged that when the requirements for NECS were pretty well settled a new entity would take over responsibility for provisioning the system. That time has now come and NECDL is the entity formed early this year in accordance with COAG determinations to make national e-conveyancing a reality. We told you about NECDL and the transition of our role to it in Issue 43. It is a company owned equally by the Governments of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria and governed by a board of directors nominated by its owners and key industry stakeholder associations.

You can follow the path that has brought us to this point on our website. It hasn’t always been a smooth ride but the constructive input and enthusiastic cooperation from stakeholders, large and small, has enabled us to give NECDL a sound basis to work from. For that we thank you most sincerely.

The Chairman of NECDL, Alan Cameron, believes that this point marks the transition to a new and fruitful stage in delivering a national e-conveyancing system for Australia. He said the company aims to develop an e-conveyancing system that is national, secure and sustainable that picks up from the substantial development work we have done. Marcus Price, who has joined the company as its CEO with a project management and IT background, will lead this stage.

Recognising the work done so far, Mr Cameron said: “There are many strong believers in the benefits of a national e-conveyancing system, but none more so than Simon Libbis who has led NECO. Simon has driven the thinking around the many issues that face such a system and delivered what is now a substantial body of knowledge on e-conveyancing. He has been well supported by many stakeholder groups and particularly the National Project Team.”

“I would like to personally thank Simon for his tenacity and vision as Executive Director of NECO. I would also like to pay tribute to the National Project Team for its important contribution”, Mr Cameron said.

Marcus Price has advised that he is well under way with the next phase for the work which involves a much stronger commercial focus. He is, however, at pains to point out that the company is not starting again but picking up from where work has got to so far.

Talking about the company’s intention, Mr Price said: “NECDL’s business plan for its initial phase will include an assessment of the current intellectual property on hand from all sources – including that held by Victoria – as well as the regulatory environment needed to sustain e-conveyancing across Australia.

“It is expected that the plan and its key findings, including a governance and funding model, will be available in October 2010 and we will be seeking your feedback”, he said.

Recognising that ongoing industry and interest group consultation is critical to any program in this area, the company will be providing an update on its progress to all stakeholders via a web-cast on 20 July 2010 (12 noon AEST). It is one of several updates the company plans to deliver by web-cast over the next few months. Full details of how to access the web-casts will be sent to you shortly. In the meantime, you might like to put this first date in your diary. The web-casts will also be available on demand if this date and time doesn’t suit you. Any questions or comments you have can be directed toinfo@necd.com.au.

NECDL is well positioned to reach the next milestone of the journey – provisioning of the system. We wish it every success in its endeavours and trust that you will continue your support for this important national initiative. This will ensure that in the near future we will have a truly national electronic system that delivers benefits to all participants in the conveyancing process and contributes to securing a seamless national economy for Australia.