Nicola Helen Neilson fined £10k for years of bungled property registrations

Solicitor fined £10k and £16.5k costs after repeated failures to register client property

A solicitor has been fined £10,000 after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found she repeatedly failed to register property transactions, breached undertakings to clients, and gave misleading updates.

Nicola Helen Neilson, admitted in 2003, worked for Latimer Hinks Solicitors until April 2019. Concerns about her files surfaced after she left the firm, leading the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to investigate. At a hearing on 11 October 2022, she admitted all allegations in full.

The tribunal heard that between October 2013 and April 2019 Neilson mishandled three conveyancing matters. In each case, clients were left exposed because she failed to register titles or charges promptly. In two, she breached undertakings given to clients and their lenders. On two occasions she also provided misleading or incomplete information, suggesting applications were underway when they had not been sent.

One case involved client RB, whose purchase completed in September 2015. Neilson undertook to register the mortgage within the Land Registry’s priority period but delayed for four months before filing, long after the deadline had passed. When she finally wrote to the lender in January 2016, she implied the application was already in progress, concealing the true delay. Further applications were made but not pursued adequately, and by May 2019, part of the property still remained unregistered.

A second case concerned clients SW and JL, who completed a purchase in October 2018. Neilson gave a written undertaking to handle registration, yet when the Land Registry raised requisitions in November, she failed to act. By the time she left the firm in April 2019, the registration remained incomplete, breaching her professional promise to protect her clients’ and lender’s interests.

The third case involved clients DT and CT, who completed a purchase in 2013. Neilson attempted registration but failed to resolve requisitions. Years later, in 2015, DT discovered the property had never been registered. When confronted, Neilson gave repeated assurances that applications had been made and were being processed. In reality, no such applications had been lodged until February 2019, over five years after completion.

The SRA’s forensic investigation revealed a pattern of neglect, compounded by inaccurate updates. Neilson accepted in interview that her emails had been misleading and admitted that clients did not receive the service they should have expected. She said she had been overworked, distracted by HR duties, and often assumed that secretarial staff had submitted paperwork when they had not.

Dishonesty and recklessness were originally alleged but withdrawn on the eve of the hearing. The SRA conceded that Neilson had likely held an honest belief that applications were pending, though her actions still breached professional standards. The tribunal expressed concern at the late withdrawal of those serious allegations, noting they should have been reviewed earlier.

Mitigation was advanced on Neilson’s behalf. She had no prior disciplinary history, had admitted her failures early, and expressed genuine remorse. Her new firm had introduced safeguards including dedicated administrative support, robust case management systems, and structured file reviews. She had also undergone further training to avoid repetition. Colleagues provided testimonials praising her current work and professional conduct.

The tribunal accepted that there had been no financial loss to clients, though the risk of serious harm was significant. It found her culpability and the potential damage to public trust moderate. The misconduct was aggravated by its persistence across multiple files but mitigated by her cooperation and remedial steps.

In sanctioning her, the panel concluded that a reprimand was insufficient. While suspension was argued by the SRA, the tribunal held that a substantial fine struck the right balance. Neilson was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £16,500 in costs.

The judgment emphasised that clients rely on solicitors to safeguard property rights and meet undertakings without delay. Neilson’s failures spanned years and left clients exposed, even if no losses ultimately materialised. The fine and costs, the panel ruled, marked the seriousness of her conduct and underscored the need to maintain public confidence in the profession.