Paul Geoffrey Hayward fined £10,000 after botched undertakings and title failures

Partner admits repeated conveyancing failures; SDT orders £10,000 fine and £20,722.60 costs

Paul Geoffrey Hayward has been fined £10,000 after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he breached undertakings, failed to redeem mortgages on completion, and did not promptly register titles or charges across a series of conveyancing transactions. The panel also ordered £20,722.60 in costs.

Sitting on 12 April 2022, the Tribunal—Ms A Kellett (chair), Mr J P Davies and Mr P Hurley—heard that Hayward, then a partner at Wards Solicitors LLP, acted for Clients A–D, a family group with a property portfolio. According to the SDT, an initial mistake on Property A snowballed, creating knock-on problems across other files. Hayward accepted the allegations in full.

Under allegation 1.1, Hayward undertook—on the Firm’s behalf—to redeem or discharge existing charges on sales for Clients A and B. He failed to do so on completion and then failed to fix the problem quickly. On Property B, completion occurred on 15 December 2017 with a TMW charge still registered. By 29 March 2018, the buyer’s solicitors warned that their lender could remove them from panel if the new charge was not registered within two weeks. Redemption was not recorded until 23 October 2018. On Property A, completion happened in November 2016, yet no attempt to redeem TMW’s charge appeared until July 2017—a delay that disrupted other portfolio transactions.

Under allegation 1.2, the Tribunal found that, in multiple matters for Clients A, B, C and D, Hayward failed to remove and/or register charges and titles on completion and then failed to remedy matters promptly—or at all. Examples were stark. For Property D, funded by NatWest, completion took place on 20 December 2017. Despite two chasers from the bank, the charge was not registered until 14 November 2019—twenty-two months after drawdown. For Property E, also with NatWest, the borrower’s ownership and the charge were never evidenced as registered before the property was sold sixteen months later. On Property F, the purchaser’s title and NatWest’s charge were only registered in May 2018, two years after completion. For Property G (Barclays), the bank chased in March 2019; the charge was not registered until 21 November 2019, after Hayward had left the firm.

The SDT concluded that Hayward breached Principles 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcome 1.2 and Outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. In plain terms: he failed to act in his clients’ best interests, undermined public trust, and did not protect client money and assets. The Tribunal noted there was no financial loss to clients, lenders or the firm, and no personal gain. Even so, the delays created foreseeable risks—additional interest, threatened panel removal, and potential defects in title and security priority.

Hayward told the Tribunal the problems flowed from one initial error on Property A. He tried to unwind it through subsequent transactions, believing the position would resolve without harm. He admitted he feared internal disciplinary fallout and strain with a key client, and pressed on in the hope that completion of later steps would close the gap. He made early admissions—first to the firm, then to the SRA—and cooperated throughout. He also indicated he would prefer removal from the Roll rather than a financial penalty, believing his legal career was over.

The panel rejected strike-off or suspension as disproportionate. It found the conduct serious, deliberate in the sense of repeated decisions after the first mistake, and wholly within his control as an experienced conveyancer. But with no dishonesty, no loss, and full admissions, a Level 3 fine was the right mark. A reprimand would understate the gravity. Strike-off would go too far.

On costs, the SDT cut the SRA’s claim. It considered the internal investigation time on the forensic report excessive and reduced it, and it trimmed the external legal fees to a figure it viewed as reasonable and proportionate in an admitted case. The final order: £10,000 fine, £20,722.60 costs.

The outcome underscores a blunt lesson: in conveyancing, undertakings must be honoured, charges must be redeemed or registered promptly, and titles must be perfected without delay. When mistakes happen, transparency and swift correction are vital. Delay invites risk; silence makes it worse