Many many posts ago I asked why deposits were paid directly to builders and some of the solicitors at the time justified it. I can't find my post but some of the questions I would have for the legal profession are
1. What is the link between the people who run Homebond and builders.
2. Did solicitors point out to purchasers that their deposit was going directly to the builder and that if the builder went bust they could potentially lose their deposit?
3. Is the Law society looking at not allowing deposits to be paid to builders - I think MOB replied to this for me before
4. If there is a homebond guarantee for a deposit then it should not have a time limit, it's time limit should be equal to the handing over of the completed property or no signing of contract
5. Is the Law society looking at the fact that completion dates in contracts mean absolutely nothing, they are basically non binding on builders but the purchaser can be forced to complete
6. Is the Law society looking at changing the standard contract so that mortgage clauses can not be removed unless the purchaser has a guaranteed mortgage contract from a bank or they have the cash to complete or something like that.
There seems to be a particular problem in relation to off plan property in that the balance of power is with the builder to the detriment of the purchaser, an uneven legal relationship. To me then the legal profession needs to step in and make sure this doesn't happen in the future.
Perhaps you should repost under a seperate heading as this post is taking a life of its own.