Section 32 Vendor Statements — Avoiding the perils and pitfalls

If you missed our webinar on Section 32 Vendor Statements — Avoiding the perils and pitfalls, the recording from March 2026 is now available.

A defective Section 32 Vendor Statement doesn’t just slow things down - it opens the door to rescission of the contract of sale of land by the purchaser, delays, costly disputes, and the potential for a claim against the vendor’s solicitor.

Jamie McCallum, LPLC Prevention and Risk Manager, and Accredited Property Law Specialist, discusses the hidden risks when preparing Section 32 Vendor Statements and provides practical strategies to help practitioners navigate vendor disclosure.

Jamie discusses:

• Consequences of a defective Section 32 Vendor Statement
• Common pitfalls that expose practitioners to avoidable claims
• Workflows and procedures that can minimise the risk of a defective Section 32 Vendor Statement
• Why obtaining certificates is a critical conveyancing risk management tool
• Advising vendors on their disclosure obligations under the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic)
• Understanding section 12(d) of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) / 'material facts', and the consequences of non-disclosure.
  
  

This seminar is suitable for paralegals through to senior lawyers and is a great refresher for conveyancing practitioners.

Presented by: Jamie McCallum, LPLC Risk Manager, and Accredited Property Law Specialist

CPD: 1 Substantive Law

This resource contains answers to summarised and paraphrased questions that are based on actual questions that attendees asked Jamie McCallum during the presentation that were not answered during the presentation.

What were the names of the books you referred to in your presentation?

As a conveyancing resource base, the LPLC recommends the following reference guides or textbooks:

• Textbook - D Lloyd and W Rimmer “Sale of Land Act Victoria” 2nd edition (Lloyd and Rimmer)

• Textbook – S Libbis “Conveyancing in Victoria”

• Conveyancing guide – “1001 Conveyancing Answers (Vic)” published by By Lawyers.

When acting for a vendor and there is a minor discrepancy between the client's name on the title and their ID (such as the order of first name and surname), what is the best way to address this, in circumstances where the name on the contract matches their ID?

You must take “reasonable steps” to verify your client’s identity and right to deal.

Where the contract name matches the vendor’s ID but there is a minor discrepancy on title (such as the order of given name and surname), first satisfy yourself that the person you are dealing with is the registered proprietor.

In that discussion, draw the client’s attention to the discrepancy, ask for the reason and any additional evidence needed to explain it, and tell the client that a ‘one and the same person’ statutory declaration is required before you can proceed. Either prepare this on their instructions and witness it, or send the client a blank statutory declaration together with information about who may witness it. Ensure you receive a properly completed, signed and witnessed declaration, and verify the client’s signature against your VOI and other file material, at the start of the matter.

If the first VOI check is rejected, complete an additional VOI check and ask the client for further identification. You must be able to reasonably satisfy yourself, with the support of the statutory declaration, that the name on title, relates to the one and the same person, before approving the VOI and proceeding with the conveyance.

I am a regional sole practitioner. I find most conveyancers and some solicitors in this area will not attach recent rate certificates to the vendor statement and rely on rate notices. They send us emails and confirm that rate certificates are not compulsory as well. I would appreciate if you could share tips to mitigate risks (for purchasers) in absence of those rate certificates.

Rate certificates, whilst recommended, are not compulsory. Listen to this webinar on the different ways for a vendor to comply with section 32A of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) (Act). When acting for a purchaser in this situation, order these certificates yourself. If they disclose something that should have been included in the vendor statement, your client may have a right to end the contract.

Is there an obligation to disclose the AVPCC (also known as the Australian Valuation Property Classification Code) where the property is residential or does the obligation only apply to commercial property?

The applicable AVPCC must be disclosed for any type of property in the section 32 vendor statement, as required under section 32A of the Act.

With land tax now being unable to be apportioned, what would be the effect of neglecting to disclose?

Any applicable land tax must be disclosed in the section 32 vendor statement under section 32A of the Act. This is a statutory disclosure obligation that is independent of whether section 10G of the Act permits any adjustment of land tax based on the sale price. A failure to correctly disclose land tax liabilities could be a breach of section 32A of the Act, and may allow a purchaser to terminate the contract of sale any time prior to settlement under section 32K(2) of the Act.

If a land tax certificate is issued showing a historical land tax arrears against the previous vendor, and upon request with the SRO, a revised certificate removing the historical land tax liability under S.95AA Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic), is issued, would it be non-disclosure if the revised land tax certificate (showing Nil land tax liability) is attached in the section 32 vendor statement, in lieu of the original certificate showing the historical land tax liability?

Section 32A(c)(ii) of the Act requires disclosure of "the amount of any rates, taxes, charges or other similar outgoings affecting the land and any interest payable on any part of those rates, taxes, charges or outgoings which is unpaid, including any rates, taxes, charges or outgoings for which the purchaser may become liable in consequence of the sale and which the vendor might reasonably be expected to have knowledge of."

Once the historical arrears in land tax have been paid in full, section 32A of the Act no longer requires disclosure of those arrears. However, section 32A still requires disclosure of the current land tax liability for the property.

Is there a timeframe that the title diagrams started including the easements more consistently, in order to help guide us to assess what properties are more likely to contain unregistered easements?

Since the introduction of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) and the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic), generally speaking, the registration of easements on title diagrams to reflect the location of installed infrastructure on the land has been more consistent. However, even under the current system, errors and omissions can still occur and unregistered easements can still crystallise after the registration of a plan of subdivision.

There is still value in obtaining water information certificates and sewers and drain maps for all properties, including those in newer suburbs. That said, older and well-established suburbs generally carry a greater risk of unregistered easements.

What about multiple "zombie" s173 agreements that no longer have any operative function (eg on multi-stage subdivisions) but they remain on title?

Section 173 agreements recorded on the property title are restrictions that need to be disclosed under section 32C of the Act, even if there are no ongoing obligations in the section 173 Agreement that apply to the land being sold. This means attaching the actual instrument to the section 32 statement, not just the registered search statement listing the instrument number.

If a vendor client’s land has section 173 agreements recorded on title that are no longer applicable to the land, then the vendor client may wish to investigate methods to remove them under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic).

Is it only current planning permits that need disclosing or expired planning permits also (and if so, how long is the required time to disclose an expired planning permit)?

Section 32D(a) of the Act requires “particulars of any notice, order, declaration, report or recommendation of a public authority or government department or approved proposal directly and currently affecting the land” to be disclosed.

If the requirements under a planning permit have been performed in full and the permit and its conditions no longer have any legal or practical effect, or the planning permit has truly lapsed with no continuing conditions, there is no need to disclose it because it is no longer currently affecting the land. See further commentary on "currently affecting" in Lloyd and Rimmer (2nd edition), and the case of Overton v Baker [1997] 2 VR 297.

However, take care: some planning permits include long-tail conditions that still apply even after the vendor has complied with the rest of the permit conditions. Examples include a planning permit for the installation of signage on the property, or a planning permit allowing installation of a septic tank, where there are ongoing conditions. In these circumstances, ensure that such planning permits are correctly disclosed in the section 32 vendor statement.

Are planning permits and building permits on neighbouring properties considered a 'notice or proposal affecting the property' being sold?

Lloyd and Rimmer suggest that a neighbour’s planning or building permit would need to be disclosed in the section 32 vendor statement where the vendor’s property might be directly or physically affected. For example, where the neighbour’s planning permit allows fencing or foundation work on the boundaries of the two properties that physically affects the subject land.

Which planning certificate? I note one that we order tends to be the same as the free report, which certificate includes the proposed amendments?

The free property planning reports from the Department of Transport and Planning do not disclose whether there are any proposed amendments to the planning scheme that affects the land. Only a paid planning certificate provides this information.

Any proposed amendments to the planning scheme would need to be disclosed under section 32D of the Act. Ordering a planning certificate and annexing it to the section 32 vendor statement minimises the risk of a proposed planning scheme amendment going undisclosed.

The LPLC is aware of some conveyancing practitioners who also annex the free planning report to the section 32 vendor statement (in addition to the planning certificate), both as a value-add and out of an abundance of caution, as the free certificate includes other information.

What does a copy of the building permit mean? Is it just the 2-3 page permit or should it include all of the documents that are stamped as approved under the permit - ie plans, soil reports, engineering documents etc?

Can a section 32 vendor statement include a council Regulation 51(1) building approvals certificate, and not include the building permit, occupancy permit and DBI certificate?

We are aware that practitioners have different views as to whether copies of building and occupancy permits must be attached to the section 32 statement, if a building approvals certificate is attached to the section 32 statement, and there is no definitive case law on the question.

One view is that copies of any building or occupancy permit should be annexed to the section 32 statement. However, there is another view that attaching a building approvals certificate by itself is sufficient, because it discloses the “particulars” required under the Act.

It is recommended that practitioners review the commentary on section 32D of the Act, and ‘Details and Particulars’, found in Lloyd and Rimmer, for further discussion on this issue.

Further, Lloyd and Rimmer state that best practice would also require any council endorsed documents that form part of a planning permit, such as building diagrams, development plans, soil reports etc to be disclosed in the section 32 statement, to comply with section 32D of the Act. They state that “documents referred to in a planning permit which exist when the section 32 statement is given form part of the permit and should be included in the section 32 statement.”

Excluding owner-builder works, there is no requirement for disclosure of a registered builder’s domestic building insurance under the Act. However, depending on the form of contract of sale of land used, there may be a condition requiring the vendor to provide a copy of the domestic building insurance to the vendor prior to settlement.

Are council building information certificates required if the vendor confirms that they have not done owner-builder works, and haven’t applied for building permits, etc?

Ordering council building information certificates as a matter of course in a vendor conveyancing practice is a good risk management practice. Occasionally, client’s instructions can be incorrect, which runs the risk that if required information is not disclosed the section 32 vendor statement is defective.

However, council building information certificates are not a catch all. If a council building information certificate discloses building permits that the client has not previously disclosed, then solicitors need to confirm whether those works also fall within the owner-builder requirements under section 137B of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (Building Act). If the vendor has done owner-builder works at the property (whether structural or non-structural and requiring a permit or not), then solicitors need to ensure that section 137B of the Building Act is strictly complied with before the parties enter into the contract of sale of land.

Would you recommend ordering the other building information certificates that councils offer?

It is ultimately the client’s decision. Your job is to tell them the benefits of doing so and the risks of not doing so.

• There are two main building information certificates that councils offer, which certificates are based on the regulations found in the Building Regulations 2018 (Vic) (Building Regulations), and include:
• Building Information Certificate (1) (also known as a Regulation 51(1) certificate), which provides the following details in relation to any building or land:
  • details of any permit or certificate of final inspection issued in the preceding 10 years
  • details of any current determination made under regulation 64(1) of the Regulations or exemption granted under regulation 231(2) of the Building Regulations
  • details of any current notice or order issued by the relevant building surveyor under the Building Act.

• Building Information Certificate (2) (also known as a Regulation 51(2) certificate), which provides details as to whether the building or land is:
  • in an area that is liable to flooding within the meaning of regulation 5(2) of the Building Regulations
  • in an area that is designated under regulation 150 of the Building Regulations, as an area in which buildings are likely to be subject to attack by termites
  • in an area for which a bushfire attack level has been specified in a planning scheme
  • in an area designated under regulation 152 of the Building Regulations as likely to be subject to significant snowfalls
  • designated land
  • designated works.

Certificates are not a silver bullet, but when used correctly and attached to section 32 vendor statements, they can identify issues about the property that the vendor client may have failed to disclose in their initial instructions.

What is the rule for an extension of building that does not have a building permit? We have come across some cases where the vendor does not disclose the building extension to the purchaser, but we can see through google maps that an extension has been done to the residence.

Acting for the vendor

If no building permits were obtained, there is nothing to disclose under section 32D or section 32E of the Act. However, two other obligations may still arise:

• If the works were done without a licensed builder, then owner-builder obligations under section 137B of the Building Act may apply, which requires the vendor to comply with them before the contract is entered into, i.e. obtain and provide a building condition report (irrespective of the value of the works), and owner-builder warranty insurance (depending on the value of the works) to the purchaser before the contract is signed
• if the vendor has actual knowledge that the works are illegal or non-compliant, that may be a "material fact" requiring disclosure under section 12(d) of the Act.

When taking instructions, ask your vendor client directly whether any works have been carried out without a permit. If the answer raises concerns, advise them in writing about the potential obligations under section 137B of the Building Act and section 12(d) of the Act before the section 32 vendor statement is signed.

Acting for the purchaser

Where potential unpermitted works are identified, such as through a google maps comparison or a council building information certificate that discloses fewer permits than the property appears to have, advise the client in writing before they sign the contract of sale. The risks are significant: if the local council determines the works are illegal or non-compliant, it may require demolition or extensive modifications. Even where demolition is not required, the purchaser may face costly compliance work. In either case, the purchaser could be exposed to significant financial loss.

Advise the client on the options available to mitigate the risk, which may include obtaining expert building advice, negotiating a special condition, or considering any termination rights under section 137B of the Building Act or compensation rights under section 12(d) of the Act.

How do you think the vendor being required to obtain building and pest reports foreshadowed by Government is going to be handled in practice?

At this stage the LPLC has not seen any of the proposed legislation. However, the LPLC will be monitoring this proposal, and in turn will consider providing updates and guidance on the issue, if and when the proposal becomes legislation.

Are private building permits and certificates of final inspection registered with local councils? We have a council building information certificate that shows NIL building permits and certificates of final inspections, when in fact there are private building permits and certificates of final inspection for the property.

Normally, the building surveyor that prepares the building permit, certificate of final inspection or occupancy permit would submit the relevant documents to council. Your client may wish to contact their building inspector to chase this up.

What is the position at law where a vendor engages a builder to do renovation works and subsequently finds out the builder is not registered? How does the owner then address insurance issues in those circumstances, and any section 32 disclosure requirements?

In this circumstance, as there would not be a major domestic building contract, the works would be owner-builder works. If this is the case, then depending on when the works were commenced and completed, then a valid building condition report (also known as an owner-builder defects or condition report) would need to be obtained and provided to the purchaser, before entering the contract of sale of land. Depending on the value of the works, the purchaser may also need to obtain owner-builder warranty insurance prior to the parties signing the contract.

If you act for a vendor who purchased the property from an owner-builder and the building permits issued for these owner-builder works are less than 7 years old, are you obligated to provide the old owner-builder report as it is already outdated (more than a year old)?

No, owner builder obligations do not extend to subsequent owners. However, you would need to disclose the building permits to comply with sections 32D and 32E of the Act.

If you advise the vendor to obtain a section 137B defect report but they refuse to do so, will a special condition in the contract to waive the vendor's obligation be good enough to protect the vendor?

Whilst there is no prohibition in the Building Act from contracting out of section 137B (compared to various sections in the Act or section 137C which only allows contracting out where the breach was known or ought reasonably to have been known to the person to exist at the time the contract was executed), non-compliance is a criminal offence. The LPLC therefore considers it would be a risky move to rely on a special condition contracting out of section 137B of the Building Act.

Indeed, some practitioners take the view that they must cease acting for a client who has instructed the solicitor to not comply with section 137B of the Building Act as to continue acting would be aiding and abetting an offence.

For completeness, the LPLC notes the following comments made in obiter in Betts v Harman [2021] VCC 1349, which involved the sale of a property by an owner-builder in which no certificate evidencing existence of insurance was provided to the buyer. The facts of that case turned on post-contract behaviour (purchaser continuing with the contract after becoming aware of non-compliance), rather than a clause in the contract contracting out of the statutory right. However, the Court did note in obiter:

• at [93], “section 137B of the Building Act is an important piece of consumer protection law. It is not an instance of Parliament seeking to protect consumers from themselves, however. There is no prohibition on contracting out of its terms.”
• but also at [137]: “The parties to a contract of sale cannot dispense a vendor from the consequences of a criminal contravention.”

Given the criminal consequences, the LPLC does not recommend that solicitors advise their clients to purport to contract out of section 137B of the Building Act.

What needs to be in the condition report?

The Act states that the Minister can require by notice in the Government Gazette what matters must be covered in the “report on the building”. This has not been done. The Victorian Building and Plumbing Commission does provide template reports, but these are rarely used. Further, they refer to repealed regulations. More importantly, make sure the report is by a prescribed building practitioner (see below) and not more than 6 months old on the day of sale.

Who can prepare the defects inspection report?

Under section 137B(2)(a) of the Building Act, the report must be " from a prescribed building practitioner that contains the matters that are required by the Minister by notice published in the Government Gazette." The following are prescribed building practitioners:

What questions should I ask clients to diagnose how section 137B applies?

1. Have you undertaken any building works or renovations?
2. What were they?
3. Were the works done under a major domestic building contract with a registered builder?
4. When did the works take place?
5. What was their value?
6. Was a building permit required? Was it obtained? Who is listed as the builder on any building permits? NB: if works were done without a required permit, this may also be a material fact and it will prevent the vendor’s ability to obtain the required insurance, necessitating a VCAT order.
7. Was an occupancy permit/certificate of final inspection obtained?
8. Do you intend to leave Australia following settlement? NB: this may affect the ability to obtain insurance

What are some warning signs that the works may be owner-builder works?

1. Works of a type that do not require a registered builder (such as a kitchen cosmetic renovation)
2. Vendor (or agent) project managing separate trades to spruce property before sale
3. Vendor named as owner-builder on permit
4. No major domestic building contract with a registered builder
5. Project managed separate trades personally
6. Engaged non-registered tradespeople directly
7. Did works themselves

Do you have a view about disclosing availability of "telephone" services to land in the NBN era?

“Telephone” under the Act does not refer to NBN based telephone services. Accordingly, if a property only has access to NBN based telephone services, and the property has no connection to traditional telephone services, then conveyancing practitioners should state “telephone services” as “not connected” in the section 32 vendor statement in accordance with section 32H of the Act.

You could add a sentence noting the property is connected to the NBN if the client wanted this, but this would not be in respect of any statutory disclosure requirement.

Is there any future plan to add the service of NBN to the Section 32 services - not just telephone?

The LPLC is not aware of any proposals to amend section 32H of the Act to require the disclosure of whether NBN is not connected to a property.

If executors for a deceased estate are acting for the sale, what happens if they cannot attend the property and do not know what services are connected? What are the risks associated with this and how to approach this?

If services are not correctly listed as “not connected” under section 32H of the Act, this may permit a purchaser to terminate the contract of sale of land any time prior to settlement.

Solicitors should be weary of relying solely on water information certificates to assess whether water or sewerage services are connected. The LPLC is aware of some properties where the water authority has charged a water and sewerage connection fee, when in fact, the property was not connected to mains water or sewerage.

Where the vendor has limited knowledge of the property, for example, where they are an executor of estate, power of attorney, mortgagee in possession or unable to inspect the property themselves, then it may be prudent that the vendor client obtains a suitably qualified tradesperson or agent to inspect the property and confirm which utility services are connected and not connected.

What is the definition of "connected"? For example, for gas and electricity, is a service connected if it only runs to the boundary of the property?

In Urban No.1 Co-Operative Society v Kilavus [1993] 2 VR 201 (Urban No.1 Case), the court held that a service is "connected" to the land where it is operative and capable of providing "lawful and safe supply to the dwelling".

In other words, is the service readily capable of operation, or does it require further works by a tradesperson to allow use of the service on the land?

Based on the reasoning in the Urban No.1 Case, a gas pipe leading to the property boundary could be considered as "not connected" under section 32H of the Act. In contrast, where a dwelling is fully connected to the gas main, including the necessary gas meter, "gas supply" could be considered as "connected".

In the Urban No.1 Case, the electricity supply was found to be "not connected" even though there was an electricity meter box installed at the dwelling. The court held that missing fuses from the meter box, which needed to be installed by the SEC, prevented the "lawful and safe supply" of electricity to the dwelling.

Implicit in the reasoning in the Urban No.1 Case, is that there must be a building, dwelling, or structure on the land that can receive or use the supply. Accordingly, services located or available on vacant land, are likely to be considered as "not connected" based on the reasoning from the Urban No.1 Case.

Do material facts cover uncertainties? For example, we occasionally have vendors who are unsure if a property contains asbestos. Should this be disclosed simply by noting 'the vendor is unsure if the property contains asbestos'?

Buildings constructed before 1990 may contain asbestos, and it is a common hazard in older buildings. Under the Consumer Affairs Victoria Material Facts Guidelines (Material Guidelines), the presence of asbestos in a property could be a material fact where the vendor has actual knowledge that asbestos exists in the property, for example, where the vendor became aware of asbestos because of prior tests or inspections.

In this question scenario, the mere possibility that asbestos might be present is not a material fact. The vendor’s actual knowledge is what matters.

What is the effect of non-disclosure of a murder at the premises?

Under the Material Facts Guidelines, a murder at the property could be considered a material fact.

However, the Material Facts Guidelines and the available case law both indicate that whether such information must be disclosed depends on various factors, including the vendor’s actual knowledge, what questions or concerns the purchaser has raised about the property, and whether that material fact would affect the purchaser’s willingness to buy the land.

There is very limited case law available on what constitutes material facts and when a material fact must be disclosed to a purchaser. The most useful commentary to date (as of March 2026) is from the Victorian County Court case of Nota & Anor v Karlovy Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VCC 1132 (11 August 2025), at paragraphs 410 to 435.

If a murder at a property is considered a material fact that should have been disclosed but was not, the purchaser may have a right to seek compensation or damages against the vendor under section 48A of the Act.

Is a stigmatised property considered a "Material Fact" that must be disclosed in a section 32 vendor statement if an agent/buyer does not raise such a query?

Unfortunately, for solicitors there is no case that clarifies what issues are likely to be a “material fact’ under section 12(d) of the Act. The most useful commentary to date (as of March 2026) is from the Victorian County Court case of Nota & Anor v Karlovy Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VCC 1132 (11 August 2025), at paragraphs 410 to 435.

You mentioned if a client doesn't want to disclose a material fact, that you would put that clearly in writing to warn them of the risk, etc. Does that strategy mitigate any liability on the law firm? Or would the law firm remain liable for preparing a potentially defective section 32 vendor statement? Would you simply recommend disengaging a client if they did not want to disclose a material fact? Especially if it might be something significant.

Section 12(d) of the Act governs actions, behaviour or conduct of “any person who, with the intention of inducing any person to buy any land”. So that statutory scope is different from section 32 of the Act.

A breach of section 12(d) does not give the purchaser a termination right equivalent to that under section 32K(2). The risk profile of a breach of section 12(d) is therefore different from a breach of section 32 of the Act.

However, depending on the nature and significance of the material fact, solicitors may determine that they cannot continue to act where the vendor refuses to disclose a material fact to a potential purchaser.

The certificates are provided by relevant authorities. Should solicitors validate the information contained in the certificate before attaching them to the section 32 vendor statement, or can the certificates just be attached ‘as is’?

Can disclosure obligations be fulfilled alone by attaching copies of certificates in the contract?

Section 32J(1) of the Act states, "(if) any information required to be contained in a section 32 statement is specified in a certificate, notice or other document issued by a relevant authority, the vendor may attach that certificate, notice or other document (or a copy of that certificate, notice or other document) to the section 32 statement for the purpose of complying with the relevant provision of this Division requiring the information.”

Attaching a certificate to a section 32 vendor statement does not mean the job is done. As Lloyd and Rimmer note at [S.32J.10], section 32J is facilitative only. It allows required information to be provided by attaching a certificate, but does not guarantee that the certificate contains the required information.

The certificate must actually contain the required information, in the required format, as per the relevant section of the Act, and that information must be accurate. You should check each certificate against your client’s instructions before the section 32 vendor statement is signed and distributed. If anything is inconsistent with what your client has told you, or seems unusual given the nature of the property, investigate further before proceeding.

Ask your client to review the certificates and confirm that all the information is correct. Clients may have knowledge about their property that the certificate does not reflect. A water information certificate showing a charge for a mains water connection on what your client tells you is vacant land with no services, is a straightforward example of the potential for errors in certificates. However, discrepancies can be less obvious (such as compliance with a building notice that remains on the certificate).

Disclosure obligations for information not contained in certificates (such as a notice to cut grass or a protection works notice) might not be contained in a certificate.

Does section 32 of the Act oblige the vendor to provide a current certificate of compliance in respect of pool safety barriers?

A current certificate of compliance in respect of pool safety barriers may constitute a "notice, order, declaration, report or recommendation of a public authority or government department". On that basis, the certificate of compliance may need to be disclosed under section 32D of the Act. Conversely, the absence of such a certificate may constitute a material fact that also needs to be disclosed.

What should we do if a client refuses to review a draft section 32 vendor statement, saying that is the solicitor’s job?

Solicitors have a duty of care when preparing section 32 vendor statements to ensure the document accurately reflects their client’s instructions. But a section 32 vendor statement is ultimately the vendor’s declaration about their property, not the solicitor’s. Client instructions can also be incorrect.

Best practice is to ensure the vendor has reviewed and checked the section 32 vendor statement for errors or omissions before it is signed and distributed to prospective purchasers. Certificates can contain errors that the solicitor, without knowledge of the property, is not able to detect.

Vendor expectations can be managed during the initial client intake and through standardised letters. Make it clear to the vendor that errors or omissions in the section 32 vendor statement may allow the purchaser to terminate the contract any time prior to settlement. Advise clients that it is critical they take the time to thoroughly review the document for accuracy before it is signed and distributed.

Do you have any tips for how to incorporate all of these considerations within the scope of what clients are prepared to pay for fees to prepare section 32 vendor statements for residential properties?

The certificates attached to a section 32 vendor statement are ultimately a disbursement paid by the vendor client. It is up to you to communicate the value of certificates in minimising the risk of a defective vendor statement, and what the impact to the client might be if the statement is defective.

Practitioners need to charge appropriate legal fees that reflect the skill and risk involved in conveyancing. The LPLC is aware of price pressure and competition in conveyancing.

Solicitors should consider the use of precedents, and integrated practice management systems with smart intake forms and workflows that operate as a checklist of relevant issues. Using technology to improve productivity and risk management may allow solicitors to provide a high-quality service at a price that is competitive with others in the market.

For more information on the use of technology in property law, solicitors can refer to the LPLC recorded webinar Tech Solutions for Risk Reduction in Property Law.

Do we need to include the Transfer of Land certificate in the section 32 vendor statement?

Normally, a transfer of land does not need to be included in the contract of sale of land, as the vendor should be the person named on the certificate of title. The answer may be different if the transfer contains the terms of a covenant.

What is your view on including documents via an electronic link?

There is nothing wrong with section 32 vendor statements that are signed electronically in accordance with the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 (Vic) (ET Act). However, practitioners must ensure that certificates and annexed documents are attached to the actual section 32 vendor statement. If annexures and documents are sent to the purchaser as a separate digital link, there is a risk that the vendor has not complied with their obligations under the Act.