We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
how do you avoid this payment of chancel?
Comments
-
Not nonsense, it's you failing to comprehend, so no need to apologise
The accident is not that the chancel needs repairing, it is that you discover your property is liable for charges. Once that is discovered, you must pay as and when the vicar decides to repair the chancel.
Therein lies the second problem of the indemnity policy. Most people haven't the foggiest about what they are taking insurance against. It's absolutely nothing like the above example if you read up the process of how they would even get close to being able to ask people to contribute to repairs0 -
If all the churches were shut and converted into flats but keeping the outside the same roughly 22 people would notice in the entire country
and no one would care about them either.
I think you'll find that the Church is far too financially astute to get into flat conversions at a time when the bottom has fallen out of the market.:rotfl:0 -
-
I said you wouldn't get a quote for that:
No. You buy a house without knowing if the church has the right to make chancel charges on it, and you insure against the risk of it subsequently being found liable. Once it is found liable, you cannot take out insurance against the charges. [Because the vicar could otherwise plan some works, get his liable parishoners to take out insurance and scam the insurance company out of the cost of works for any project]. The risk is not that the charges are too high, it is that you may discover a liability attaches to the property
Or if it costs £500,000 and only 25 people are liable? Don't for one moment imagine that this is an urban problem - it is is rural areas that this happens. But you shouldn't worry your head with this until you understand that once you know there is chancel liability it is too late to insure. The accident has happened and you are insuring against a certainty.
Looks like your premier ability is not comprehending.
With respect, I think you need to be more 'au fait' with the principles of insurance before you go scaremongering people into taking your advice and buying insurance they could well do without. Chancel insurance is one of the biggest rip-offs/scams that has ever been invented.
I will try and explain in very simple terms. I buy life/house/car insurance because if a certain event (it’s a term the insurance people use – not accident as you keep referring to) occurs, I stand to face a huge financial burden which will probably bankrupt me. Now, the chances of me dying, burning my house down, having a car accident are calculated by people called actuaries (these are people who find accountancy too exciting). You can find out what the chances are of these events happening by going to your Reference Library ie google. The problem with Chancel insurance is that you can’t. There are no tables which tell you what the likelihood is of being stung with a bill you can’t afford for Chancel repair. Furthermore, you won’t find out what the average cost of Chancel repair is either.
With traditional insurance, once you know the likelihood of an event occurring, and the financial loss that will result, you can make an informed decision as to whether you want to takeout insurance and what type (eg fully comp/third party)
It is only when you are in possession of the full facts that you can make an informed decision. If you are denied access to this information then you cannot make a rational decision – and that’s when the scaremongers take over and suggest that buyers will ‘sling their hook’ rather than buy a house without Chancel insurance. You were sucked in when you said that ‘What if the repairs are £500,000 and there are only 25 of you? Exactly, this is my very point. When there are no statistics the scaremongers take over.
In actual fact, of course, we don’t go down and look up these statistics at the Reference library. We rely on a myriad of Insuance companies to do the work for us then give us a quote. We trust the market (rightly or wrongly). They won’t quote you for Chancel insurance though – there are no statistics!
In your posting you suggest that you can only insure against having a liability. This is wrong. Merely being liable does not bring with it financial penalty, so you cannot insure against it. You insure against a financial disaster ie the bill dropping on your doorstep for your share of Chancel repairs.
It is staggering the amount of money that must be made out of this scam. There must about a million homes that change hands every year, and if they each paid £100 to £200 for Chancel insurance…………..Blimey you could rebuild most of them for that price – every year!
Even the Chancel ‘search’ is a rip off. It tells you whether you ‘may’ have a liability. And don’t be fooled – there isn’t a clerk going down to the basement to dust off some old files and look through them. Someone on minimum wage types your postcode into a database and the iffy answer comes back in a flash. Cost about tuppence. You can have a more detailed search done to find out if you’re really liable, wait for this it’s a cracker………………….for more than the cost of the insurance premium! (This is a more expensive search and probably costs around fivepence - or £200 to you...plus VAT......plus admin charges!!!!)
Hope this helps you understand why Chancel insurance is one of the biggest rip-offs ever.
Even if solicitors aren’t getting a back-hander, its no skin off their nose to advise you to take insurance out – after all its your money – and what’s another £100 when your shelling out thousands anyway?0 -
That's not the point I was making. So if you want to make that counter argument, you need to find someone to make the point you are arguing against. That person is not me. But I am bored with this.dothemaths wrote: »With respect, I think you need to be more 'au fait' with the principles of insurance before you go scaremongering people into taking your advice and buying insurance they could well do without. Chancel insurance is one of the biggest rip-offs/scams that has ever been invented.
I will try and explain in very simple terms. I buy life/house/car insurance because if a certain event (it’s a term the insurance people use – not accident as you keep referring to) occurs, I stand to face a huge financial burden which will probably bankrupt me. Now, the chances of me dying, burning my house down, having a car accident are calculated by people called actuaries (these are people who find accountancy too exciting). You can find out what the chances are of these events happening by going to your Reference Library ie google. The problem with Chancel insurance is that you can’t. There are no tables which tell you what the likelihood is of being stung with a bill you can’t afford for Chancel repair. Furthermore, you won’t find out what the average cost of Chancel repair is either.
With traditional insurance, once you know the likelihood of an event occurring, and the financial loss that will result, you can make an informed decision as to whether you want to takeout insurance and what type (eg fully comp/third party)
It is only when you are in possession of the full facts that you can make an informed decision. If you are denied access to this information then you cannot make a rational decision – and that’s when the scaremongers take over and suggest that buyers will ‘sling their hook’ rather than buy a house without Chancel insurance. You were sucked in when you said that ‘What if the repairs are £500,000 and there are only 25 of you? Exactly, this is my very point. When there are no statistics the scaremongers take over.
In actual fact, of course, we don’t go down and look up these statistics at the Reference library. We rely on a myriad of Insuance companies to do the work for us then give us a quote. We trust the market (rightly or wrongly). They won’t quote you for Chancel insurance though – there are no statistics!
In your posting you suggest that you can only insure against having a liability. This is wrong. Merely being liable does not bring with it financial penalty, so you cannot insure against it. You insure against a financial disaster ie the bill dropping on your doorstep for your share of Chancel repairs.
It is staggering the amount of money that must be made out of this scam. There must about a million homes that change hands every year, and if they each paid £100 to £200 for Chancel insurance…………..Blimey you could rebuild most of them for that price – every year!
Even the Chancel ‘search’ is a rip off. It tells you whether you ‘may’ have a liability. And don’t be fooled – there isn’t a clerk going down to the basement to dust off some old files and look through them. Someone on minimum wage types your postcode into a database and the iffy answer comes back in a flash. Cost about tuppence. You can have a more detailed search done to find out if you’re really liable, wait for this it’s a cracker………………….for more than the cost of the insurance premium! (This is a more expensive search and probably costs around fivepence - or £200 to you...plus VAT......plus admin charges!!!!)
Hope this helps you understand why Chancel insurance is one of the biggest rip-offs ever.
Even if solicitors aren’t getting a back-hander, its no skin off their nose to advise you to take insurance out – after all its your money – and what’s another £100 when your shelling out thousands anyway?After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
dothemaths wrote: »With respect, I think you need to be more 'au fait' with the principles of insurance before you go scaremongering people into taking your advice and buying insurance they could well do without. Chancel insurance is one of the biggest rip-offs/scams that has ever been invented.
I don't know who you're arguing with either really. You seem to be arguing for the sake of it.
No-one is scaremongering. You've admitted yourself that the full search costs more than the insurance.
A buyer may not want to buy your house after they had carried out the more expensive full search because the liabilty would then be proven and the premiums rocket. People pull out for lesser reasons than that. No-one is suggesting or scaremongering that a buyer would walk away over the sake of the cheaper £50-80 premium.
This cheaper, 'catch-all' insurance policy may well make a lot of money for the insurer but it also provideds a quick solution to an unquantifiable problem. It's far better to have this option as many buyers would almost certainly pull out if they thought they might be faced by a massive bill.
Whether or not people agree with Chancel Liability is a totally seperate issue to the insurance to cover the bill. If there is something that people might want to insure themselves against, then it's a good thing that insurance is available for them.Everything that is supposed to be in heaven is already here on earth.
0 -
that as people are tight it was not such a bad thing if the church does this!! does not give me much faith in the church!!!!0
-
Doozergirl wrote: »I don't know who you're arguing with either really. You seem to be arguing for the sake of it.
No-one is scaremongering. You've admitted yourself that the full search costs more than the insurance.
A buyer may not want to buy your house after they had carried out the more expensive full search because the liabilty would then be proven and the premiums rocket. People pull out for lesser reasons than that. No-one is suggesting or scaremongering that a buyer would walk away over the sake of the cheaper £50-80 premium.
This cheaper, 'catch-all' insurance policy may well make a lot of money for the insurer but it also provideds a quick solution to an unquantifiable problem. It's far better to have this option as many buyers would almost certainly pull out if they thought they might be faced by a massive bill.
Whether or not people agree with Chancel Liability is a totally seperate issue to the insurance to cover the bill. If there is something that people might want to insure themselves against, then it's a good thing that insurance is available for them.
Not sure what you mean. The point I am trying to make is that the whole business surrounding Chancel insurance is a scam, from the 'search' to the insurance premium. Its a complete rip-off. Have any of your friends been stung for Chancel insurance? No I thought not. How many buyers do you know who have pulled out because the vendor did not have Chancel Insurance? It's unheard of.
Many posts in this forum are suggesting that even if insurance companies exploit us, we should still pay up..........just in case, others say that in whole scheme of things, what's £80 - £100 - £150, others say that the risks are unquantifiable - that's just not true, and scaremongering. They are quantifiable - but not by you and me or other insurance companies because the data is not in the public domain. I am trying to suggest, (obviously not very successfully!) that this is patently unfair.
This is, after all, supposed to be a 'moneysavingexpert' website and not a mutual appreciation society to extol the virtues of Chancelcheck. Shouldn't we be trying to help each other to save money? The tag line on the front page of the website says 'Consumer Revenge' - but I see precious little of that in your posting.0 -
I'll say again. The issue of Chancel Repair Liability being unfair, random and incredibly expensive is a totally separate argument to the issue of Chancel Liability Insurance.dothemaths wrote: »The point I am trying to make is that the whole business surrounding Chancel insurance is a scam, from the 'search' to the insurance premium. Its a complete rip-off.dothemaths wrote: »Have any of your friends been stung for Chancel insurance? No I thought not. How many buyers do you know who have pulled out because the vendor did not have Chancel Insurance? It's unheard of.
I don't really think you even understand the terms properly which is why I think you are so angry about it all and arguing.
For your information, there is a thread on this board featuring someone who has buyers that for some reasion did carry out the full search, found out the property was affected and are now faced with a bill of over £1000 for insurance to cover the confirmed risk. At this point, instead of being £80 to quibble over, it's now a considerable bill that the vendor is going to have to cover themselves to keep the sale on track. Whether or not the church claims is not for the buyer to worry over. The vendor pays that big premium or it is certainly the sort of thing that a buyer would pull out over.
Unquantifiable it is indeed because until a bill is issued by a church nobody at all knows which church is falling down and can't afford the repairs, exactly what repairs are then needed or how much the repairs will cost.dothemaths wrote: »They are quantifiable - but not by you and me or other insurance companies because the data is not in the public domain. I am trying to suggest, (obviously not very successfully!) that this is patently unfair.
The information as to how many houses are affected is in the public domain. If you pay for the full search, you will find out for sure if your house is affected. But the basic insurance premium is cheaper than the search. It's not a scam, it's pretty bloody clever. You want the search, pay for it. You want the premium instead, pay for that. You want neither and to take the risk, do that instead. Who is being exploited?
You seem to suggest that people should neither carry out any search or insure themselves which might save you £50 but it might cost you the £200,000 that it is costing the affected family in Aston Cantlow! Not Moneysaving at all.dothemaths wrote: »This is, after all, supposed to be a 'moneysavingexpert' website and not a mutual appreciation society to extol the virtues of Chancelcheck. Shouldn't we be trying to help each other to save money? The tag line on the front page of the website says 'Consumer Revenge' - but I see precious little of that in your posting.
I don't see where the scam is -
a) everyone pays for a full search at a cost of a couple of hundred pounds and then some people have to pay a very large premium on top.
b) everyone pays £6 for a quick idea of whether the parish is affected and then, if it is, pays £50 for the problem to go away.
It may well make megabucks for the insurer but it's the cheapest option to insure without knowing the risk.
The fact that there are uninsured drivers out there is a bad thing. The fact that we have to pay extra on our premiums to coversubsequent losses is a total PITA but the fact that we will then still be covered for our losses in the case that we are hit by an uninsured driver is a good thing. What needs to be addressed is the uninsured drivers, not for us to stop paying extra to keep ourselves protected.
Same with Chancel Repair Liability. It's this that needs to be addressed, not the insurance to cover against it.Everything that is supposed to be in heaven is already here on earth.
0 -
with you. what about doing something about it?dothemaths wrote: »Not sure what you mean. The point I am trying to make is that the whole business surrounding Chancel insurance is a scam, from the 'search' to the insurance premium. Its a complete rip-off. Have any of your friends been stung for Chancel insurance? No I thought not. How many buyers do you know who have pulled out because the vendor did not have Chancel Insurance? It's unheard of.
Many posts in this forum are suggesting that even if insurance companies exploit us, we should still pay up..........just in case, others say that in whole scheme of things, what's £80 - £100 - £150, others say that the risks are unquantifiable - that's just not true, and scaremongering. They are quantifiable - but not by you and me or other insurance companies because the data is not in the public domain. I am trying to suggest, (obviously not very successfully!) that this is patently unfair.
This is, after all, supposed to be a 'moneysavingexpert' website and not a mutual appreciation society to extol the virtues of Chancelcheck. Shouldn't we be trying to help each other to save money? The tag line on the front page of the website says 'Consumer Revenge' - but I see precious little of that in your posting.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards