Convenant & Insolvency indemnity at the last minute. How should i play it?

m_k_dons

Richard_Webster wrote: »

If there was no policy when they should be taking the matter up with the solicitors who acted for them at that time.

I asked our solicitor this:
Why has no one before us had a covenant indemnity policy that now covers us?

and she told us this:
This is not something I can comment on.

And if you say that sometimes it is cheaper to just get a new one (I know that our purchase price is higher than theirs was) then I might just save ourselves time and get the new one.

I have told both EAs in the chain and they are going to get them to pay contribute at least to the policies. I'll be making sure that I keep our policy safe! Do not want to go through this again! Why can't people just do things properly......:mad:

m_k_dons

poppysarah wrote: »

Let us know what they say.

The solicitor said that as we are getting mortgage finance both policies are compulsary. My EA told me that some solicitors just wouldn't bother either through being rubbish or choosing to ignore it. Well at least I know ours is thorough.

Richard_Webster

It is a buyer's market and there really is no reason at all why the buyers should pay for such policies.

The sellers should bear the entire cost and then they can complain to the solicitors who acted when they bought or remortgaged.

chickmug

Richard_Webster wrote: »

It is a buyer's market and there really is no reason at all why the buyers should pay for such policies.

The sellers should bear the entire cost and then they can complain to the solicitors who acted when they bought or remortgaged.

Point accepted but over the years I find that each solicitor (for the buyer and seller) are equally as adamant that the other side should foot the bill. So a question of who keeps their nerve or split down the middle.

rogerdodger007

I wouldn't pay either of those fees.
If it comes to it, the Estate Agent will take the hit - they know buyers are scare and stand to make much more than a couple of hundred should the sale go through.
Alternatively, put a new lower offer in (original offer - the cost of that insurance).
Or (and I've seen this happen), somebody else in the chain will foot the bill.

This time, the market is on your side - it's still falling and all indications (for what they are worth) are that it will fall further.

Summary: Don't pay!

chickmug

rogerdodger007 wrote: »

the Estate Agent will take the hit

Never taken the hit after dealing with thousands of sales over many years. Not known any of my associates take a hit. Fighting talk on the forum but don't let readers think it is common place as it is not usually. Unless others know different - I guess it could be a regional thing.

rogerdodger007

chickmug wrote: »

Never taken the hit after dealing with thousands of sales over many years. Not known any of my associates take a hit. Fighting talk on the forum but don't let readers think it is common place as it is not usually. Unless others know different - I guess it could be a regional thing.

I've known one agent to take a hit - a friend was in a small chain (3 person, 2 property-chain), the buyer of his flat dropped their offer just before exchange. My friend couldn't afford to accept the reduced price as he wouldn't have been able to pay for the house he was purchasing.

The EA was the agent selling both the flat and the house. In this case, the agent and seller of the house my friend was buying split the difference and the sale went ahead!

I think currently with such few sales going through, the EA or more probably, the seller will take the hit.

chickmug

rogerdodger007 wrote: »

I've known one agent to take a hit - a friend was in a small chain (3 person, 2 property-chain), the buyer of his flat dropped their offer just before exchange. My friend couldn't afford to accept the reduced price as he wouldn't have been able to pay for the house he was purchasing.

I accept what you say but merely said in my experience I never paid, or offered to pay, this. I always felt the need to have consistent fees to keep faith with customers. We had a significant amount of recommendations and customers knew where they stood and like it or not they knew we did NOT haggle once we quoted the fees/terms.

Richard_Webster

In the height of the seller's market a seller would still normally be expected to pay for these policies. If the value had gone up a lot between negotiating the "deal" and exchange of contracts a hard nosed seller might refuse to pay for them, particularly the restrictive covenants policy, and that did happen. However as the insolvency one was to do with the seller's family transfer etc it would be pretty rich of the seller to expect the buyer to pay for it even then!

rogerdodger007

>> My GF does actually feel that we should probably pull out because of it.

Do you think she actually wants to move into this particular house? Maybe she'd be happier if you did find a reason to pull out.
Have you asked her?