like chancel repair liability but not quite - first time buyer :-)

mollylotty

Hello there!
Happy Bank Holiday to you.
I am looking to purchase my first home and have hit a stumbling block.
I will try to be brief :-)
The situation:
There is a new development of 2,700 properties
The houses will sit aside a large country park (also to be built by the developers)
The developer will gift the country park to the local council.
The residents will pay £120 a year for "maintenance and repair" of the country park
Anyone can use the country park even though the residents are paying for it (and their council tax) hellishly annoying but not the issue!
The contract states residents are liable for the cost of "maintenance and repai"
I am concerned about any liability beyond the £120 a year
For example if there was a repair bill of £2,000,000 and there was a shortfall
each property would have to pay xyz amount- an equal portion of the shortfall.
The relationship to Chancel:
I am quite willing to pay a private insurance - like the chancel coverage insurance to cover me for my own liability - as long as it is a reasonably small sum.
However it would be difficult for an insurer to quantify the risk.
- this isn't something suggested by the builder, just something i thought of. I was talking to an acquaintance last night and he told me about the Wallbanks' case.
From reading the Wallbanks website I am wondering if infact I would be covered by the Human Rights Act
"The HRA would normally protect private individuals from unreasonable, arbitrary, and unfair demands by statutory bodies."
However, it wouldnt be an unfair and unreasonable demand if I had willingly signed up to it in the first place.
People I speak to, all seem to say, don't touch it with a barge pole. but I love the property and location!
if anyone has any ideas or advice I would be very grateful

PS. I am a real moneysavingexpert.com type geek
I am so glad there are people out there like me. I am not in debt. I buy the vast majority of items second hand, or shop around for the best deal. I work damned hard to supplement my income. I maximise my income and minimise my outgoings! :money:

DVardysShadow

Not insurable IMO. Chancel insurance is conceptually only marginally insurable, generally when it is not known whether a property could be liable - and it is best not to try and find out if it is, either. But in this case you will be voluntarily taking on a known risk.

The relevance of the Human Rights Act is that you are free to walk knowingly into an open ended commitment. So, if you get burned, no one will bail you out.

The only sane way to deal with this is to understand what the deal is and to attempt to negotiate something acceptable. If enough people are wise to this and howl to the developer, it might be sorted.

Doozergirl

Welcome to MSE mollylotty

I should think that if you could insure the risk formally, that the cost would be quite high, especially if your contract states that you are responsible for all maintenance going forward. It's a specific risk that a specialist insurer would want to cover adequately. Chancel and other forms of indemnity insurance are really on very slight risks - I've not heard of anyone claiming on an indemnity policy on this board and I think I've read pretty much everything now!

I'm struggling to see what would on earth would cost £2,000,000 in a country park in addition to the £324,00 they'd be receiving directly from the development each year - and if it did - then that works out at £740 a property which isn't an absurd sum in itslef? Presumably an outrageous cost like that wouldn't be an annual occurrence!

Rather than seek insurance, I'd seek a reduction on the asking price as an effective insurance policy paid for by the developer and underwritten by you, iyswim.

Or something like Martin's suggestion of putting money into an account each month rather than buying extended warranties - they can't all go wrong at once, therefore you can self insure.

Richard_Webster

Another question is who is going to run the management of the park? It is obviously better if the residents have ultimate control of the company responsible so they can vote against the more unreasonable proposals.