Chancel Indemnity

Leory

Chancel Indemnity

I can see from both sides, but who do you feel should pay for this if it looks like there could be liability - Buyer or Seller?

My solicitor requested that seller pays but they have refused.

zappahey

Can we have a bit of a clue about the context?

Leory

I've read various threads about it and apart from the argument of whether it is needed/legal/scam its not clear who should pay for this in the first place.
Logic dictates that the current occupiers should have had it for their own peace of mind, but if they havent had it, why should they pay for it for someone else.

sonastin

Can we have a 3rd option of "neither" - if seller didn't feel the need to have it, and buyer doesn't want to pay for it and is happy to take the same risk the seller took...

Pete111

The buyer should pay if not already in place.

We did when we bought, and the amount involved was not high . The seller gets no benefit and it is not their fault the church has recently resorted to using arachic and fundamentally outrageous laws to perform money grabs on ordinary people who may well not even believe in the rubbish they spout

Sorry. got a bit ranty there...

Leory

Is it only a recent thing that has come up? I never heard of it before, it is my first house however.

for arguments sake - would you expect the buyers to pay for building regs indemnity insurance? It doesnt have any benefit to the seller but many buyers would walk away without it

Running_Horse

It is the world's biggest rip off, designed to make insurers rich over something that has almost no chance of happening. The church could end it tomorrow by saying they will never penalise someone for living near a church. But they don't, and wonder why their churches are empty every week. If you object, write to your nearest bishop, or better still pay for the wretched thing, then send him the bill.

DVardysShadow

Running_Horse wrote: »

It is the world's biggest rip off, designed to make insurers rich over something that has almost no chance of happening. But they don't, and wonder why their churches are empty every week. If you object, write to your nearest bishop, or better still pay for the wretched thing, then send him the bill.

Except it definitely did happen once, went to court and got upheld, leaving the victims with a ruinous bill.

Of course, if the churches are empty, they are more likely to want to fall back on chancel liability. So, go to church, make your friends go and make sure they put loads in the pot :p:p

If you wrote to the bishop with the bill it might draw the financial deacon's attention to your property - and would almost certainly invalidate the insurance.

Running_Horse

I know, I was ranting. How can an atheist, Muslim, agnostic, or Jew be held responsible for repairing a building they have never set foot in? One can only hope human rights legislation will one day overcome this racket.

Woby_Tide

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Except it definitely did happen once

Once, singular. Yet still it rages on. Once, ever. Something that can ruin people but has only been used once. The Chancelcheck founders will be retiring very rich people in 2013.

Pixy_2

The odds are that the solicitors demanding this indemnity know s*d all about the potential liability. There are some areas of the country where there is a real possibility of liability - local solicitors should be well aware of it.

For most people the cheap chancel check is of an index of parishes - a parish can appear on the index with no liability at all; even in the few parishes where there is a liability it isn't on the whole area but on specific properties.

In the well publicised recent case it was well known that there was a liability on the property concerned - it was actually on their deeds. The case wasn't over the liability per se but whether the liability could be still be enforced.

In most cases the indemnity is worthless because (repeat) there is no liability. Go to the National Archives web site and search their research guides for chancel repairs to save yourselves some money. www dot nationalarchives dot gov dot uk Also get hold of a book by James Derriman onthe subject.