Chancel Repair Liability

dkmax_2

whois wrote: »

After going through the thread, I would say that as a buyer, I would want to go for a full chancel liability search and find it for sure if that property has chancel liability or not.

The difficulty is that in doing all the leg work you will inadvertently expose a liability which the church itself was not aware of or affect your ability to insure against that liability, at least as cheaply as you can now. The cost of insuring is lower than performing the checks so taking the insurance option is the logical choice, even if feels like you are being blackmailed into it.

In any case, there is no such thing as a definitive 'full search' when liability is suspected. As any given liability is a function of the interpretation of contracts, case law and legislation spanning hundreds of years, it can be difficult to prove liability either way. Some cases are trivial and others complex.

Chancel Repair Insurance is useless for me (as a buyer) as it ... does not indemnify me against loss in value of property due to the registration.

But that's exactly what the insurance does when you take out an "in perpetuity" policy. The policy protects all subsequent owners and covers you against loss of market value. All for a mere £100 or less.

Cumbrian_Male

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Interesting point. The view I have always taken is that if a buyer does the full search and proceeds to complete and then register the transfer at the Land Registry then his solicitor must register the liability at that point.

Before my sale fell through we were at the stage of our solicitor arranging searches for our potential purchase. When I spoke with her and asked if a liability was found what would happen, she informed me regardless of completing the liability must be registered at the land registy.

Whether this is true or just her interpretation of the rules I don't know.

Is there a definitive answer that a practicing conveyancing solicitor can coment on?

whois

dkmax wrote: »

But that's exactly what the insurance does when you take out an "in perpetuity" policy. The policy protects all subsequent owners and covers you against loss of market value. All for a mere £100 or less.

So, where is the savings of having perpetuity insurance over full chancel liability search, you can get a full search for almost the same price.

Does perpetuity insurance means property is covered FOREVER? Can the company issuing that policy to protect FOREVER can give a guarantee that it will exist FOREVER to honour the policy. Forever policy for 100 seems like a scam to me.

What about Terms and conditions of Perpetuity policy (small print)? Are you sure it is not dodgy. Chasing insurance companies for claims is a headache even without dodgy terms and conditions.

As a buyer it is a good idea to do himself/herself and the next generations a favour and get a full chancel search like other searches while purchasing house. It is better to know now.

whois

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Interesting point. The view I have always taken is that if a buyer does the full search and proceeds to complete and then register the transfer at the Land Registry then his solicitor must register the liability at that point.

For the argument sake above assumption is OK but in real world, If a buyer gets full search and find out that property has liability, It WILL NOT proceed to complete, unless influence of drugs or further discount (in tens of thoussand) plays a role.


Also of course the Church in question would have to cope with the appallingly negative PR that any claim would bring.........

You can tell that to Walbanks

ManchesterLizard

whois wrote: »

As a buyer it is a good idea to do himself/herself and the next generations a favour and get a full chancel search like other searches while purchasing house. It is better to know now.

I can see your point off view here but it seems unfair on the seller. If you were selling your house and the buyer did a full survey and found out your house was liable and then walked away. You are left then with a house that has a liability that will be hard to insure and it's valued reduced immensely with no buyer. I guess where you are coming from is could you find out without the buyer ever having to declare it to future buyers?

The sooner these old archaic laws are abolished the better. As it happens after saying no to our buyers on purchasing chancel insurance they have either decided against it or paid for it themselves because we are due to exchange today or tomorrow and nothing further has been said.

dkmax_2

whois wrote: »

As a buyer it is a good idea to do himself/herself and the next generations a favour and get a full chancel search like other searches while purchasing house. It is better to know now.

A full chancel search is not like any other search. There is (currently) no definitive registry to check against and a so-called 'full' search can result in yes, no or unknown. If you end up as an "unknown", you'll be no better off than you were when you started and you'll need to get insurance anyway.

whois

dkmax wrote: »

A full chancel search is not like any other search. There is (currently) no definitive registry to check against and a so-called 'full' search can result in yes, no or unknown. If you end up as an "unknown", you'll be no better off than you were when you started and you'll need to get insurance anyway.

Yes is bad. No and Not known to have liability is good. Unknown or not known will put a smile on my face as I know, if a professional full search cannot find a liability (unknown), how on earth, church will establish and defend a definite liability on my house?

Full search does not HAVE to definitive you know. no search is.

dkmax_2

whois wrote: »

if a professional full search cannot find a liability (unknown), how on earth, church will establish and defend a definite liability on my house?

Simply because the extent and capabilities of a 'professional full search' are not as comprehensive as you might think. These normally restrict themselves to the National Archives but there are other sources of evidence for liability (or lack of liability) elsewhere, including documents held by the churches themselves. It is not unusual for there to be an insurance element as part of their services for this very reason.

I entirely agree this situation is entirely unsatisfactory but if insurance covers you for any potential liability and is the cheapest option, why not just pay it?

whois

One useful link to findout Parish boundry of related church of your postcode. You can get some information.

achurchnearyouDOTcom/parishmapDOTphp

Replace DOT by .

It also provided details of church like when if was built etc.

I have found that the church relevant to my property was built in 1950s.

A good free starting point for your search.

whois

dkmax wrote: »

Simply because the extent and capabilities of a 'professional full search' are not as comprehensive as you might think. These normally restrict themselves to the National Archives but there are other sources of evidence for liability (or lack of liability) elsewhere, including documents held by the churches themselves. It is not unusual for there to be an insurance element as part of their services for this very reason.

I entirely agree this situation is entirely unsatisfactory but if insurance covers you for any potential liability and is the cheapest option, why not just pay it?

As I understand full search is the most accurate and comprehesive available method of finding out if any property has chancel liablity. Vendor is likely to provide a professional indeminity in millions.

How would a church employ a more comprehensive search than a full professional search to obtain evidence to establish liability beyond doubt?

Church need evidence, not indications shown in searches. If a full search shows no indication............

'Documents held by churches' that is interesting point, Why not ask the relevant church if they have any? They won't lie to you, Lieing is a sin remember!

I have already explained in previous posts, why insurance is useless from the buyer's point of view.

It is not a good idea to go cheap and save few tenners by ignoring an important search while buying in hundreds of thoussands.