indemnity insurance con

janmoir

we are in the process of selling our house and our buyers solicitor keeps coming up with indemnity insurances for various things which we think are totally unnessesary. Firstly a lack of planning permission insurance for an extension that was clearly built pre 1987 and due to the size doesn't need planning anyway, then an insurance for a missing colour copy of the boundary pathways even though it can be worked out who has access from the black and white copy and from reading the conyeyance, now finally he's demanding insurance for build over consent for the extension which is built over a water pipe despite the fact it doesn't need permission
due to the age of the extension. I cant help thinking that the solicitor must be getting a big cut from these insurances. Any one else had these problems and is this just a big con?

Quentin

See what your solicitor advises, but it's a small price to pay to get your house sold in this buyer's market!

janmoir

yes I kind of agree in theory if it wasn't so expensive. The three insurances add up to about £750, all because the solicitor is too lazy to do any research himself. Our solicitor is in agreement with us and doesn't understand the need for these insurances. However our buyers solicitor is still asking for written proof of age for an extension that didn't need planning permission.

agrinnall

janmoir wrote: »

yes I kind of agree in theory if it wasn't so expensive. The three insurances add up to about £750, all because the solicitor is too lazy to do any research himself. Our solicitor is in agreement with us and doesn't understand the need for these insurances. However our buyers solicitor is still asking for written proof of age for an extension that didn't need planning permission.

£750 seems a lot for indemnity isurance, so maybe the solicitor is taking a cut. Why haven't you tried to find an insurer yourself to see if the cost is reasonable or not?

Quentin

janmoir wrote: »

However our buyers solicitor is still asking for written proof of age for an extension that didn't need planning permission.

Put yourself in the buyers' shoes.

They are paying for their solicitor's advice - and can walk away from the deal if they are worried they might be getting told to take the extension down in the future!

janmoir

thanks for the responses, the £750 is for all three separate insurances and we have tried getting a quote independently and were told we could only buy these insurances through a solicitor.
We have provided a link to the solicitor of a website which clearly shows the extension on a plan dated 1987. So there is no chance of the council telling our buyers to pull down the extension as they are clearly aware it is there. Hence our opinion that the planning permission insurance is totally pointless.

Quentin

janmoir wrote: »

..... Hence our opinion that the planning permission insurance is totally pointless.

But......

If you were the purchasers, who's opinion would you be inclined to take? (Your solicitor looking after your interest, or the vendor's??)

Spiderham

Quentin wrote: »

But......

If you were the purchasers, who's opinion would you be inclined to take? (Your solicitor looking after your interest, or the vendor's??)

Also if it did turn out that they did I have to pull it down owing to a council decision they would lose value on their property and incur costs with no comeback, the policy ensures reimbursement.

It is a pain but the buyer's solicitor is purely trying to make sure their client has no nasty surprises down the line. Also if there is a problem and they haven't advised insurance is required the solicitor gets sued.

janmoir

Spiderham wrote: »

Also if it did turn out that they did I have to pull it down owing to a council decision they would lose value on their property and incur costs with no comeback, the policy ensures reimbursement.

As far as I'm aware there could be no reason why the council would want it taken down. It has been there for at least 25 years and shows up on the councils planning website.

Spiderham

janmoir wrote: »

As far as I'm aware there could be no reason why the council would want it taken down. It has been there for at least 25 years and shows up on the councils planning website.

That may be the case but the solicitor doesn't have any hard evidence that there is zero chance of it happening hence them wanting a guaranteed fund there to reimburse their client should it happen (which is what the insurance is).

If it can be proved that there is a zero risk (not no realistic chance but actually no chance from planning restrictions etc.) of them being put at loss then this would be acceptable instead of the policy and would probably be easier for all concerned. As I said a lot of it will be backside covering from the buyer's solicitor as there have been cases where it's been that way for years and then out of the blue something happens putting new owners at a loss some years down the line.

janmoir

Is there a way then that we can prove without doubt that it is an old extension and therefore not at risk of the council demanding it being taken down.
Are these insurances fairly new, because when we bought the property only 5 years ago we didn't have any of these issues.