Is Indemnity Insurance needed for a Porch 20 years old?

AlmightyCorgi

Hi

I hope someone can help, My Mum is selling her house, it was built in February 1991 and she added a porch in April 1991. At the time she was told by the builder it was too small to need planning permission.
Mum is now selling and has found a buyer but mums conveyancer has now told mum that she needs to get indemnity insurance because she didnt get planning permission. I have checked her local council website and the porch is small enough to meet their criteria for a permitted development not needing planning permission. It's also been there for 20 years without question or issue.

Can anyone explain why she needs to buy this insurance and how much its likely to be?????

pmlindyloo

It is most likely that your Mum's buyers' mortgage lenders are the ones kicking up a fuss - they seem to be totally unaware of the regulations for planning permission/building regulations.

As I see it, you could print off the information you have found and send it to your conveyancer and go from there.

Or

You can just pay for the indemnity insurance. From memory this is not a huge amount (£100 ish? - someone else may have a more up to date figure)

From personal experience these clitches can really hold up a sale and to be honest it is worth paying for an indemity policy just to speed things up.

If your Mum is not in a hurry and isn't worried about losing her buyers then you could 'dig your heels in' and insist that the insurance isn't needed.

casper_g

These days, porches are considered permitted development if they're less than 3 square metres in area, less than 3 metres high and more than 2 metres from the boundary. Outside these limits you need planning permission. In a conservation area or on a listed building the rules are stricter.

I'm not sure what the rules were 20 years ago but it doesn't seem reasonable to require indemnity insurance for something that (subject to the rules above) would need no permission now and has been there for 2 decades!

AlmightyCorgi

The Porch fits all the criteria to not need planning permission now although i dont know what the rules were 20 years ago, Mum's already dropped more than she wanted on the price because the buyers in a good position to move and now she has made her mind up to sell she just wants to get it over with.

But its just an extra expense that she (and me) couldnt understand the need for, her conveyancer couldnt really explain it to her, just said that as she didnt have planning it would be needed!!!!!!!! and this is the first house Mum's sold she doent know whats right or wrong!

Richard_Webster

I suspect you are getting Planning & Building regulations mixed up.

Your solicitor should firmly tell your buyer;'s solicitors that whether or not planning permission was needed it will be considered lawful now in planning terms having stood for more than 10 years (in most cases it is lawful after 4 yaers!).

However under Building Regulations there is no formal period of immunity so buyers' solicitors may be asking for an indemnity policy in respect of that. However, the chances of any enforcement action now being taken by the Council are virtually nil

Mortgage lenders set out detailed rules about what solicitor has to check and a number do not have a cut off period for checking possible building regulation contraventions. They rely on solicitors to certify that everything has been checked and do not have in-house people who have the knowledge and experience to make decisions about things like this.

A solicitor may well ask for a policy to avoid getting sued by the lender if something goes wrong later. The alternative is to write a letter explaining the situation and asking whether they really are bothered about it. It can take 1-3 weeks to get a reply from the lender. A lot of the time they eventually say they will proceed as long as an indemnity policy is obtained. This is nonsense but it seems to keep them happy, so we simply have to go along with the their stupidity. It is stupid because the policy only protects against enforcement, which is not going to happen, and gives no guarantees about the structural condition and safety etc of the work.

Linus2864

Corgi,

Are you possibly talking about a restrictive covenant? In many cases developers or landowners may place restrictions on any alterations to the property.

Is her house a former council property? Many houses sold as part of the Right To Buy scheme have restrictive covenants placed on them by the council. In this case the current owner needs permission from the local council (possibly housing or planning) to ease the covenant so they can make alterations such as building conservatories, porches etc which change the appearance of the street or neighbourhood.

Probably best to pay for the indemnity, but as always, speak to her solicitor.

Oh, and I agree about the stupidity of an indemnity policy for the porch - we've just had to get one and that's the reason I am now aware of restrictive covenants!

Hope this helps.

Richard_Webster

Could be a restrictive covenant issue, but if up for 20 years it will have become immune from enforcement under Hepworth v Pickles, so policy unnecessary for that.

AlmightyCorgi

Linus2864 - Mum's house was a new build in 1991, she moved in as soon as it was built and added the porch 2 months after moving in, i cant see any that refers to a restrictive covenant re building of a porch but i dont understand half of the paperwork she has from then.

Richard Webster - Thanks, will take all that on board, it helps to understand why they may want it.

Timmyt - It is a conveyancer dealing and they havn't impressed so far, lost paperwork, re asking questions that they have had the answers to, that sort of thing, so i dont trust them very much.

One more stupid question.... Whats to stop the buyer getting the indemnity insurance if they are worried about it or if their mortgage company has an issue rather than mum? or does it have to be the seller?

Richard_Webster

One more stupid question.... Whats to stop the buyer getting the indemnity insurance if they are worried about it or if their mortgage company has an issue rather than mum? or does it have to be the seller?

Usually a seller pays for indemnity insurances, but where you have a strong case for saying the buyer's solicitors are just being over fussy you can quite reasonably tell the buyer that if he (or his lender) wants it he should pay for it.