Insurance for leasehold garage

Helpwithcoachhouseman

I own a freehold townhouse with a leasehold garage under a coachhouse how can I obtain a copy of insurance if freeholder will not supply this?

BitterAndTwisted

Have you asked the freeholder to provide the confirmation that you're wanting? It's not an unusual request by any means, so I don't know why you are thinking you will have to make them provide it

propertyman

You could make an application under section 30a landlord and tenant act 1985 and schedule 3 landlord and tenant act 1987 for a summary of the policy which must be provided in 21 days.

The hitch is that the garage is not a dwelling and in most cases is exempt from that control ( though there are complicated arguments that might link that right in some circumstances). But he is unlikely to know that...

You could refuse to pay- under the lease he is obliged to insure your property; it is, arguably, implied that the leaseholder, and their mortgagee, should be reassured that insurance is in place and is adequate- what better way to do is there than to send a copy of the schedule?

Richard_Webster

If,as I would expect, the lease requires the freeholder to insure and produce details of the insurance on request, then the freeholder is in breach of covenant if he does not do this.

Initially you try to get through to him that he has a legal duty to do this (assuming the lease contains the provisions along the lines I have suggested). If he does not understand or understands and still refuses then you either have to spend money on litigating or organise your own insurance just in case. Presumably when you bought your solicitors obtained details of the insurance, but you now need to know it has been renewed?

This is an example of the practical problems that arise from coach houses. The freehold owner is forced into a landlord role that he doesn't really want/ doesn't understand.

propertyman

Richard_Webster wrote: »

This is an example of the practical problems that arise from coach houses. The freehold owner is forced into a landlord role that he doesn't really want/ doesn't understand.

I take your point however I doubt they were forced to buy it, might well had the option to buy the CH plus the garages, and if not, or declined to do so, ought not to have purchased without a clear understanding.

Not that has ever stopped anyone from doing so....it's like the Developers solicitors or EA solicitors- home buying is not a "package holiday" or one stop shop product, it is by nature an adversarial and investigative process.

Otherwise if it were so, Argos or Tesco would have found a way to sell them a long time ago.

Helpwithcoachhouseman

We are now selling, we have our own insurance in place after many calls to check and insurance was in place with developer when we purchased. However our buyer has asked for this info as we were about to exchange contracts. Can we purchase a policy to provide cover for the garage to allow exchange and for this matter to be resolved rather than holding up the sale?

propertyman

Helpwithcoachhouseman wrote: »

We are now selling, we have our own insurance in place after many calls to check and insurance was in place with developer when we purchased. However our buyer has asked for this info as we were about to exchange contracts. Can we purchase a policy to provide cover for the garage to allow exchange and for this matter to be resolved rather than holding up the sale?

Your existing house insurer might well add this on, or failing that you might have to go to a specialist broker rather than the "cash- corner shop online.com" types.

Richard_Webster

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Webster


This is an example of the practical problems that arise from coach houses. The freehold owner is forced into a landlord role that he doesn't really want/ doesn't understand.
I take your point however I doubt they were forced to buy it, might well had the option to buy the CH plus the garages, and if not, or declined to do so, ought not to have purchased without a clear understanding.

Not that has ever stopped anyone from doing so....it's like the Developers solicitors or EA solicitors- home buying is not a "package holiday" or one stop shop product, it is by nature an adversarial and investigative process.

In this case OP has a freehold house with a nearby leasehold garage the significance of which may not have been explained to him until well into the process of buying the house. He then simply was stuck with it unless he refused to proceed on that basis - and would many people do that?

Similarly the poor coach house buyer gets told that he has got to insure the whole building including other people's garages and predictably doesn't remember what his solicitor told him when he bought.

propertyman

Richard_Webster wrote: »

In this case OP has a freehold house with a nearby leasehold garage the significance of which may not have been explained to him until well into the process of buying the house. He then simply was stuck with it unless he refused to proceed on that basis - and would many people do that?

Similarly the poor coach house buyer gets told that he has got to insure the whole building including other people's garages and predictably doesn't remember what his solicitor told him when he bought.

I don't disagree; for the billions that we spend on property, and the personal and financial significance it has for us, buyers know next to nought all about what they are getting into. Worse still they are quite indignant about it- it's always the fault of the person selling/solicitor/surveyor !

For the payment of a solicitors and survey fee they expect that this should protect them from, and resolve, all matters, many of which require some thought and informed choice by the buyer.

It runs like the old joke about the oil light in the car- "you would think they would put in another light to tell that the warning light is serious"

Before endeavouring on the single biggest disruptive exercise most will ever undertake, there is much that a couple of evenings reading could put right- but they would far rather be tweeting.