Chancel Repair Law ??????????????

prudryden

I expect that the Wallbank's property was the church's original farm buildings and the benefice was never cancelled.

litaus

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

I can't feel too much sympathy for the Wallbanks. Firstly, they inherited the land - nothing wrong with that, but it's not as if they bought it with "hard earned cash".

And, crucially, the deeds note an "ancient lay rector liability" so it was hardly hidden from them.

A bit harsh, you obviously weren't brought up on a famr (neither was I BTW). He's probably worked the farmland since he was 14 years old at the latest, for no or a modest income, in order to earn his 'inheritance'.

It's also not his fault if his grandad's solicitor didn't understand the implications of the chancel repair - it obviously hadn't come up for 70 years or so. Farmer's tend to keep as much of their assets in the land as possible, and it seems to me that they have been more than reasonable, offering the land up and offering to help out - why should you just extend your mortgage by such a horrendous amount and be tied to the bank for the next 20 years?

GabbaGabbaHey

Debt_Free_Chick wrote:

I doubt that very many Parochial Church Councils will really have the stomach for pursuing these liabilities.

They don't have any option - the PCCs have a statutory requirement to pursue the house owners for the money!

As the Bishop's response (on the website mentioned by the first poster) says: Furthermore the statutory responsibility for maintaining parish churches falls upon the Parochial Church Councils. These are subject to the provisions of charity and trust law and they are under a duty in carrying out their statutory responsibility to seek what funds are legally available to them of which they are aware.

glitter58

Hi the sale did not go ahead as the buyers were a bit nervous of stating this in the new homeowner pack if and when they come to sell.
My friend has decided to stay where she is for now until they get some advice as they are totally in the dark( not comp literate like me, not ).
Thanks anyway to everyone who supplied links , advice etc which I duly reported back to them.
Glitter

Doozergirl

That £63 would have covered tham and any future buyer from any resulting claim from the PCC.

What is there to declare? That subsequent buyers have nothing to worry about?

I hope your friends found a better house because I'm pretty sure that £63 is the most ridiculous reason for pulling out I have heard. I've paid for it before, simply because the insurance policy is cheaper than the searches to clarify whether the house is liable.

boardster

Our Solicitors have carried out initial and detailed searches without even consulting us :mad: , saying that we needed all info to make an informed decision. Then waiting until week before exchange to mention. Now really panicking about buying home had set heart on since December!!! And may now have to walk away from. (Oct 2013 I think only those church register as liable and those identified on Land Registry will be liable so if no other solicitors as dumb as ours liability could rocket.)

They are waiting on replies from Land Registry on what now has to be registered with them and also for info on any cover available from sellers solicitor.

Report said that property was in a parish with liable plots, within an area that contains many liable plots. It also says that property is in vicinity of 3 different Tithe Plots. all of which are liable.

Is this registerable as being liable with such woolley wording??

Also read that if registered then had acted in detriment to sellers property and possible liability:eek: :eek:

Debt_Free_Chick

litaus wrote: »

A bit harsh, you obviously weren't brought up on a famr (neither was I BTW). He's probably worked the farmland since he was 14 years old at the latest, for no or a modest income, in order to earn his 'inheritance'.

Her father bought it in 1970. At that time, they were both around 40, so presumably already had "careers". The Wallbanks don't even live in Warwickshire - they live in Wales. They say the farm was "their pension" so - and I am only presuming here - it sounds as though this was purely an investment.

Also, after they lost the Appeal, Mr Wallbank said
"I am not so worried about the cost of repairing the chancel because we now know we can access grants for this". It's the legal bill that's run to £250,000

I'm not completely unsympathetic, but the Wallbanks chose to fight the liability through the Courts - and, of course, we have to remember that the press like to "spin" the bare facts.;)

Richard_Webster

If the property is simply in an area where some properties have a liability, but not necessarily this one, then the insurance will cost something about £63 - but if the liability is actually registered at the Land Registry or a full search of the old records has shown that this property is actually affected with the liability there's no way you will get insurance for £63. It could be several hundred or a few thousand pounds.

A lot of the problem here is that if I write to a mortgage lender asking if they really want to bother about insuring against this liability it is unlikely I will get a sensible answer for weeks because they are simply not geared up for dealing with this kind of query - or they will throw the decision back on me and blame me later if something goes wrong, if I haven't made sure the position is covered. So the bottom line for a lot of people unfortunately is that it is easier to take out the insurance than wait around for weeks to see what the lender will say about it.

In case someone asks what a lender has got to do with anything the point is that normally when you buy with a mortgage your solicitor acts both for you and for your lender, and whilst you might be bothered about some of the more obscure points, we cannot be sure a lender won't be!

As a conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful but I accept no liability except to fee-paying clients.