We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
Indemnity Policy (covenants)

girl_withno_name
Posts: 1,530 Forumite


Hi - wondering if someone could help clarify our situation regarding indemnity policies...
We're in the process of purchasing a property which has a number of covenants, including one prohibiting dishes and aerials on the property, with the vendor's solicitor requesting a covenant for indemnity. Our solicitor has told us this means we are buying the property subject to any breach there may be and cannot make any claim against our seller if the breach occurred prior to our purchase of the property.
However, our solicitor is also asking their solicitor to provide an Indemnity Policy "to cover should breach if there is a satellite dish at the property and provide for any costs that may be incurred in the future."
To me these two things seem to contradict each other - one has us taking responsibility for breaches, the other covering costs if action is taken. Please could someone help clear up my confusion?
We're in the process of purchasing a property which has a number of covenants, including one prohibiting dishes and aerials on the property, with the vendor's solicitor requesting a covenant for indemnity. Our solicitor has told us this means we are buying the property subject to any breach there may be and cannot make any claim against our seller if the breach occurred prior to our purchase of the property.
However, our solicitor is also asking their solicitor to provide an Indemnity Policy "to cover should breach if there is a satellite dish at the property and provide for any costs that may be incurred in the future."
To me these two things seem to contradict each other - one has us taking responsibility for breaches, the other covering costs if action is taken. Please could someone help clear up my confusion?
You were only killing time and it'll kill you right back
0
Comments
-
An indemnity policy for breaches of restrictive covenants will only cover existing breaches at the time the policy was taken out - not future ones!RICHARD WEBSTER
As a retired conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful assuming any properties concerned are in England/Wales but I accept no liability for it.0 -
Ok and this would make sense in itself - but our solicitor is also telling us that we are also responsible for breaches which occurred prior to our ownership... this together with an indemnity policy covering existing breaches doesn't make sense to me??You were only killing time and it'll kill you right back0
-
girl_withno_name wrote: »Ok and this would make sense in itself - but our solicitor is also telling us that we are also responsible for breaches which occurred prior to our ownership... this together with an indemnity policy covering existing breaches doesn't make sense to me??
What is going on between the solicitors is stupid. Your vendors demanding and indemnity from you is pretty much a waste of your time and your solicitor's time. Your solicitor is saying sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if you must indemnify them, they must indemnify youHi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »As I see it, a breach of an aerials and dishes covenant can be rectified quickly. You just take them down.
What is going on between the solicitors is stupid. Your vendors demanding and indemnity from you is pretty much a waste of your time and your solicitor's time. Your solicitor is saying sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if you must indemnify them, they must indemnify you
I'd be more concerned about other covenants about walls, fenced, boundaries, hedges, etc. which either cannot be moved, cannot be erected or must have their size & style agreed before being put in place - I don't know whether these have already been broken or not.
If they're indemnifying us and we're indemnifying them (which would explain why this all seems backwards and contradictory) - what would actually happen if action was taken for breach of covenants? Surely that's a stalemate situation?
You were only killing time and it'll kill you right back0 -
girl_withno_name wrote: »If they're indemnifying us and we're indemnifying them (which would explain why this all seems backwards and contradictory) - what would actually happen if action was taken for breach of covenants? Surely that's a stalemate situation?Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0
-
Buyer is lumbered with any breaches that started with a previous owner and are continuing, although after 20 years continuous breach they become unenforceable under Hepworth v. Pickles.
The person who first entered into the covenants is liable forever, his successors only during their period of ownership. Therefore theoretically a covenant holder could sue his original buyer for breaches committed after his ownership and that buyer would have been wise to take an indemnity from his buyer in the transfer to the buyer and so on with a chain of indemnities right up to the present owner. In the case of a restrictive covenant there is no reason to go to all the trouble of finding the original covenantor, because the present owner is liable under the rule in Tulk v Moxhay (18th century case about Leicester Square) but this is necessary in the case of positive covenants (e.g. for fencing) which explains why enforcing fencing covenants is a real waste of money and time.RICHARD WEBSTER
As a retired conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful assuming any properties concerned are in England/Wales but I accept no liability for it.0 -
Right - I now understand why they're asking for covenant for indemnity, since they were the people who first entered into the covenants and this avoids them being liable forever, passing the liability to us as the new owners.
Still confused how this can be put in place while we also ask for an indemnity policy to be put in place? Doesn't this take liability away from us again (for existing breaches at the time the policy was taken out)?
I feel really stupid at the moment because I'm just not getting it and can only guess there's a vital point which I'm missing here... the solicitor isn't helping either!You were only killing time and it'll kill you right back0 -
It sounds like you want an indemnity policy against existing/past breaches of covenant (by the seller) and the seller wants a personal indemnity from you against possible future breaches (which as Richard says, you would in turn get from the buyer when you sell in future).
I can only make an assumption though. Your solicitor really should be able to explain what is being asked for by both sides.0 -
An indemnity covenant and an indemnity policy are not the same.
The insurance pays out if you are liable - doesn't stop you being liable if you are.
Generally insurers try to find out as much as they can about the strength of the claimant's case - his right to enforce the covenant and his actual loss and then negotiate and try to pay as little as possible.RICHARD WEBSTER
As a retired conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful assuming any properties concerned are in England/Wales but I accept no liability for it.0 -
Ok, I think I get it! Someone please correct me if I'm still wrong or confirm that I'm now "with the programme"?
- We are responsible for future breaches of covenants.
- The vendors are asking for covenant for indemnity to stop them being forever liable for breaches of covenant, this passes responsibility to us (as buyers) for past breaches of covenants and would in turn get passed to the next buyers.
- Therefore action could be taken against us for any breach of covenants, regardless of who actually breached the covenants or at what point in time, before or after our purchase.
- The indemnity policy covers existing breaches at the time the policy was taken out (not future ones) and is simply an insurance which allows us to claim costs if action is taken.
So:
- if action is taken against future breaches, we're "on our own" with ensuring we comply and paying any related costs
- if action is taken against past breaches, we may (probably) still need to ensure we comply but could claim on the indemnity policy for any related costsYou were only killing time and it'll kill you right back0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards