Buyer requests a Missing Particulars indemnity

DRP

Our buyer's solicitor is requesting we take out a "missing particulars indemnity policy". This policy is to cover against potential enforcement action by the local council, who could demand that the property returned to its original state (a small 1-storey extension at the rear of the kitchen and a knock-through of lounge to dining room - both carried out at least 13 years/ 1 previous owner ago). My solicitor has obtained a quote of £150.

So far so good...

However, the missing conveyance in question originates from 1881 ... I know the amount is trifling when considering the bigger picture, but this seems a ridiculous bit of red-tape ... I assume though, that this is a fairly common technicality that must be dealt with in the selling process? Can anyone reassure me of this or in fact offer any alternatives or suggestions?

Fire_Fox

What does your solicitor say? Can you ask the other side to pay half the cost?

kanute50

I had this happen when selling my Uncle's house after he died. Like you say, it seems a small amount of money, but I can't help but wonder who is benefiting from the sale of all these policies? In my case, it seemed to relate to a small strip of land he purchased from the local authority to extend his garden. All of the paperwork was there, but the purchasers solicitor insisted on this policy.

DRP

thanks very much for the responses to my query :money:

My solicitor has sent the buyers' request to me, provided the quote and asked me if we are happy to go ahead.

I am in the process of writing back:

i) Re-stating that we have a policy which was passed onto us when we bought the house 8 years ago (prior to the current buyers' query, our solicitor has told us that we may be asked to update the indemnity to reflect the current value).

ii) asking whether the new policy is strictly necessary.

Richard_Webster

I don't think it will be about enforcement action by the Council because they won't be concerned about what is said in a 1881 conveyance.

It will be about the possibility that the 1881 conveyance says you cannot build an extension or something similar. If nobody can produce the 1881 conveyance or a copy of it certified by a solicitor then there is a risk that a nearby land owner could show they have the benefit of covenants in that conveyance. OK, the risk is pretty small but can't be ruled out. Until an extension is 20 years old it is not immune from action in relation to breaches of covenant.

DRP

Richard_Webster wrote: »

I don't think it will be about enforcement action by the Council because they won't be concerned about what is said in a 1881 conveyance.

It will be about the possibility that the 1881 conveyance says you cannot build an extension or something similar. If nobody can produce the 1881 conveyance or a copy of it certified by a solicitor then there is a risk that a nearby land owner could show they have the benefit of covenants in that conveyance. OK, the risk is pretty small but can't be ruled out. Until an extension is 20 years old it is not immune from action in relation to breaches of covenant.

Hi - thanks for the reply Richard. A quick question - does the missing conveyance have to be specific to my property?

In other words, for my street of 60+ identical terraces, there must be many (identical?) copies of this missing 1881 document ? there are plenty of extensions, conversions and ballsups up and down the street!

Richard_Webster

If the 1881 conveyance was just of this property you can't prove anything.

If the same person sold the houses by different conveyances at round about the same time then obtaining of one of them for a nearby house would give you an idea of what your conveyance is likely to say, but it still doesn't prove anything, because yours might just have been different!

On the other hand if you can discover by trawling around Land Registry entries of nearby properties that the same conveyance was of a larger area of land perhaps including the whole street and one of those titles has the details of the conveyance set out there (which might go on about not selling alcohol and not digging gravel and various other activities that you are not likely to indulge in) then your buyer's solicitor might be persuaded to accept the position without a policy.

Problem is that the time spent by your solicitor researching it and the cost of random copies of nearby titles may well make it not worthwhile doing. And you could still find that there are prohibitions on extensions etc.

DRP

Richard_Webster wrote: »

If the 1881 conveyance was just of this property you can't prove anything.

If the same person sold the houses by different conveyances at round about the same time then obtaining of one of them for a nearby house would give you an idea of what your conveyance is likely to say, but it still doesn't prove anything, because yours might just have been different!

On the other hand if you can discover by trawling around Land Registry entries of nearby properties that the same conveyance was of a larger area of land perhaps including the whole street and one of those titles has the details of the conveyance set out there (which might go on about not selling alcohol and not digging gravel and various other activities that you are not likely to indulge in) then your buyer's solicitor might be persuaded to accept the position without a policy.

Problem is that the time spent by your solicitor researching it and the cost of random copies of nearby titles may well make it not worthwhile doing. And you could still find that there are prohibitions on extensions etc.

ok , thanks Richard - I have instructed the solicitor to go ahead with the policy. It does seem like needless cost/paperwork, but i guess they are paid to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s...

inmypocketnottheirs

DRP wrote: »

ok , thanks Richard - I have instructed the solicitor to go ahead with the policy. It does seem like needless cost/paperwork, but i guess they are paid to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s...

That they are!!