Chacel repair liability - what if church registers interest by Oct 2013?

katy89_2

Mines 50 which I'm happy to pay but it's the long term issues I'm worried about. The solicitor will hopefully be able to answer some of my questions on Tuesday.

moneyistooshorttomention

4greenbottles wrote: »

My has shown the same possibility on our searches, but with the policy costing £7-25 it seems silly not to take it. It's a chance you take if they register before Oct, but it's only weeks away and are they realistically be able to research, and register a claim before the deadline?

Well...if the church concerned has any Christians in it who wish to take the genuinely "Christian" view of not pursuing home-owners about this then its surely easy enough for them to drag their feet about registering a property. There's only a few weeks to fill to make up "excuses" in as to why they haven't registered it yet - holidays, illnesses, "whoops me I'm so inefficient" apparent honest admission by someone etc etc.

It's not Christian to lie like this, but it would be lesser of two evils compared to chasing a poor home-owner to fulfil some historic "obligation".

EDIT: Just checked the exact date. Its 13 October. Found a link to a newspaper article stating that some "Christian" churches might be pushing for this because they envisage possibly turning a quick buck from fracking if the land turns out to be suitable for this!!!!! Think any churches that pull that stunt might find themselves on the receiving end of more than just the dwindling congregation they'd get if their parishioners found they were hounding home-owners....and wanted to swop to a genuinely Christian church instead.

Battleaxe44

I have often wondered, how do they claim chanel repair costs from non-christians, I am just thinking of certain areas in peterbourough where the Mosques are and the community that lives in these areas are non-christians, yet the Chancel insurance claims would apply to them...

moneyistooshorttomention

Battleaxe44 wrote: »

I have often wondered, how so they claim chanel repair costs from non-christians, I am just thinking of certain areas in peterbourough where the Mosques are and the coimmuniuty that lives in these areas are non-christians, yet the Chancel insurance claims would apply to them...

It would be discrimination not to apply it to everyone equally and everyone could instantly start claiming we are atheist, buddhist, humanist, moslem, hindu, pagan, etc, etc. I admit to being puzzled about this comment. So what there are buildings called mosques. There are buildings called (insert denomination of choice) for Christian churches. A building is a building is a building..(ie bricks, mortar, wood).

Anyways, link to newspaper article mentioned about fracking:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-denies-accusations-of-fracking-landgrab-as-it-moves-to-claim-mineral-rights-to-500000-acres-across-england-8770692.html

Battleaxe44

The Mosques are close to the Cathedral, but I have never heard of needing chancel insurance for a Mosque, if you live in that area?

I am only thinking aloud because when Hobbit sold his house he was advised to take out Chancek to cover the buyer, She wasn't worried about his insurance so it wasn't bought. i did ask if the it was also required for the Mosques in case these nneeded repairs and I didn;t get an answer, Just told it was an old law to cover the C of E churches....

How many adherents of other Faiths understand that this could be required of them? What would their reaction be if asked to contribute to the repairs of church not of their Faith? Rhetorical question I suppose...

moneyistooshorttomention

Same reaction as mine and many other peoples I expect. Boils down to "Oy mate...I'm not Church of England so why should I pay?"

I am still puzzled. This is indeed a sort of historical thing that Anglican churches have this possibility to help[ fund their costs (its down to someone somewhere back in the dim and distant past hundreds of years had a crafty solicitor that suggested putting an obligation in perpetuity on church land even after it got sold). I know all about crafty solicitors...there are plenty of them around and one of the other houses in the road I am currently buying a house in had one of those "back in the past" and everyone else in the road has been suffering from a Mr Greedy having a Mr Crafty Solicitor ever since and that looks likely to continue...Sometimes Mr Greedy people are so busy looking out for themselves (or in this case a particular denomination of a particular faith) that they end up binding in people to come in future decades/centuries into the unfair set-up they engineered in order to make sure they got a lions share of resources.

In my own road-to-be the present-day owner of Mr Greedy's house doesn't have to exercise their legal right to have a "lions share", but I will be finding out whether they intend to exercise "lions share rights" (and taking the cynical view that they probably will). In 100 years time I expect the owners of that particular house will still be taking advantage of that historical Mr Greedy's legal craftiness to get a better deal than the others in the road do. Its not an unusual situation for this sort of historical anomaly to arise and subsequent "greedy guts" to take advantage of it...its not just the Church of England that does this.

Many people are British and members of other Christian churches and they still have to pay. I'm British and not a Christian, but I still have to pay.

If there is a law passed that says muslims can get off scott-free, then I want that law extended to cover literally every single person in Britain that isn't Anglican.

With that...problem solved....except for churchgoing Anglicans. But the rest of us would be in the clear.

I literally don't understand even thinking that one particular minority in the population should have protection from this that the rest of us don't

Richard_Webster

See comments below in red.

We have just pulled out of a house purchase, at a loss of about £1500, as a search revealed the property has a potential to be liable for chancel repair.

If the law wasn't going to change in Oct. we may have proceeded, taking out protective insurance and like thousands of other homeowners hoping church clerics don't notice.

BUT now:
1. If church registers property as liable with Land registry by Oct 2013, then no insurance policy will provide cover and the property becomes worthless as you won't be able to sell it.
You can get insurance - but it is significantly more expensive - hundreds of pounds rather than around £10. Hence reason for getting the insurance before any registration takes place
2. Even if they don't register by Oct, they have until the completion date of next sale after 13th Oct 2013 to register the property .... and then the property becomes worthless....
No they haven't - it is then too late and they can't register. They can still enforce against a property that had not changed hands since 13th October.
3. Even if you complete the sale after 13th Oct and there is no register with Land Registry of liability, the church (CoE) can STILL register the property as liable when property is inherited by our children.... making it worthless to them when they come to sell.
No they can't and and if they don't the liability ceases on a later sale.

A. People say "don't worry about it - get insurance and nothing will happen". But the CoE are actively encourgaging Church councils as their legal obligation to find these properties and register them as a potential source of funding for now and the future (as per email I received from CoE church commissioner representative.
Very few are doing anything about it - and a lot of Church Councils - like the Archbishop of Canterbury - are unhappy about some of the things that the Church Commissioners do. If they do register and then make a claim the insurance will pay out while it is still in force.
B. Funding for CoE churches (listed) has changed from English Heritage to Heritage Lottery this year and may be harder for churches to get funding for repairs.
Church may take the view that its mission is to people and not to maintain buildings - and village churches can use the function roomm of the local pub instead.
C. Ironically, its likely that no church will call on local homeowners to pay up for repairs. BUT once the property is on the title deeds at the Land Registry, the property is unsaleable and worthless. That puts it too strongly - insurance will still be available, as the Church might never make a claim. If you had to pay our say £1,000 to get insurance it would still be worth doing - people take that kind of hit on their asking price every day.
D. The reply from the CoE commission has asked us to provide them with the postcode and they will informally advise if the property is liable.
...BUT if it is we walk away, but the current owners will then be faced with a worthless property, which may not have been registered because the church didn't know about it.
E. A preliminary search at the National Archives suggests some area is liable, but haven't received a map to clarify the property(ies) details.
Even if you pay the National Archives £180 to do a full search, their records are not 100% complete/accurate. Moreover, the CoE churches have, if not financial resources, voluntary supporters searches records in order to obtain these sources of funding.

D& E - why bother to do the search - your solicitor should (like my practice) have a block policy and be able to provide up to £1million in perpetuity for £15 and this is without doing any search - as the searches cost about that anyway - so why bother doing them? If you do a full search and it shows actual liability you have an obligation to register the liability at the Land Registry - so don't do the full search!

This is an insurance scam.... of course once the property is registered as liable there is no issue of insurance. ... you't won't then be able to get any!! I think you can get insurance but it is more expensive.

The problem has been caused by the government making a half baked reform of the law in 2003. The liability should simply have been abolished and then this whole load of time wasting nonsense would have been avoided.

If the CoE churches would declare that they will never pursue homeowners for funds (and rely instead on listed building funding and community support from parishners) it would make life so much easier for everyone. Some have - particularly in Bath & Wells diocese.

It may be sad that a chancel might fall down but this is history and if people want to preserve that great, but not much to do with the mission of the Church. Modern growing churches have buildings on industrial estates in towns rather than hideously expensive maintain old buildings.

We're heart-broken at losing this house, after such a long search Not sure you really had to lose it.

Mickygg

To the poster who pulled out because of this chancel liability. Many houses have this, what if the next few houses you chose have this? Will you keep losing money? Mine has this, didnt take out the con insurance and I'm sure everything will be fine as most don't or won't enforce this as it goes against beliefs by alienating all the locals!And before people post yes but what if it does happen...... Life is full of risks, that is just life. Should I buy a house because the number 9 bus might hurtle towards my house on a Friday evening, should I take out insurance in case this happens??
I'm just amazed someone lost £1,500 due to not proceeding as a result of this chancel.

moneyistooshorttomention

Richard_Webster wrote: »

See comments below in red.

Very good reply:T

Absolutely the case that churches should be about people and not buildings. After all, some churches even meet in peoples homes.

bouicca21

Actually the stuff about non Christians and non Anglicans in this thread is a bit daft. The point is that where this obligation exists it is on land that was set aside for the support of the local church. Its value would always have reflected this, until the abolition of tithes in the mid 19th century, since when we have all forgotten about the effect on value, because we no longer understand the concept of tithes.