We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Chacel repair liability - what if church registers interest by Oct 2013?
Comments
-
Richard_Webster wrote: »See comments below in red.
...
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
...
The liability came about via a (freely entered into) contractual obligation, not a law.
If HMG legislated to abolish it, that would be challengeable as an unlawful confiscation of property.
Though whether the church would take such action is another matter0 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Webster View Post
See comments below in red.
...
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
...
The liability came about via a (freely entered into) contractual obligation, not a law.
If HMG legislated to abolish it, that would be challengeable as an unlawful confiscation of property.
Though whether the church would take such action is another matter
Does anyone seriously think the Church of England would have really worried. The negative PR for the Church in all this is bad, and opposing abolition would have been disaster.
I am sure Justin Welby would be glad to be rid of it.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 -
I remembered this story when I bought my recent house and so I bought the insurance which was only £50
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3023276.stmOwing on CC £00.00 :j
It's like shooting nerds in a barrel0 -
Richard_Webster wrote: »Does anyone seriously think the Church of England would have really worried. The negative PR for the Church in all this is bad, and opposing abolition would have been disaster.
I am sure Justin Welby would be glad to be rid of it.
Very true re the bad PR.
I told a friend of mine yesterday (in another denomination) what the Church of England is doing on this and I think that's the first time I've ever seen her shocked by anything. "They don't, DO they?:eek:" was about her response to this.0 -
Fishingtime wrote: »I remembered this story when I bought my recent house and so I bought the insurance which was only £50
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3023276.stm
That would have been before there was a register of liability and the risk of having a claim against any one property is averaged over every property in the country.
Once there is a register of properties that are potentially liable then the risk of having a claim against any one registered property is only averaged over the set of registered properties.
Expect such insurance (if available at all) to go up 100 fold0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards