Indemnity Insurance

cohl123

I've opted to only do a local search for my flat purchase (which even sounds pointless as it still won't confirm any building plans in the nearby area) and my solics had advised of the risks of doing this such as:

"if the property falls within an area subject to radon gas the buyer is deeme dto purchase with full knowledge. The buyer shall raise no objetions in this regard. Any indemity policy required buy the buter shall be obtained by and at the cost of the buyer".


1) i dont know much about indemnity insurance - do i need it?
2) is this basically saying then if, when i come to sell, further surveys that im not having done bring up anything negative (e.g. it is apparantly a medium ish flood risk area despite me being on the 3rd floor and living in the area all my life and theres never been any inch of trouble) I'd be liable in some way?

thanks!

davidmcn

cohl123 wrote: »

is this basically saying then if, when i come to sell, further surveys that im not having done bring up anything negative (e.g. it is apparantly a medium ish flood risk area despite me being on the 3rd floor and living in the area all my life and theres never been any inch of trouble) I'd be liable in some way?

Not "liable", but if it's something which puts off buyers then you've potentially got a property worth less than you thought it was.

Not sure you can get particularly specific desktop searches for radon anyway?

cohl123

ah ok thanks - that makes sense.

the solics did say i'd be liable for indemnity insurance - and its this bit that im confused about? and she couldnt give me a quote for what that would be.

Jaycee_Dove

I do not understand this issue either and would appreciate advice.


We have been asked to pay indemnity insurance on both the property we are selling and the one that we are buying.


That seems rather unfair.


Our sale property involves a sun lounge for which full planning permission was granted three owners and 40 years ago - except minus a door which was disapproved from the plans because the ceiling was then too low for a habitable room.


A door was included - seemingly soon after four decades ago when the ceiling height now matched amended regulations. But there is no documentation saying they got permission to add that - although without a door the house would be literally wide open to the air!


We were never told about this as an issue when we bought the house 12 years ago and, of course, this event had even by then occurred 28 years before.


So why does it suddenly require insurance now and we have to pay? Have the rules changed.


As for insurance on the house we are buying, this is an ex council house but sold to the then owner - who is still the owner - by the council 32 years ago.


Our surveyor suggests that an internal wall was knocked down at some stage. The occupants say they did not do so and have signed the law society form to say this - so if it was done (and the room in question is 2 separate rooms with connecting doors so not obviously minus a wall) - then that knock down had to be prior to the date the council sold it to the current owners.


So could the council argue we are at fault if we purchase if they sold the house in that condition over three decades ago?


How real are these threats thus requiring the payment of insurance fees (the vendor told our solicitor they will not pay for it as they did not knock down a wall during their 35 year occupancy)


Or is this just a way for insurers and solicitors to make more money?

G_M

The ruls have not changed, but mortgage lenders have become paranoid! They insist on indemnity insurance for all sorts of stuff now.

Of course the LA is not going to now demand an owner remove the door (even if they found out).

Tell your solicitor that if the buyers or their lender want insurance, they should take out insurance, but it is pointless and a waste of money.

Jaycee_Dove

I guessed as much but do appreciate your advice.


I did wonder if I should tell the purchaser that in lieu of insurance I will happily remove the door on our departure on completion day and then it will comply exactly with the approved and passed plans from 40 odd years ago.


Up to them then if they want an al fresco home or to put it back on.

G_M

Jaycee_Dove wrote: »

I guessed as much but do appreciate your advice.


I did wonder if I should tell the purchaser that in lieu of insurance I will happily remove the door on our departure on completion day and then it will comply exactly with the approved and passed plans from 40 odd years ago.


Up to them then if they want an al fresco home or to put it back on.

Nice move! :rotfl: