contaminated land indemnity

db81

Now selling our home it has appeared that there is a risk of it being built on contaminated land. Buyers solicitor has requested an indemnity. Indemnity policy was going to be taken out until our buyer has found they have breach the terms and conditions by contacting the local authority. We dont know what was said it the email but we do know they have had no reply. Buyers solicitor is now unhappy to take out an indemnity on their behalf. My question is can I take out the indemnity as I havent contacted the local authority? Exchange deadline is in a few days, buyer has statec without an indemnity they wont purchase.

G_M

Are you doing your own conveyancing, or do you have a solicitor?

If DIY, this is clearly the time to give up and employ a professional.

If you already have a solicitor, what is his advice? You are, after all, paying him to complete the conveyancing.....

I am no expert on insurance, but am aware that once the council has been informed of a potential issue it cannot be insured against (a bit like being diagnosed with a serious illness and then taking out health/life insurance to cover that same illness).

So I suspect that if, as you say, the buyer has raised the issue with the council, this would invalidate any policy either you, or he, took out.

However

a) I might be wrong and
b) it might depend how exactly he rised the issue with the council (ie which dept, what words he used etc)

I also wonder how "in 2010 it was decided our property was built on contaminated ground." Who 'decided'? How did this become known subsequently to your purchase. Was it, perhaps, a council 'decision' in which case they already knew before the buyer contacted them.

db81

Hi, thanks for the reply. We do have a solicitor, friday when the issue came to light he didnt have an answer. He said he has never come across this before. He has stated there generally is away around most issues. To be honest I find it an absolute joke that not even the homeowner could possible get an indemnity as a person who has never owned or lived at the property could cause such an issue.

db81

The answer to who decided in 2010 is I dont know. The estate agent just said since 2010 every property shows the same risk on land registration document. Im sure it comes up as a refereal, but could be wrong.

G_M

db81 wrote: »

To be honest I find it an absolute joke that not even the homeowner could possible get an indemnity as a person who has never owned or lived at the property could cause such an issue.

If at the time of taking out a health plan, travel insurance, life policy etc, there was a diagnosis of cancer, or referral by GP to a cancer specialist, or other indication of a known risk of cancer, that policy would either be invalidated, or would exclude cancer.

Does not matter if the information/knowledge came from the applicant, GP, consultant whoever.

This is no different.

Why would an insurerance company cover a property for the possibility of needing repair, reconstruction, re-housing of occupant as a result of contamination, once it is established that there is a known risk of contamintation.

Harsh? Yes. Financially sensible (for the insurer)? Yes.

However since your solicitor sounds optimistic that he can find a solution, I suggest you wait till Monday PM or Tuesday and then discuss.

db81

Thanks for your help. Problem is as far as i'm aware they still don't know100% if the ground is contaminated. If an indemnity isnt the way to go there must be another way.

Diver2

Land is designated as Contaminated under the Local Councils Contaminated Land Strategy, which would contain a list of sites for further investigation and also a list of confirmed "Contaminated Land" (note the Caps, as this has to fall within a legal definition). It would be worth popping into the Council and checking these lists (you can do this without identifying exactly which site you're concerned about I believe).

Checking these lists would be a good first step.

D2