House sale - septic tank queries/requirements

frankie

Don't get downhearted. I had a similar experience just over a year ago when I sold my property.

The buyer wanted FENSA certs, boiler paperwork, conservatory plans and loads of other obscure paper work for other works carried out more than 10- 15 years ago.

In the end I got an indemnity insurance, cost about £100 I think and this was accepted.

The other route is to deal with the buyer direct and ask if they are happy with the status quo, if they are tell them to instruct their solicitor to go ahead with the sale.

It seem that solicitors/conveyancers are into this paperwork trail these days, wonder if its so they can sell indemnities and get some commission from them. (you can get such insurance independant of solicitor)

Hope this helps.

pineapple

Thanks. I already have a good relationship with the buyer who is well known in the area and who already knows the neighbours and who has already sold half her furniture to fit into my smaller place. She knows I'm not happy with this latest. I can't imagine her pulling out now even if I were to refuse such an insurance but we'll see what my solicitor says.
Cheers

martinthebandit

Sometimes I wonder just how much profit ( or commission) solicitors make on flogging indemnity insurance.

Or maybe I am just suspicious and cynical.

davidmcn

martinthebandit wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder just how much profit ( or commission) solicitors make on flogging indemnity insurance.

Very little, if any. How much commission do you think it's even possible to make from a policy costing about £100? Do you think it makes it worth the aggravation of arguing it out with the sellers, if you're on a fixed fee anyway?

The main issue is the number of cases where purchasers (or lenders) accuse the solicitors of being negligent for not making sure that things like this were covered properly. You only need to look at some of the other threads here for examples of that.

sleepymans

Hi OP, I feel your pain, having had to jump through a seemingly never-ending succession of these type of issues during my recent move.

In my case there were my sale and my purchase only in the short chain and in the end I was paying for indemnities on my old house and indemnities on the new one as the vendor refused to!

One thing that may be relevant or not (it was in my case) it was the solicitor representing the mortgage provider that was the demanding factor and not the buyer's and seller's solicitors.

In the end I decided to just roll with it to get the chain complete as I figured that if I lost my buyers or my vendor's house than it would only have happened again when the chain reformed. I wanted to get the whole thing over and done with in order to start my new life in a different part of the country.

I just came to the conclusion that mortgage providers and the legals are totally inflexible and covering their backs at my expense and that the property market is just a huge cash-cow to bleed us ordinary folk of every last penny possible.....and just dont get me started on the rip off that is otherwise named SDLT!!

Good Luck OP - I hope you can get a ssatisfactory conclusion
Sleepy:A

Buzby

Am I the only one who feels the buyer's Solicitor is doing exactly what they are paid for? It may well be unnecessary, but the response is not to take the bat and ball away, but respond that there's never ever been any need for full access rights as a simple 'right of access' is not and had never been in dispute. If the purchaser wishes to seek formal rights, they are at Liberty to do so at their cost and expense.

Then add if this is not satisfactory to the purchaser, you will withdraw from the sale and remarket it. No histrionics, just a simple matter-of-fact intention.

pineapple

I agree Buzby. I'm not desperate to move and am prepared to risk the buyer pulling out if I don't fork out for a policy. It's as much about principle as money. The Deeds give right of access to the tank which sits near the edge of the farmers field and the fact that a specific path from the edge of the field to the tank is not marked on the plan has never been a problem in over 20 years of people toing and froing. Neither has this issue ever been raised in other house sales here.
Happy New Year to all!

princeofpounds

Am I the only one who feels the buyer's Solicitor is doing exactly what they are paid for? It may well be unnecessary, but the response is not to take the bat and ball away, but respond that there's never ever been any need for full access rights as a simple 'right of access' is not and had never been in dispute.

They DO have full access rights. If anything, defining a right of way would be more restrictive. As things stand they have the right to bring a mega-crane onto site if required! Defining a route could make such things difficult.

They aren't doing what they are paid for. I can't guarantee it as I do not know all the circumstances, but someone along the way (solicitor, client or mortgagors) doesn't actually know quite what they are doing.

It might make sense to ask if there is an access route, because you would have to bear the cost of, for example, repairing a wall that needs to be opened for access. But defining one legally is not necessary.

In addition, to the poster asking about lawyer's commission on indemnity insurance... Yes 100 quid is not a lot, but do not underestimate the amount of commission share in this figure. The commission paid to crooked freeholders who get to arrange insurance and charge leaseholders can be eye-watering. Indemnity could easily be the same; these policies are rarely claimed on.

pineapple

:huh:

princeofpounds wrote: »

They DO have full access rights. If anything, defining a right of way would be more restrictive. As things stand they have the right to bring a mega-crane onto site if required! Defining a route could make such things difficult.

They aren't doing what they are paid for. I can't guarantee it as I do not know all the circumstances, but someone along the way (solicitor, client or mortgagors) doesn't actually know quite what they are doing.

It might make sense to ask if there is an access route, because you would have to bear the cost of, for example, repairing a wall that needs to be opened for access. But defining one legally is not necessary.

In addition, to the poster asking about lawyer's commission on indemnity insurance... Yes 100 quid is not a lot, but do not underestimate the amount of commission share in this figure. The commission paid to crooked freeholders who get to arrange insurance and charge leaseholders can be eye-watering. Indemnity could easily be the same; these policies are rarely claimed on.

I agree that specifying a route could actually create more problems. I think possibly it's the solicitor that does not know what she is doing. Especially as she is also now asking about planning consent for my replacement bathroom suite, the roof repairs and a small porch that was in situ when I moved in 10 years ago. :huh:

G_M

Buzby wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels the buyer's Solicitor is doing exactly what they are paid for? It may well be unnecessary, but the response is not to take the bat and ball away, but respond that there's never ever been any need for full access rights as a simple 'right of access' is not and had never been in dispute. If the purchaser wishes to seek formal rights, they are at Liberty to do so at their cost and expense.

Then add if this is not satisfactory to the purchaser, you will withdraw from the sale and remarket it. No histrionics, just a simple matter-of-fact intention.

In other words, see post 6 above.