Chancel Liability Search

sairy2005

We are selling a flat (my husband and I ). We bought it about 4 years ago (jointly on a mortgage) as a second home. It is on the coast and we used it for holidays. Unfortunately I am now not in the best of health and the flat has a lot of stairs up to it which I cannot manage.
We have been advised by our solicitor that we need to have a Chancel Liability Search as the flat is located on land which could be liable to make a contribution to the local medieaval church.
I have never heard of this and we didn't have to have one when we bought the flat.
The fee is £59.88 so it is not the money, just that it seems they never cease to come up with things to make you pay for when you are buying or selling property.
Can any one advise me what this is and do we really have to have it. It won't affect us after all as we won't be living there, so should we have to pay it or should the buyer.
Your help would be much appreciated.

Doozergirl

I'd say the buyer should pay as it covers them, not you, but it's not really worth disputing. I'm hoping it's a form of indemnity policy rather than a full search. Actually carrying out a full search costs more and then renders any indemnity policy useless. So you go have a limited search to see if your property falls within the boundary of a potentially affected parish and then go straight for the policy. Very clever ploy by the company involved. Lots of cash!

It's one of those 'just in case' things. New, but standard.

Amanda_Midlands

sairy2005 wrote: »

We are selling a flat (my husband and I ). We bought it about 4 years ago (jointly on a mortgage) as a second home. It is on the coast and we used it for holidays. Unfortunately I am now not in the best of health and the flat has a lot of stairs up to it which I cannot manage.
We have been advised by our solicitor that we need to have a Chancel Liability Search as the flat is located on land which could be liable to make a contribution to the local medieaval church.
I have never heard of this and we didn't have to have one when we bought the flat.
The fee is £59.88 so it is not the money, just that it seems they never cease to come up with things to make you pay for when you are buying or selling property.
Can any one advise me what this is and do we really have to have it. It won't affect us after all as we won't be living there, so should we have to pay it or should the buyer.
Your help would be much appreciated.

I have just moved and my buyers solicitor asked that I take a chancel liability insurance out on the house I was selling for £103.90p. I told them no! They then asked my buyer to take it out. He said no too. It's just companies making money from the remote chance that the local church will come and ask you for money.

sairy2005

Thanks for your views. it is much as I thought but ir is nice to hear other points of view. Has any one out there paid it and was it of any benefit in any way?

alnapan

The seller HAS to pay in the current (falling) market. Why risk the buyer playing hardball when it's only a £100-200 cost?

Knocking £100-200 off the price won't wash with most intelligent buyers.

guppy

sairy2005 wrote: »

Thanks for your views. it is much as I thought but ir is nice to hear other points of view. Has any one out there paid it and was it of any benefit in any way?

As far as I know, there has only been one reported case where a Church demanded money from a homeowner. That was in Stratford-upon-Avon.

In my opinion very few churches would consider demanding money from homeowners, simply because its terrible PR for them and for the CofE generally. I doubt many churches want to get drawn in to a lengthy legal battle with the press crawling all over them. I understand chancel liability is being abolished from 2013 anyway.

The whole thing appears to have been blown out of proportion by the insurance companies as way to make money. I can only see it being of any benefit if you are exceedingly risk averse.

There's a good Times article about it here:

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article1072744.ece

stockmarket-diva

I sort of agree with what you are all saying but lets look at the following scenario because we should all bear in mind that one family have been made bankrupt by trying to fight a £95k bill from the Church and losing.

The Churches have been given until 2013 to name those properties that are liable for the church repairs.....and you don't even have to live near the church for that to happen. If you don't have an indemnity policy in place and they do ask for the money, you too could be made bankrupt with the cost of church roof repairs etc. Worst still, once you receive the dreaded notificiation that your property can be liable, your home will be worthless or at least drop dramatically in price...all for the sake of not wanting to take out a policy because who on earth would want to buy anything which could clean them out of money if the church decide to ask you to start paying for repairs.

I know what I'd prefer to do.

stockmarket-diva

I sort of agree with what you are all saying but lets look at the following scenario because we should all bear in mind that one family have been made bankrupt by trying to fight a £95k bill from the Church and losing.

The Churches have been given until 2013 to name those properties that are liable for the church repairs.....and you don't even have to live near the church for that to happen. If you don't have an indemnity policy in place and they do ask for the money, you too could be made bankrupt with the cost of church roof repairs etc. Worst still, once you receive the dreaded notificiation that your property can be liable, your home will be worthless or at least drop dramatically in price...all for the sake of not wanting to take out a policy because who on earth would want to buy anything which could clean them out of money if the church decide to ask you to start paying for repairs.

I know what I'd prefer to do.

Running_Horse

sairy2005 wrote: »

Has any one out there paid it and was it of any benefit in any way?

We paid, it was of no use whatsoever, apart from keeping our full asking buyers happy, so worth £60 for us.

Next time Rowan Williams (or any bishop) gives an interview, perhaps someone can ask why the church doesn't kill off this extortion of innocent families by just publicly stating the church will never use their powers ever again.

Isn't it time Watchdog or Panorama investigated this disgusting new insurance rip-off?

Richard_Webster

If a buyer was not getting a mortgage then he could reasonably take the view that the chances of a claim were minimal and decide not to take out the insurance. A solicitor would have to point out that there was a risk.

If there is a mortgage it is more complicated. The buyer's solicitor has to protect the lender and the lenders seem to want all angles covered. By all means see if you can get the lender to say in writing it does not want the insurance. The main reason for going for the insurance unfortunately is that lenders have not said they do not require it and usually solicitors find that trying to get an answer from a lender on a technical legal point such as this takes so long that most people involved are happy to pay for the insurance just to progress the transaction!

The Law Society has campaigned for the right to be abolished, period, instead of this rather unsatisfactory withering away business of hoping that nothing much gets registered before October 2013. I think that many members of the Church of England see the whole business as an embarrassment they would rather be without!

Woby_Tide

I've asked the same once before but never seen an answer but as chancelcheck will only sell policies via solicitors and not direct to the public, then surely any property owner that hasn't moved in the last couple of years and won't before 2013 is basically at risk of having a 'worthless property' (in the eyes of some) without ever being aware of these issues. Something is fishy in all this, if the risk is that much how can so many people be excluded from having a right to protect against it?