CLC - The Specialist Property Law Regulator

[Deleted User]

Is the CLC blog talking about indemnifying the seller of a property and should conveyancers be barred from selling indemnity insurance to their clients?

At the moment some insurance is only available through a conveyancer or solicitor? By making these insurances directly available to the seller conveyancing progress would improve. Questions exchanged between conveyancers as part of their protocol should only relate to legal issues. The practice however is to ask questions that are unnecessary and for the sole purpose of obtaining added value from the sale of insurance. 

Quite often the conveyancer will frighten the buyer into buying insurance especially when the cost is a proportion of the property value. Have you experienced unreasonable conveyancing delays or bought unnecessary insurance?

greatcrested

Are you trying to start a campaign for change, or what?

davidmcn

Can't see anything there about indemnity policies. Not sure what you're on about, or which enquiries you think are "unnecessary". 

[Deleted User]

greatcrested said:

Are you trying to start a campaign for change, or what?

More to the point are the CLC raising awareness about a need for change. When you buy something for sale the seller must ensure that the goods are fit for purpose. This is not the case with selling a property.

[Deleted User]

davidmcn said:

Can't see anything there about indemnity policies. Not sure what you're on about, or which enquiries you think are "unnecessary". 

The CLC carries profesional indemnity insurance as a precaution against member misconduct. Some restrictive covenants require the seller to indemnify the buyer when twenty years or more have passed since the covenant was put in place. The covenant would be unenforceable in the courts so it would be unnecessary.

davidmcn

[Deleted User] said:

davidmcn said:

Can't see anything there about indemnity policies. Not sure what you're on about, or which enquiries you think are "unnecessary". 

Some restrictive covenants require the seller to indemnify the buyer when twenty years or more have passed since the covenant was put in place.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Do you (or anybody else) have a citation explaining further? 

[Deleted User]

davidmcn said:

[Deleted User] said:

davidmcn said:

Can't see anything there about indemnity policies. Not sure what you're on about, or which enquiries you think are "unnecessary". 

Some restrictive covenants require the seller to indemnify the buyer when twenty years or more have passed since the covenant was put in place.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Do you (or anybody else) have a citation explaining further? 

Builders can offer and obtain added value by offering garages which they erect; the term is to buy from plan. In addition the builder does not want any buyer to erect a structure that would not fit in with the look and feel of adjacent housing so as to diminish any sales appeal. When all plots have been sold the restrictive covenant remains in place however the builder may have ceased trading or twenty years have passed with the builder still in business. Insurance is risk based the higher the risk the more expensive it is. If this insurance is sold the only winner is the insurer followed by the conveyancer.

davidmcn

[Deleted User] said:

davidmcn said:

[Deleted User] said:

davidmcn said:

Can't see anything there about indemnity policies. Not sure what you're on about, or which enquiries you think are "unnecessary". 

Some restrictive covenants require the seller to indemnify the buyer when twenty years or more have passed since the covenant was put in place.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Do you (or anybody else) have a citation explaining further? 

Builders can offer and obtain added value by offering garages which they erect; the term is to buy from plan. In addition the builder does not want any buyer to erect a structure that would not fit in with the look and feel of adjacent housing so as to diminish any sales appeal. When all plots have been sold the restrictive covenant remains in place however the builder may have ceased trading or twenty years have passed with the builder still in business. Insurance is risk based the higher the risk the more expensive it is. If this insurance is sold the only winner is the insurer followed by the conveyancer.

The buyer is being indemnified by the insurers, not by the seller. And the covenant does not "require" anything to happen. It's a choice by the buyer whether they want to have indemnity insurance, and even if they do, who pays for it is up for negotiation.