what is Chancel Repair Indemnity????

canaldumidi

[Deleted User] said:

Pretty shocking behaviour from men and women of God.

History is littered with shocking behaviour from men and women of god(s). In the scale of things....

ilikewatch2

[Deleted User] said:

Pretty shocking behaviour from men and women of God.

Why shouldn't an organisation expect someone to pay what they're contractually obliged to? I'm more shocked that someone spent £250,000 on legal fees to try and dodge paying a £230,000 bill.

aoleks

ilikewatch2 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Pretty shocking behaviour from men and women of God.

Why shouldn't an organisation expect someone to pay what they're contractually obliged to? I'm more shocked that someone spent £250,000 on legal fees to try and dodge paying a £230,000 bill.

it's a law from the 1200s... society moved on quite a bit since. these ridiculous rules should be all abolished at once, with immediate effect.

[Deleted User]

ilikewatch2 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Pretty shocking behaviour from men and women of God.

Why shouldn't an organisation expect someone to pay what they're contractually obliged to? I'm more shocked that someone spent £250,000 on legal fees to try and dodge paying a £230,000 bill.

Because it's morally wrong.

If I were that homeowner I'd have spent £250k on legal feels. Why not, you are going to go bankrupt and lose your house anyway, might as well blow it all on legal feels because if you win the church pays, and if you lose the church gets nothing anyway because you spent it already. At least if you are going down you can make sure the church gets nothing.

strawb_shortcake

When we took this insurance, I was under the impression that churches had to register by a certain date (now in the past) or they wouldn't be able to claim?? 

Also, I was advised not to do any research into whether or not we would be liable as if I discovered we were without insurance in place then insurance wouldn't be an option.

Irishpearce26

owenjt said:

Irishpearce26 said:

I've never heard of a chancel repair clause being forced.

Church bill for £230,000 forces couple to sell farm

Crikey!!!

ilikewatch2

[Deleted User] said:

Because it's morally wrong.

If I were that homeowner I'd have spent £250k on legal feels. Why not, you are going to go bankrupt and lose your house anyway, might as well blow it all on legal feels because if you win the church pays, and if you lose the church gets nothing anyway because you spent it already. At least if you are going down you can make sure the church gets nothing.

I guess I just don't see why it's morally wrong - the church are just claiming what's rightfully theirs.

I don't see it as any different to an inheriting a £100K bungalow, knocking it down, building a 5 bedroom house worth £500K, then discovering there's an overage clause triggered by the implementation of a planning permission and you have to pay someone 50% of the uplift in value - you'd kick yourself for not doing the due diligence, but it's just business, morals don't really come into it.

milkskae873

aoleks said:

just get the insurance and forget about it... worth every penny!

solicitor or vendor whoever  got the insurance automatically on my behalf . It is very cheap about GBP15.00. 
There are three big churches near the property........

TBagpuss

[Deleted User] said:

Pretty shocking behaviour from men and women of God.

Part of the problem is that it's not necessarily their choice.

Generally speaking, it's likely to be the Parochial Church Council  who have the power to enforce it (or waive it)
But they are trustees,  and therefore  have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiary of that trust (the church / Parish) - and can be personally liable if they don't.

So, if they are entitled to claim for chancel repair from homeowners but don't, they risk being in breach of their duties as trustees and therefore liable to pay for the work themselves. 
I think a lot of dioceses stepped in and effectively agreed to indemnify councillors who didn't register the repair rights, to protect them from being held liable if the / when this means the rights lapsed.

In addition,  the  Aston Cantlow case was unusual in that they were the main or only ones liable - in most cases, the liability is shared by lots of homes so each individual property may only be liable for a small payment, and it becomes much less cost effective to pursue. Trying to get £100 each from 200 homeowners is far less practical than trying to get £200,000 from a single homeowner - in the first situation, the church council will normally be able to take the view that it is not cost-effective to try to pursue, and homeowners may feel that paying a small amount as a one off is not too onerous. 

The insurance is usually very cheap, because the risk is very low. 

NameUnavailable

ilikewatch2 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Because it's morally wrong.

If I were that homeowner I'd have spent £250k on legal feels. Why not, you are going to go bankrupt and lose your house anyway, might as well blow it all on legal feels because if you win the church pays, and if you lose the church gets nothing anyway because you spent it already. At least if you are going down you can make sure the church gets nothing.

I guess I just don't see why it's morally wrong - the church are just claiming what's rightfully theirs.

Abso-fing-lutely!! Nail on the head. It's their right so they should enforce it.

I do however have a 'thing' about these expensive temples to imaginary friends.