Seller not having buildings insurance and building covenants

Colabean_2

Hello
We are in the process of trying to buy our first house (although we are much older than most first time buyers) but solicitors on both sides are reluctant to be proactive. The seller's buildings insurance has lapsed during her divorce as her ex-husband was responsible for the policy. Our solicitor wants her to take out a new policy before exchange, and I appreciate this breaks the conditions of her mortgage agreement but I wanted to know if there is any legal reason that we cannot complete the sale without this in place? I am trying to whittle down the queries to the bare minimum as our solicitor seems hell bent on pushing the time frame beyond our mortgage deal which expires very soon and, as our ages are not in our favour,  I am not confident about securing new deal.

The other query which is a simple yes/no question but seems to have been over looked by the seller (English is not her first language and her solicitors seem very apathetic  - whilst ours seems keen on introducing new hurdles!) - is she aware of any breech of covenants? The property is 12 years old and we are trying to be the third owners so this is not relating to weird, historic rules about not hanging your washing out on a Sunday...

I know that the answer to this will be 'no' but this information hasn't been conveyed to her solicitor and therefore hasn't made it to our solicitor; so I want to know if we are legally required to have this information before we can complete the sale. If we are being asked for information which is merely to keep us informed, I am not interested! But if our mortgage is dependant on the information being forth coming, I will get it looked at. We are very frustrated... there is no chain everyone is ready to go and the solicitors seem to delight in causing stress...

Any advice that will inform me before I discuss this with our solicitor would be gratefully received! 

Thanks you

Doozergirl

I have literally never been asked about buildings insurance when selling, nor given any information about the vendor's insurance position when buying.  It isn't a legal requirement. 

Re: breaches, you can probably read the deeds and establish from a viewing whether there are any breaches, but I would be encouraging your agent here to get her to answer the question herself.  This is the sort of thing they can do.  

user1977

The question about the covenants isn't a specific legal requirement, but your solicitor (assuming they're also acting for your lender) will need to be satisfied generally in order to sign off the property to your lender - so it's up to your solicitor really.

Are there specific covenants which you or your solicitor are concerned about?

Often there isn't a particularly useful answer anyway, especially if the vendor doesn't know what the covenants are. But I expect your solicitor wants the question answered somehow in order to tick their box, even if it's "don't know".

pinkteapot

Normally, it's you as the buyer who takes out a buildings insurance policy to start from exchange (not completion). 

Is your solicitor saying they don't want to exchange without the seller having buildings insurance in place to cover them up to exchange? I don't really see what the issue is. The seller currently has the risk of the house burning down and being uninsured... 

liberty_lily

We've sold seven times and have also never been asked if buildings insurance is in place when going through the conveyancing process. Ditto being given information relating to the property we were purchasing (now on our eighth). There was none in place on our current house (purchased as a repossession) but we initially merely assumed this as opposed to being told.

pinkteapot

Yep, good point - have also sold many times and no-one's ever asked if the house we're selling is insured. Unsure what the solicitor is doing in this case.

Thinking about it, there is literally no (legal) need for the seller to have buildings insurance. If the building is destroyed before exchange, the seller hasn't exchanged so doesn't HAVE to sell to you, so simply pulls out. After exchange, you still have to buy it which is why you need insurance to replace it if need be.

Alderbank

OP, I know you refer to buying your first house but can you confirm that you are not buying a flat or maisonette e.g. in a block of flats or a retirement complex?
I am asking because the Law Society's standard Conditions of Sale say where there is a leasehold or tenancy agreement  'the buyer’s solicitor should request evidence of insurance and that the policy is in force, any terms or warranties are adhered to and the premium is paid up to date. Contracts should not be exchanged until evidence of valid insurance is received.'

If it is not e.g. a retirement home then perhaps the solicitor is making an assumption about shall we say the more mature class of buyers?
You might need to put him straight.

Flugelhorn

I have been is a situation where there was a long period between exchange and completion and solicitor insisted that the vendor continued to insure it as we would struggle to get insurance with such a long time interval

user1977

Alderbank said:

OP, I know you refer to buying your first house but can you confirm that you are not buying a flat or maisonette e.g. in a block of flats or a retirement complex?

If it is not e.g. a retirement home then perhaps the solicitor is making an assumption about shall we say the more mature class of buyers?

It would be an odd set-up if the vendor's late husband was also dealing with the freeholder's insuring responsibilities, surely?

Alderbank

I agree, I think the solicitor is wrong, but I can't think of any other circumstances where the Law Society says that the buyer’s solicitor should request evidence of insurance and the premium is paid up to date and contracts should not be exchanged until evidence of valid insurance is received.

Colabean_2

Thanks for the replies - I would agree it is unwise to be uninsured. If the house burns to the ground we are not likely to continue with the purchase - ditto if a lorry drives into it but that would probably be the least of the sellers worries. If we complete the sale and one of those unfortunate events occurs, then we will be insured. 
Essentially, it has no impact on us as buyers beyond the obvious problem of there being no house- we would not be buying a house which was rubble whether it was previously insured or not so that's why I am struggling to understand the relevance...

The breaches is a general enquiry. That is why I don't understand the point... The information potentially received is so vague that I can't see how it is useful...

Your contributions are really helpful... Many thanks