Indemnity Policies - Leasehold

rachel230

Can you tell us who the solicitors are. I'm curious..

bolshydad1

yes we had a fee proposed before we went ahead which we agreed to. 
Their Trustpilot reviews on face value are good but I think honestly alot of them are fake as all of the negative ones show recurring themes, which we've experienced ourselves. The solicitors are DC Law 

rachel230

The solicitor said to us that they have asked the lender if they're still happy for us to move forward without the indemnity policies but they will likely come back and ask for their legal adv, at which point they would be obliged to say they had raised indemnity policies and had them rejected by the insurer - 

Hmm stranger and stranger.

user1977

bolshydad1 said:

user1977 said:

bolshydad1 said:

user1977 said:

bolshydad1 said:

user1977 said:

Lender will amost certainly be satisfied with an indemnity policy/ies which cover all of the risks. We don't have enough information to advise on whether your solicitor is being excessively cautious. Are they charging you extra for each and every indemnity policy they "recommend"?

The issue is that the indemnity policies have been rejected by the insurer used by the solicitor so trying to understand how important this is to the lender. 
The seller is covering the cost of the indemnities but yes each one would come with a cost

Sorry, by "rejected" do you mean the seller is refusing to pay for them, or that it's impossible to get the insurance? The latter seems unlikely unless there's something else going on.

What advice has your solicitor given the lender about it?

sorry yes so when the solicitor raised the indemnities with their insurance provider, they rejected them. I have no idea why or on what grounds

The solicitor said to us that they have asked the lender if they're still happy for us to move forward without the indemnity policies but they will likely come back and ask for their legal advice, at which point they would be obliged to say they had raised indemnity policies and had them rejected by the insurer 

That doesn't really help to advise anyone about what the risks are though. Has your solicitor explained to you what the risks are? Have they advised you whether or not you ought to buy? Why hasn't your solicitor tried other insurers?

We haven't been advised on any of the risks or whether or not we should buy. 

So they've said indemnity policies are needed, but haven't explained why?

As I presume you're paying them a substantial amount of fees in return for their legal advice, maybe you should gently suggest to them that they ought to actually give you some advice?

rachel230

They really have messed up this whole process for all buyers/sellers in the chain.
Actually all the issues they are claiming need indemnifying should be covered in the actual LEASE! These are lease issues!
It is not normal for leaseholders to have separate legal docs in reference to these things AFAIK.
I bet this mob have not given the actual lease more than a cursory glance, let alone read it in detail and explained it to you. (Which is an extremely important part of the process eg. do you know the terms of your ground rent..any doubling or increasing terms like rpi for example..)
It is the freeholder who would include the issues in question in the LEASE! 
I would be factual  specific and demand answers to specific questions e.g. as PP said to ask why you * legally* need those things.
Secondly I would insist they go through the lease with you in detail - it's their job and what you are paying them for. To advise you on the lease which you are buying. As I said before, I bet they have done little more than glance at it!
Thirdly I would tell them that you have/are logging everything and will put in an official report to the SRA in due course.
And log everything. Any phone calls (including the times when they don't answer phone/don't return a call) log! And reiterate every phone call with a follow up email to verify all that was said and to have a paper trail.
But right now your focus is on the LEASE!

bolshydad1

user1977 said:

bolshydad1 said:

user1977 said:

bolshydad1 said:

user1977 said:

bolshydad1 said:

user1977 said:

Lender will amost certainly be satisfied with an indemnity policy/ies which cover all of the risks. We don't have enough information to advise on whether your solicitor is being excessively cautious. Are they charging you extra for each and every indemnity policy they "recommend"?

The issue is that the indemnity policies have been rejected by the insurer used by the solicitor so trying to understand how important this is to the lender. 
The seller is covering the cost of the indemnities but yes each one would come with a cost

Sorry, by "rejected" do you mean the seller is refusing to pay for them, or that it's impossible to get the insurance? The latter seems unlikely unless there's something else going on.

What advice has your solicitor given the lender about it?

sorry yes so when the solicitor raised the indemnities with their insurance provider, they rejected them. I have no idea why or on what grounds

The solicitor said to us that they have asked the lender if they're still happy for us to move forward without the indemnity policies but they will likely come back and ask for their legal advice, at which point they would be obliged to say they had raised indemnity policies and had them rejected by the insurer 

That doesn't really help to advise anyone about what the risks are though. Has your solicitor explained to you what the risks are? Have they advised you whether or not you ought to buy? Why hasn't your solicitor tried other insurers?

We haven't been advised on any of the risks or whether or not we should buy. 

So they've said indemnity policies are needed, but haven't explained why?

As I presume you're paying them a substantial amount of fees in return for their legal advice, maybe you should gently suggest to them that they ought to actually give you some advice?

yes, exactly! we have no idea why they were needed. And I suppose we need to take some responsibility for this also but we honestly went along with what they were suggesting because we're paying them to have the answers I think you're right

loubel

Lack of rights of support etc would be a pretty serious title defect in a lease, so if they can't get title insurance you're likely going to have a problem. Or are these missing rights between the freeholder and neighbouring building (which would be less of an issue for you and more an issue for the freeholder)? 

ironlady2022

Hi, I have a leasehold property and my buyer had wanted my freeholder to vary the lease and suggested I pay for the freehold.

The query was around doubling the rent, anyhow, Buyer's Sol requested for deed of variation, this was rejected and referred back to their bank. It took 16 w days in the end rather than the anticipated 5-10w day turn around. In the end, the bank was satisfied it was not needed.

Who is asking for the changes? Buyer/their Sol?

I had to laugh when I was asked to purchase my freehold as we were 5mo into conveyancing. This should have been requested from day 1. Furthermore, I don't have £7k lying about. So really the freehold is not an option cos I would have done it earlier. On top of that, I said if I went through with it, I would have added more than the cost of freehold on top as it adds more value. 

bolshydad1

ironlady2022 said:

Hi, I have a leasehold property and my buyer had wanted my freeholder to vary the lease and suggested I pay for the freehold.

The query was around doubling the rent, anyhow, Buyer's Sol requested for deed of variation, this was rejected and referred back to their bank. It took 16 w days in the end rather than the anticipated 5-10w day turn around. In the end, the bank was satisfied it was not needed.

Who is asking for the changes? Buyer/their Sol?

I had to laugh when I was asked to purchase my freehold as we were 5mo into conveyancing. This should have been requested from day 1. Furthermore, I don't have £7k lying about. So really the freehold is not an option cos I would have done it earlier. On top of that, I said if I went through with it, I would have added more than the cost of freehold on top as it adds more value. 

We had to have a deed of variation for the ground rent on our house, as requested by the buyers (was due to double every 10 years) and that has taken months to sort out  

In this case it's our solicitor asking the sellers as there are points in the lease that our solicitors tried to indemnify with their insurer which have been rejected so we're left with either getting a deed of variation or purchasing the freehold. We're not expecting the sellers to fund this but it's frustrating that only now, after almost 8 months down the line, this has become an issue. We would have loved to have moved by Christmas but it isn't looking likely now