Building Regulations no Certificate and Breach covenant

IreneMot

Hello, 

We are selling a probate house at the moment, but the buyer's solicitor has asked some questions. 

The house isn't insured and has been for 9/10 year since my relative bought it and most likely before. This seems to be a breach of deeds and that we will need to get it insured of a short time or get indemnity insurance. I am guessing indemnity insurance would be cheaper because the house is in bad condition. 

The other problem is that the property has been re-roof 8/9 years, but my relative didn't let the person into the house for inspection and this mean we don't have a Certificate of Completion. 
I have done some reading up, and it looks like I may need another indemnity insurance for this? 

Is there any recommendation for any of these? Any idea on cost? 

lincroft1710

If the house is freehold and not subject to a mortgage, there would be no breach of anything if there is no buildings insurance, However it would be very unwise not to have buildings insurance. Indemnity insurance is of no use in such circumstances.


All an indemnity policy will do regarding the roof is indemnify the house owner against Building Control taking action for no completion certificate (which they are extremely unlikely to do), it will not pay up if the roof fails for any reason

user1977

Don't you have your own solicitor to seek advice from?

I don't see why the current lack of buildings insurance is a problem for the buyer? They insure from exchange of contracts, makes no difference to them whether or not it was previously insured. Even if a breach of covenants, that gets remedied as soon as insurance is put in place, nobody gets punished later on for an earlier breach. It's a risk for the estate, so up to you whether to sort it out in the interim.

Indemnity insurance is normally arranged by the solicitors, if it's agreed to be warranted. I wouldn't start offering it merely because you've been reading up about it, rather than because the buyers are demanding it.

doodling

Hi,

Who is the executor(s)?  Who are the beneficiaries?  If those two groups of people are different and the house isn't insured then the executors are likely to be personally liable to the beneficiaries for the costs of rebuilding it, if for example it burned down.  Whatever the case, insuring a house is easy and the executors should be doing it today (as in sometime in the next hour or so).

Don't worry about building regulations, just tell prospective purchasers the truth and if they come back asking for indemnities then you need to decide whether or not it is appropriate to pay for them taking into account the issue in question and the price you have agreed.

IreneMot

Thank you for the replies. I am the executor and part beneficiary. We did try to get it insured about 4 mouths ago but didn't let us because of the condition, and they didn't like the time frame. It was two choices of spending a lot of money to repair it to then spend more money to insure it, or just leave it. I will try again to get insurance. 

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 

I will get in contact with the solicitor tomorrow. I am just doing my reading up first before contacting them. 

user1977

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 
 

That doesn't really make sense!

IreneMot

user1977 said:

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 
 

That doesn't really make sense!

This is what it says on the letter. Please advise why this is a breach of the covenant affecting the title and contain in the conveyance dated 1938. Please can insurance be arranged, or we will need to provide an indemnity insurance. 

propertyrental

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 

Please quote

a) where in the 'deeds' you are reading this and

b) the exact wording

user1977

IreneMot said:

user1977 said:

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 
 

That doesn't really make sense!

This is what it says on the letter. Please advise why this is a breach of the covenant affecting the title and contain in the conveyance dated 1938. Please can insurance be arranged, or we will need to provide an indemnity insurance. 

A breach of the covenant, not a breach of the insurance.

But like I said above, I don't see why the buyer ought to be bothered about whether the estate has insurance. As soon as they arrange their own insurance, any breach of the covenant vanishes.

IreneMot

propertyrental said:

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 

Please quote

a) where in the 'deeds' you are reading this and

b) the exact wording

The copy that I have is in very bad copy and very odd English.

heading "the schedules before referred to"

4/ insure to the full value throf insurance office of repute and at all time thrir to keep insured agest loss and damage by fire the sd messes or dwghses erected of to be erected the ld thray convyd and all bldge underaction of insuralbe nature which at any time thrir might be erected thron thrto to produce to the vdr his successor or assigns or his agents policy of every such insurance the recipt to the last premium pyble throf at the in case the sd ppty or any pt throf and at any time thrir be destroyed or damaged by fire then and somoften as the same shd happen all moneys received in respect of such insurance shd be insufficient for that pyse the that coy wd provide such moneys as wd make good the deficiency.  

user1977 said:

IreneMot said:

user1977 said:

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 
 

That doesn't really make sense!

This is what it says on the letter. Please advise why this is a breach of the covenant affecting the title and contain in the conveyance dated 1938. Please can insurance be arranged, or we will need to provide an indemnity insurance. 

A breach of the covenant, not a breach of the insurance.

But like I said above, I don't see why the buyer ought to be bothered about whether the estate has insurance. As soon as they arrange their own insurance, any breach of the covenant vanishes.

Sorry, yes I didn't notice that mistake when writing. 

I will ask my solicitors about this. Thank you. 
 

lincroft1710

IreneMot said:

propertyrental said:

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 

Please quote

a) where in the 'deeds' you are reading this and

b) the exact wording

The copy that I have is in very bad copy and very odd English.

heading "the schedules before referred to"

4/ insure to the full value throf insurance office of repute and at all time thrir to keep insured agest loss and damage by fire the sd messes or dwghses erected of to be erected the ld thray convyd and all bldge underaction of insuralbe nature which at any time thrir might be erected thron thrto to produce to the vdr his successor or assigns or his agents policy of every such insurance the recipt to the last premium pyble throf at the in case the sd ppty or any pt throf and at any time thrir be destroyed or damaged by fire then and somoften as the same shd happen all moneys received in respect of such insurance shd be insufficient for that pyse the that coy wd provide such moneys as wd make good the deficiency.  

user1977 said:

IreneMot said:

user1977 said:

IreneMot said:

From what I can see, the deeds state that the house need to be insured and this is why it's a breach of the insurance. 
 

That doesn't really make sense!

This is what it says on the letter. Please advise why this is a breach of the covenant affecting the title and contain in the conveyance dated 1938. Please can insurance be arranged, or we will need to provide an indemnity insurance. 

A breach of the covenant, not a breach of the insurance.

But like I said above, I don't see why the buyer ought to be bothered about whether the estate has insurance. As soon as they arrange their own insurance, any breach of the covenant vanishes.

Sorry, yes I didn't notice that mistake when writing. 

I will ask my solicitors about this. Thank you. 
 

translation (I hope)

insure to the full value through insurance office of repute and at all time thereafter to keep insured against loss and damage by fire the said messuages or dwellinghouses erected on to be erected on the land thereby conveyed and all buildings under action of insurable nature which at any time there might be erected thereon thereto to produce to the vendor his successor or assigns or his agents policy of every such insurance the receipt to the last premium payable thereof at the in case the said property or any part thereof and at any time thereafter be destroyed or damaged by fire then and so often(?) as the same should happen all moneys received in respect of such insurance should be insufficient for that pays the that company would provide such moneys as would make good the deficiency.