Buyers solicitor asking us to pay Indemnity Insurance

Hb92

Selling our house and the buyers solicitor has come back with more enquiries.

The driveway was installed by the previous owner over a decade ago and so we have no information regarding this. So the buyers solicitor is saying they will require Indemnity Insurance at my expense. It says that local search results also confirm that the footpath to the front of the property is not adopted by the local authority and there are no rights of access granted and they will require an Absence of Easement Indemnity policy.

First off, i have no idea what that means. Also is this not something the buyers would be responsible for? They have also asked for the boiler to be serviced again at my expense, is this normal?

They already have the house for £28k less than it's value so i believe it should be the buyers responsibility? I have already said I will get a gas safety certificate and they have asked for an electrical safety one which i am also happy to pay for. 

But the boiler service and insurance i am not sure about? I have never sold a property before so i am unsure if this is typical? I am going to ask my solicitor also for advice but just wanted to ask people on here?

user1977

The general expectation is that in exchange for the price the buyers should get good title and nothing historically adverse affecting the property (such as e.g. works which needed consent from planning or building control), so either you sort out the problems properly or you pay for the insurance to cover the (probably trivial) risk of enforcement action happening.

But like everything it's negotiable (buyers might be being too fussy or concerned about things which can no longer be enforced, so arguably they can get the insurance themselves if they're really bothered).

Your solicitor should be explaining this rather than just passing on stuff you don't understand.

Mark_d

If the buyers were to purchase now, they might be getting a driveway they are unable to use.  They might have to pay money to tear up the driveway if it's decided the driveway was installed without the necessary permissions.  If you don't buy the insurance policy then fewer people would be interested in buying your house and the price they'd offer would be lower to account for the risks.
If you can't prove that the boiler is in good condition then the buyer will have to assume the boiler needs replacing..and their offer would need to be lowered to account for this.  It is in your best interest to get the boiler serviced and repaired as necessary.
The value of a house is the point where both the buyer is prepared to buy and the seller is prepared to sell.  The buyers are therefore getting the house for what it's worth.  If anyone thinks the house value is £28k more then why not sell not to someone for £28k more?

Hoenir

Be the buyers mortgage company that requires clean title to release the money.  Time costs money in the legal world. Indemnity policies are the cheap fix to resolve the issue. 

Section62

Hb92 said:

The driveway was installed by the previous owner over a decade ago and so we have no information regarding this. So the buyers solicitor is saying they will require Indemnity Insurance at my expense. It says that local search results also confirm that the footpath to the front of the property is not adopted by the local authority and there are no rights of access granted and they will require an Absence of Easement Indemnity policy.

...

By 'footpath' do they mean 'footway' - a strip of tarmac or slabs running parallel to the road which is there for pedestrians to walk on?  If so, what exactly makes them think it is unadopted?  Footways are normally adopted with the carriageway, so it would be a bit unusual (but not unheard of) for the footway to be unadopted but the carriageway to be adopted highway.  Some photos and/or plans would help make this clearer.

The driveway/crossover could be more problematic, if the buyers would accept an indemnity policy it might be the path of least hassle.

Section62

Mark_d said:

If you can't prove that the boiler is in good condition then the buyer will have to assume the boiler needs replacing..and their offer would need to be lowered to account for this.  It is in your best interest to get the boiler serviced and repaired as necessary.

Not necessarily... if the service results in the boiler being condemned then the OP shells out for the whole cost of replacement fullstop.  The amount deducted off the offer to account for the possibility of needing a new boiler is open to negotiation, the OP could say 'no'.

'Best interests' will depend on how keen the buyer is to buy and how keen the OP is to sell.  One or the other has to blink first.

LoopyLoops

Mark_d said:

If the buyers were to purchase now, they might be getting a driveway they are unable to use.  They might have to pay money to tear up the driveway if it's decided the driveway was installed without the necessary permissions.  If you don't buy the insurance policy then fewer people would be interested in buying your house and the price they'd offer would be lower to account for the risks.
If you can't prove that the boiler is in good condition then the buyer will have to assume the boiler needs replacing..and their offer would need to be lowered to account for this.  It is in your best interest to get the boiler serviced and repaired as necessary.
The value of a house is the point where both the buyer is prepared to buy and the seller is prepared to sell.  The buyers are therefore getting the house for what it's worth.  If anyone thinks the house value is £28k more then why not sell not to someone for £28k more?

It’s in the buyers best interest to sort this. We bought recently, could clearly see the boiler was old.  Seller said it hadn’t been serviced. We wanted to get it checked and wanted to pick who serviced it.  As we are buying we should take responsibility to check things.  Seller has every right to say you want to know, you pay. 

Also if the buyers want insurance / protection then they should pay for it or don’t buy the house. 

If I’m buying I want to know it’s been done right, not relying on the seller.  Buyer beware….  Ultimately though it depends on how much the seller wants to sell vs the buyer wanting to buy.  

WIAWSNB

Hb92 said:

Selling our house and the buyers solicitor has come back with more enquiries.

The driveway was installed by the previous owner over a decade ago and so we have no information regarding this. So the buyers solicitor is saying they will require Indemnity Insurance at my expense. It says that local search results also confirm that the footpath to the front of the property is not adopted by the local authority and there are no rights of access granted and they will require an Absence of Easement Indemnity policy.

First off, i have no idea what that means. Also is this not something the buyers would be responsible for? They have also asked for the boiler to be serviced again at my expense, is this normal?

They already have the house for £28k less than it's value so i believe it should be the buyers responsibility? I have already said I will get a gas safety certificate and they have asked for an electrical safety one which i am also happy to pay for. 

But the boiler service and insurance i am not sure about? I have never sold a property before so i am unsure if this is typical? I am going to ask my solicitor also for advice but just wanted to ask people on here?

Hi Hb.
As said, indemnity policies are often a quick fix to overcome potential future issues. It sounds, in your case, that there's nigh-on zero chance the driveway or footpath ever being questioned in future, so the policies should be pretty cheap, and worth doing to move the sale on.
What should be mentioned, tho', is that you shouldn't also take any action to investigate or question these two situations with, say, Highways or Planning, as to make them 'aware' of a potential issue could void the policy.
If, in the extremely unlikely event that you enquired and, as a result, we're told you had no right of access over that footpath, the policy would not protect you 'cos it was your fault they found out; you'd be mightily stuffed :-)
So, take them out, and shhhhh.
(Unless you wish to research surreptitiously, in which case fill your boots.)

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

Hb92 said:

Selling our house and the buyers solicitor has come back with more enquiries.

The driveway was installed by the previous owner over a decade ago and so we have no information regarding this. So the buyers solicitor is saying they will require Indemnity Insurance at my expense. It says that local search results also confirm that the footpath to the front of the property is not adopted by the local authority and there are no rights of access granted and they will require an Absence of Easement Indemnity policy.

First off, i have no idea what that means. Also is this not something the buyers would be responsible for? They have also asked for the boiler to be serviced again at my expense, is this normal?

They already have the house for £28k less than it's value so i believe it should be the buyers responsibility? I have already said I will get a gas safety certificate and they have asked for an electrical safety one which i am also happy to pay for. 

But the boiler service and insurance i am not sure about? I have never sold a property before so i am unsure if this is typical? I am going to ask my solicitor also for advice but just wanted to ask people on here?

Hi Hb.
As said, indemnity policies are often a quick fix to overcome potential future issues. It sounds, in your case, that there's nigh-on zero chance the driveway or footpath ever being questioned in future, so the policies should be pretty cheap, and worth doing to move the sale on.
What should be mentioned, tho', is that you shouldn't also take any action to investigate or question these two situations with, say, Highways or Planning, as to make them 'aware' of a potential issue could void the policy.
If, in the extremely unlikely event that you enquired and, as a result, we're told you had no right of access over that footpath, the policy would not protect you 'cos it was your fault they found out; you'd be mightily stuffed :-)
So, take them out, and shhhhh.
(Unless you wish to research surreptitiously, in which case fill your boots.)

There's not enough information to conclude that...

If the footway is not adopted "and there are no rights of access granted" then it implies there is a strip of land between the OP's property and the highway which is owned by A N Other.  In which case it isn't council enforcement which needs to be feared, but rather whether there is a money-grabbing landbanker somewhere out there who could find out what the OP (/their buyer) is doing on their ransom strip.

The buyer would be sensible to have this properly looked into, or they might accept an indemnity policy instead.

Also from the buyer's perspective, if the footway isn't adopted then someone needs to pay to have it maintained and be responsible for liability.  If there's no entity responsible for that then ultimately the property could be difficult to sell in future.

GDB2222

I don’t understand why the drive is a huge problem? Is the kerb dropped? Even if it required planning permission, there’s a 6 year limit for the local authority to intervene.

On the other hand, I would be concerned about rights of access. 

Bigphil1474

OP, we ended up with 2 indemnity policies on the house we bought. Seller paid for one, we paid for one. One was to do with the church asking for money, and the other was to do with the original builders from the 1960s. Both were under £50, so not an issue for us.

It's a negotiation, so if you want something but don't want to pay for it, or they want something etc. then you need to negotiate. On the house we sold, we got our boiler serviced and certified, electrics certified, some minor damp proof works done etc. before we sold, because we knew people would ask and knew if we had the paperwork it would help things move along better. If you're selling a house for hundreds of thousands, is it worth quibbling over a couple of hundred £.