Home insurance and squatters

Smalltownhypocrite

I was hoping someone can help. I have for my sins been appointed executor of a property in a nightmare situation. 

The people who lived in the property prior to death have continued to live their and refuse to move out (and have become very aggressive about it). As the estate cannot be sold/settled due to this the house remain in the decedents estates name. 

I have been advised that its very messy case and since they are violent and no cooperative that it would require a court case to evict the 'squatters' which would cost tens of thousand and would have to come out of pocket upfront until the estate is settled when it would then be paid back out of the estates balance but this currently isn't a financial option.

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable. I have been informed I need '3rd party liability' but I cannot find anywhere that will insure a house thats not mine, not my main residence, but also not empty as has 'squatters' in it (as its not my property and they aren't co-operative they are not paying rent or classed as tenants). 

I don't need insurance to cover the property needing any work doing or contents or flood damaged etc... JUST the legal cover for risk to any innocent members of the public (and preferably it would be quite cheap as frankly its a very low risk really that the house will randomly blow over onto someone walking by etc...).

Does anyone know how to get insurance like that?

Sea_Shell

Have you already "intermeddled" in the estate,  eg already carried out some executor duties? 

If not, you could renounce and walk away.   Then you won't be liable.  

DullGreyGuy

Are you directly liable? Would have thought the estate would be liable and then there may be a possibility that you become liable for not protecting the estate properly.

The cheapest way to get liability cover would be to buy buildings insurance which you should be able to do as the executor of the estate. 

itsthelittlethings

If you’re a beneficiary you kind of have a responsibility to execute.

WIAWSNB

Good advice by Sea Shell. Executing an estate is a lot of work, even when it goes smoothly. 

You can officially renounce your role, unless there's a particular reason you feel you cannot, such as some kind of loyalty or moral obligation to the deceased, for example?

If you are a named beneficiary, you will remain so. 

 

Keep_pedalling

If the people living there were doing so with the permission of the testator then they are not squatters and you will probably have to take them through the courts to get them evicted. This is not something that you should attempt without taking legal advice.

Assuming they did have permission to live there from the testator at some point then they are tenants ( even if they are not paying rent) so you need landlord insurance. 

Keep_pedalling

Are these people related to the deceased?

Section62

Smalltownhypocrite said:

...

I have been advised that its very messy case and since they are violent and no cooperative that it would require a court case to evict the 'squatters' which would cost tens of thousand and would have to come out of pocket upfront until the estate is settled when it would then be paid back out of the estates balance but this currently isn't a financial option.

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable. I have been informed I need '3rd party liability' but I cannot find anywhere that will insure a house thats not mine, not my main residence, but also not empty as has 'squatters' in it (as its not my property and they aren't co-operative they are not paying rent or classed as tenants). 

...

Squatting in residential property is illegal... so are they really squatters, or are they tenants who've stopped paying rent?

Have you got probate yet, and does the estate have funds (e.g. in a bank account) which could pay the legal costs?

It sounds like the principal issue the executors have is not the liability insurance, but rather a lack of good legal advice from a solicitor who is experienced in probate and property issues.  There's also possibly more personal financial risk to the executors from not administrating the estate correctly for the benefit of the beneficiaries than there is from a public liability claim.

Generally it can be a bad idea to appoint a solicitor as an executor... but in this case it might be the least worst option, and it should be possible for the current executors to appoint a professional as a co or replacement executor.  A professional should be able to cover any legal costs and then take them from the estate when sufficient funds are eventually available... it won't necessarily be cheap, but given the issues it might allow you to sleep more easily.

elsien

Who has advised you about the insurance? 

A little bit of clarity around who these people are and how they got there would be helpful. Family, previous tenants, permitted occupiers, something else entirely? 

Calling them squatters doesn’t actually make them so. 

Keep_pedalling

Section62 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

...

I have been advised that its very messy case and since they are violent and no cooperative that it would require a court case to evict the 'squatters' which would cost tens of thousand and would have to come out of pocket upfront until the estate is settled when it would then be paid back out of the estates balance but this currently isn't a financial option.

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable. I have been informed I need '3rd party liability' but I cannot find anywhere that will insure a house thats not mine, not my main residence, but also not empty as has 'squatters' in it (as its not my property and they aren't co-operative they are not paying rent or classed as tenants). 

...

Generally it can be a bad idea to appoint a solicitor as an executor... but in this case it might be the least worst option, and it should be possible for the current executors to appoint a professional as a co or replacement executor.  A professional should be able to cover any legal costs and then take them from the estate when sufficient funds are eventually available... it won't necessarily be cheap, but given the issues it might allow you to sleep more easily.

It may be too late to get a solicitor to administer the estate, but I would certainly hand over the issue of getting them out over to a property lawyer. It’s going to be expensive (for the estate) but if the OP tries this on their own it could become very expensive for them personally. If these “squatters” are family then it could get even more complicated if they put in a claim that the will did not provide for them, in which case a contentious probate lawyer may also be required. 

Hopefully the OP will come back to answer some of the questions asked.

Smalltownhypocrite

Keep_pedalling said:

If the people living there were doing so with the permission of the testator then they are not squatters and you will probably have to take them through the courts to get them evicted. This is not something that you should attempt without taking legal advice.

Assuming they did have permission to live there from the testator at some point then they are tenants ( even if they are not paying rent) so you need landlord insurance. 

I already took legal advice, getting insurance and leaving it as an 'unsettled estate' until they move out or die was the advice since we don't have the money to pursue court action. The probate solicitors are the ones that said they are 'squatters' not me.

One of the people living in the house is one of the beneficiaries of the will, another person living in the house was completely disinherited in the will but that apparently brings issues in itself (possibility of them contesting the will which would cost more in court fees) and another is classed as a vulnerable person which apparently makes evictions harder too. 

They had expected to just inherit the house outright as they already lived there but the estate (which is pretty much just the value of the house) was actually left to several beneficiaries not just the one living in the house so the house needs to be sold to settle their share of the inheritance but it can't be sold as the ones in their refuse access, to sell, to pay anything or to move out.