Seller refusing to pay for indemnity policy

Bigphil1474

Chief_of_Staffy said:

It's for your benefit, so you pay it. I don't know where the idea originally came from that the seller should pay to mitigate risk for the buyer, in anything other than extraordinary circumstances, but it seems quite popular these days. If I buy a car from you I don't expect you to take out mechanical insurance for me in the event it breaks down. I refused the second such suggestion from my buyer this morning (about the house, not the car) and anticipate doing so at least once more before this charade is over.

"Dear Mr. Chief, your buyer's solicitor says she is worried about [insert trivial and outrageously unlikely outcome here] and wants you to pay to put her mind fully at ease."

Dream on.

It's for both parties benefit - based on the OP's description, the sale won't go through if the indemnity isn't in place, so the seller and the buyer could both lose out. Your car analogy should be more along the lines of 'I won't buy that car unless you replace that tyre that my solicitor says looks dodgy'.

OP, we have 2 indemnity policies. One which is something to do with the church coming knocking for money, and the other is because the vendors didn't get permission from the original developers for the 2 extensions they had put on (because the developers no longer existed). We negotiated, and we paid for one, they paid for one. Job done.

Chief_of_Staffy

Bigphil1474 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

It's for your benefit, so you pay it. I don't know where the idea originally came from that the seller should pay to mitigate risk for the buyer, in anything other than extraordinary circumstances, but it seems quite popular these days. If I buy a car from you I don't expect you to take out mechanical insurance for me in the event it breaks down. I refused the second such suggestion from my buyer this morning (about the house, not the car) and anticipate doing so at least once more before this charade is over.

"Dear Mr. Chief, your buyer's solicitor says she is worried about [insert trivial and outrageously unlikely outcome here] and wants you to pay to put her mind fully at ease."

Dream on.

It's for both parties benefit - based on the OP's description, the sale won't go through if the indemnity isn't in place, so the seller and the buyer could both lose out. Your car analogy should be more along the lines of 'I won't buy that car unless you replace that tyre that my solicitor says looks dodgy'.

I was referring to practical benefit as opposed to transactional. Otherwise a buyer could demand a £5k discount for no reason and say, "It's for your benefit too, remember, because if you don't agree to it I'm pulling out."

stuart45

I know a few property developers who do that just before exchange of contract.
It often, but not always pays off. The sellers are normally more desperate to sell, whereas to a developer it's just a business deal.

Chief_of_Staffy

stuart45 said:

I know a few property developers who do that just before exchange of contract.
It often, but not always pays off. The sellers are normally more desperate to sell, whereas to a developer it's just a business deal.

True, unfortunately. I think that in the absence of evidence supporting a reduction, an offer should be locked in beyond a certain point. Either you follow through with it or you quit the sale.

Bigphil1474

That's the point though, a buyer could say that. The vendor could ask for more as well. If you're buying a property and know the seller is desperate, you could easily turn round and say you want £xK knocking off. I would hope most people wouldn't, but you can.