Chancel Liability - 2013

wriggly

Our solicitor was quite good, but she only recommended the non-transferable insurance, on the principle that we would only need cover for the 5 years to 2013.

However, after checking the T&Cs I went for the 25-year transferable insurance.

As I read the it, the insurance continues for the full 25 years, which will be useful when you come to sell in the event that the Church does register a right on your title deeds.

In the event that there is no right registered by 2013, the £120 is small potatoes in the house-buying game.

One other thing, it's nice of the solicitor to inform you of their commission, but I would try asking them to drop it, if not to zero, at least to £10. Our solicitor didn't charge anything over the cost of the policy.

PHTC

I'm going to call the solicitors in about 20 mins to get more details about this. There is a rush on as the sellers had a condition that the sale is finalised by the end of march, upto now everything was going great, and still is I suppose, just got to sort this insurance out. So in terms of asking the verders to pay I think it would delay procedures. If i have to I will pay it im just concerned about the 2013 thing in the unlikely event it is in an affected area in terms of selling the house, even with a 18 year insurance policy still standing etc, it would cause me to think twice about buying it anyway.

KiwiB

OK, now I'm confused - how could my house be worthless when I come to sell it just because I have not bought portable chancel liability insurance???

PHTC

Sorry, I do not mean to cause offence, I may just be completely wrong. But my concern is that should I take insurance portable or not, potentially when I come to sell, if after 2013 and the church has declared my property within their boundaries potential buyers may be put off with the fact that insurance to cover them against this will be a lot more expensive as chancel liability will be confirmed. Even if the insurance were portable they may still be put off by the fact that they potentialy would have only 18 years until they or any new owners of the house could have to pay for upkeep of the church.

Again sorry if I caused confusion or offence, im going to call the solicitor now about this and will post back when i know more.

wriggly

"Worthless" may be a bit extreme, but "worth less" is a possibility. A house with no liability will sell for a higher price than a house with liability.

However, whatever you decide(d) to do, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. The probability that you will be affected is much lower than the chancel insurers say, and your solicitor is just covering their backside.

I seriously considered not buying chancel insurance at all. After all, my new neighbours who have lived there 25 years, don't have it. My main reason for buying it in the end was that the row of houses are newer than the surrounding houses and near a church, so I thought it may have been church grounds at some stage. (I've since learned that the original houses were bombed during the war).

PHTC

Looks like the solicitor is on lunch too so as soon as I know more i'll post back. Thanks for the input wriggly, im pretty sure it wouldnt apply but as im a first time buyer want to do everything right and cover myself. Plus it may help someone later on who is in the same situation should their house be affected

PHTC

Spoke to my solicitor and I was right about the insurance, when I come to sell the house, if it is in an affected area it will be the buyer that will pay it like I am now, or some arrangement can be made, ie half and half etc. So it looks like a few people might get a shock in 2013. Anyway I dont think for me it would be worth getting the transferable insurance so im going for the basic 25 year, that way if in 2013 it turns out im not affected then its cost £20 a year for the £100 total. Think its worth it for peace of mind.

I think when it gets closer to the time this thing is going to be all over the news.

merlinthehappypig

If it is all over the news then I think that this will be to the detriment of the Church of England. As it stands there has only been one well publicised case and that because of the legal costs involved to fight it.

If a lot of people were affected there is no way that the church would be able to proceed because of the negative publicity. I think the Govt. would soon knock it on the head if there was an impact on voters.

Can you imagine the outcry if a Moslem houseowner was being asked to cough up £35000 to repair the local church?

That said, I am in the same position as you. I really don't want to pay for this insurance on principle, but can't decide whether to bite the bullet just in case.

Vera25

All,
I have the usual problem with this CRL. So the property I am purchasing is at risk of CRL. Now the options are the usual
1) Do nothing,
2) Search if the property belongs to some parish
3) just buy an insurance

Now, the last option which seems the easiest concerns me a bit:

1) is correct to think that if PCCs register their interest on the land my potential property is build upon by 2013, the market value of the property will drop immediately ? (At the end of the day you are buying something with officially attached a potentially unlimited liability which is not nice)

Let's assume that the insurance covers the loss in Market Value of the property.
Assume also that by Oct 2013 various PCCs will register their interest on the Land Register:

2) All insured owners of properties registered by PCC will be claiming the loss in Market value from the insurances. Are they going to pay? or just go bankrupt and disappear ?

3) Am I paranoid?

g_attrill

Vera25 wrote: »

All,
Let's assume that the insurance covers the loss in Market Value of the property.

2) All insured owners of properties registered by PCC will be claiming the loss in Market value from the insurances. Are they going to pay? or just go bankrupt and disappear ?

The insurance covers the potential liability to the chancel, NOT any loss of value! ie. it covers you if the church comes asking for £100k for repairs. Therefore the insurer probably doesn't care if the property comes back as liable because the overall risk across their portfolio of insured properties hasn't changed.