there are more detailed threads on the house buying forum. It seems to have very mixed feelings, a lot think it's a big con hence only one company offers the insurance, others believe it to have valid concerns and have taken cover. A purely personal decision should be taken along with legal advice.

My buyer's Solicitor asked for Chancel Repair insurance through the only company that appear to offer it. I did some digging in the local records office and found the Tithe Maps and the Church Accounts. The whole of the outer suburbs where I live appear on the Derbyshire tithe map so using Chancel Checks criteria the several thousand houses in the area are all affected.

Appearance on a tithe map does not confirm liability, only rectorial land is liable - this was land set aside for the rector to generate income for him to live on and to discharge his responsibilities - which included repairing the chancel of the church. Only a small proportion of the parish would be rectorial land. (The difference between a Rector and a Vicar is this entitlement to income - you find out some interesting things when you sell your house)

Finding out if you house is effected is as difficult for the PCC on behalf of the the church is as it is for the house owner unless it is already on your deeds.
As it is incidently in the WALLBANK case with which Chancel Check try to frighten us with.

My house occupies about 1/8th of an acre. My buyers solicitors want me to insure a minimum of an acre for £500,000 liability. Something is getting out of proportion here. Unless of course you live in a street or area with Glebe in the name...

shame there is no insurance against spamming

I knew nothing about this sort of insurance (December 2008) and the solicitors included a ChancelCheck Report and ChancelSure policy to pay for (from £45.87 for £100k cover for 25 years residential non successor up to 5 acres)

"The above building is located within the historical boundary of a tithe district or parish which continues to have a potential chancel repair liability based upon historical parish boundary data and the relevent documentation pertaining to chancel repair liability held by the National Archive" (their emboldening colour and underlining)

"It should be noted that this service searches against the identified address point of the subject building and not the delineated boundary of the property, in order to establish the location in respect of the relevent historical boundary" .... so it doesn't actually compare the REAL boundaries of your property with the relevent historical boundary, is that an appropriate and accurate search methodology to be used in this circumstance when comparing your plot extent against the parish boundaries?

So I called ChancelCheck who only told me the horror story of the 198k claim against the couple who inherited the liability to maintain the local church but ChancelCheck did not ( or could not) come forward with any more mundane cases of (say) people living in the middle of a city of town being made liable for repairs to the local church. Have there EVER been any?

This historical biggy was Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank and Another. read about it here (not a typical case? are YOU a lay rector of the parish???)
House of Lords (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030626/aston-1.htm)

Google: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=Aston+Cantlow+and+ Wilmcote+with+Billesley&btnG=Google+Search&aq=-1&oq=

Googleing for chancel repair liability reveals the Law Society's campaign to seek abolition of chancel repair liability
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/news/majorcampaigns/view=newsarticle.law?CAMPAIGNSID=310435
They say:

The chancel repair liability system is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons:

• It is uncertain and capricious because it's often very difficult to ascertain the existence or extent of the liability.
• It is increasing the cost of conveyancing.
• It is discriminatory, benefiting only churches of one denomination.

"The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. From negotiating with and lobbying the profession's regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we're here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales."

see http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/aboutlawsociety.law )

Interesting that the very solicitors who are probably members of a Society seeking abolition of chancel repair liability are the ones who are part of the peddling of these policies

The ChancelCheck paperwork says

"The Church is also actively registering their interest to protect their right to charge chancel repair liability in perpetuity"

The Church are obviously so desperate to secure this income stream that

"In 1982 the General Synod of the Church of England resolved that chancel repair liability be phased out over 20 years, and in 1985 the Law Commission recommended that it be abolished. "

AND

"A Transitional Provisions Order was made which came into effect on the 13th October 2003. This order effectively means that ALL chancel repair obligations will cease on the 13th October 2013 unless a the chancel of any Church has noted their interest in any particular property or land with the land registry before this date." from: http://www.chancel.org.uk/chancel-repair-liability.php

"NB: Chancelcheck does not publish the relevant parish name to deter contacting the church. Doing so will put The Church on notice of a potential liability and may lead to negating insurance cover"

Anyone any idea what this means in English????? how can taking insurance out against a bill from The Church in ANY WAY expose them to a liability???? OR does that mean if YOU contact the Church YOUR insurance cover is negated???

The paperwork sent through by ChancelSure also says :

"Where a property is affected, conveyancers who have failed to screen for this risk may be deemed negligent"

.... can anyone explain what the hell this means???.... more scare tactics???

Published content quoted whether verbatim or not is quoted and provided for the purpose of research in the UK

As far as I can see, what ChancelCheck are saying is this. Chancel Repair liability will cease in 2013 for all properties UNLESS in the meanwhile any affected Church has got hold of the Land Registry, and said to them "with regard to property XYZ, we wish to notify our interest in this property for Chancel Repair Liability." If they do that, then the property will continue to be subject to Chancel Repair Liability.

So, the logic goes, if you get in touch with your local Church, and ask them, "Is my property subject to CRL?", then may say, "Dunno," then go and look at their books and say "Aha! Yes, your property is subject to CRL now, and now that we know that we will contact the Land Registry and make sure that it stays subject to CRL in perpetuity."

If you do NOT contact the church, OTOH, they may continue in ignorance of your liability - or even in some cases of the existence of CRL - and so NOT notify the Land Registry of their interest. Which would mean that it would lapse in 2013.

So, the logic of ChancelCheck is that IF you contact the church you may have caused them to take measures which, if you had NOT contacted them, they would not have taken. Or, to put it another way, if you hadn't said anything the CRL would have lapsed in 2013, but now it will continue in perpetuity, or until some government has the b***ls to abolish this thing entirely. Naturally ChancelCheck would prefer to insure you for 25 years against a risk which will be abolished in 5 years time. So, if you do contact the church, CC say, that might create the hazard and so negate your cover.

This assumes, of course, that PCCs (Parish Church Councils) are unaware of this possibility, and that, if they were aware, they would be hurriedly registering this interest ASAP. Given that they have a decade to do it, and that diocesan authorities will certainly be aware of the issue, it seems unlikely that the action of inquiring about the issue will be crucial in determining whether or not a PCC acts. It does, however, make it more likely that you will remain in ignorance over whether or not you are subject to CRL and that you will pay up for insurance, "just in case".

The Church of England, however, had already said that it would prefer to have CRL abolished. One defence of CRL is that, whilst it exists, other funding bodies (e.g. English Heritage) will refuse help whilst you can still get money from "your own resources" - amongst which are those properties who should pay up for chancel repairs. So the Church, the argument goes, has to enforce it. Were CRL to be abolished, the Chruch would not have to tap it before going to other funding sources.

So it may be that PCCs will decide NOT to notify an interest against a property anyway, and let the CRL lapse in 2013. I'm deeply mistrustful or anyone who tells me that my ignorance, but not theirs is necessary. And I really really don't buy into the argument that the church concerned will remain ignorant if I don't draw their attention to the matter. If they care, they will find out which properties are liable, and get on to the Land Registry.

What I would like to know, and no one seems able to say, is how anyone finds out whether or not a particular property is sibject ot CRL.

db

The only way would be for the parishs to publish an easily FREELY accessible list of properties that were subject to chanceltax ( this would throttle a lot of the solicitors and ChancelChecks revenue gained for offering insurance for properites where a claim would NEVER be made by the Church) - but this would stop you getting insurance against a claim as who would offer insurance against an idenitified risk

OR get the church to abolish it!

JB

It would certainly make the insurance more expensive, but it need not stop you getting insurance altogether. After all life insurance companies have been insuring smokers for years, but just at a higher premium.

Even if you know that the house is subject to CRL, then it does not mean that you will necessarily be asked to pay up. If the risk of actually having to find large sums of money were that great, then I think we would have heard a lot more about CRL before now. The obscurity of the subject suggests that there have been very few claims by churches over the last decades.

I can see that, with the profile of CRL being raised, that the number of claims might rise. However, there are substantial problems in any church's way when it comes to raising money through CRL (like finding ALL the people responsible for it in any given area). So, I think this is little like flooding - you are known to be at trisk, but even so the risk may not be great.

There is also the question of the sums of money involved. A posting by someone else on another consumer forum may be of interest:
(http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk)

I think that there would still be people prepared to give CRL insurance, once the actuaries had been at it. It's not, after all, a certaintly that you will be asked to pay up, and still less certain that you will be asked to pay up large sums. And they are only working on an uncertainty until 2013, by which time you will be able to check for CRL with the Land Registry.

db

Okay, this one is complicated, and technically the best advice that anyone can give you is to talk to your solicitor. Me, I would say, investigate it first, and then have a chat with your solicitor because too many of them are not as well informed as they should be.

(My experience: saw solicitor about another matter, said I'd filled in some Power Of Attorney documents, and we needed certain details. Oh, said Sol, you don't need that. Oh, yes, said I, you do. No, said Sol, just done it and you don't. So I went home, looked at three solid internet sites, which said you did, and then carefully went through the site of the Court of Guardianship which had a specific instruction that you had to do exactly what I had said, and a detailed worked example, just in case there was any doubt. I sent a print out it to the Sol, with highlighter. I would like to think that he read it.)

So, with that example in mind, I would say that you need the opinion of a GOOD solicitor, and should still do your own research.

Just to get you started, however, here is the opinion of one firm of solicitors.

[No link - I can't use them apparently!]

On another forum, a post by someone else who may have no more legal qualifications than I do (i.e. none), says:

Now, this sounds odd to me. I do know that the people who offer the standard chancel repair liability insurance do work on this principle - which has the advantage that people who, with a small amount of work, could find that they are NOT liable, will decide to pay up the (fairly small) amount of money required if you insure when there is no hard evidence. This is where the scheme makes its money. If they find that you know you have liability, then they won't insure you.

However, consider the following case. If you have a Grade II listed building, then you have a legal obligation to maintain it. Does this mean that you can get no insurance for the roof, because you have a definite liability to maintain it? Maybe it does, but it seems a bit unlikely. (Of course, that doesn't mean that the premiums would be affordable, but that's another matter). So, Chancel Repair Liability is another building risk, and I would have thought that you would be able to find someone who would insure it - tho' again, possibly at too great a cost.

In your position I would have a look round the church concerned, and see how well maintained it appeared to be. I would also see if I could find any records of CRL being activated by the church in the past, and if so to what extent. There are cases of CRL being spread so thin, that every person tapped would have had to pay about £38 each - and the legal costs would have been greater.

After that it depends how attached you are to the house, and how far you have gone through the buying process. If you have a house which has a potentially huge liability which, if it is registered with the Land Registry (the Church has to do this by 2013 or CRL will lapse), will hang over the property forever, then it might be time to consider calling the deal off. If the right is registered, then it might seriously affect your ability to sell the land, even many years in the future.

I would think that you would certainly have a case for bargaining down the price, as CRL is a liability which you did not (I presume) know about when the original price was agreed, and represents an additional, and so far unquantified, cost.

At the very least investigate the history of the property (if you can) and get some good legal advice, and try a couple of insurance companies (small local ones might be a better bet than the big corporates). Ultimately, though, you may have to walk away from the deal.

db

Hi there, i may be entering into this discussion a little late, but i have just gone through the same experience and understand a fair bit about this now.

In terms of one of the posts by a solicitor stating you cant get indemnity insurance if the liability is confirmed... you can, i have it. it costs a fair bit more (in my case about 700 quid for 400k worth of cover in perpetuity), whereas insurance for potential liability is around 100 quid or less. I considered the options of whether or not to have the insurance, and to be honest, it wasnt an option as my mortgage lender insisted it (and its in the CML code) and i didnt want the parish church knocking on my door in years to come.
One other thing to note is that my solicitor informed me that because chancel repair liability was confirmed, this now has to go on my title deeds. There is some debate about this, but at the end of the day they insisted it does. Which in turn means that the church can call on me to contribute in part/whole to any chancel repairs.

If you have had a chancel check, and it shows as potential liability you can possibly get away with indemnity insurance for potential liability, however my solicitor insisted on doing the full chancel search, which uncovered it was confirmed liability (by checking tithe maps etc).

One other thing to note about the insurance is that it can only be arranged via the solicitor (but can be done), and that if you approach the church or parish in question to ask if they intend to call on anyone with chancel liability in the near future to contribute, it is likely to render any insurance invalid (i nearly did that, thankfully my sols warned me not to or i would have gone and asked them directly).

Of course if you are purchasing the house outright (ie no mortgage) then its your risk whether you get the indemnity insurance, personally i didnt want to take that risk.

Also, re the debate about reduction of the value of the house for future sale... yes it may put some people off, but it wouldnt put me off. By virtue of the fact that i now have indemnity insurance in perpetuity (forever) and this is applied to the house (well to the land actually) then my surveyor was of the opinion that it wouldnt affect any resale value.

Just out of interest, i did ask the vendors to pay for the insurance, they agreed and came up with a lessor one for 25 years, so i asked them for that contribution towards the one my solicitor had arranged, which was slightly more expensive, but in perpetuity, so i dont need to worry about renewing it.

Hope that helps, pm me if you have any more questions or need more info.

Moving along from the racist comment stuff...

Either way I think you're had over a barrel with this one and sometimes it's far easier to bight your lip and take it. No, I didn't mean it in that way... (queue comments!!...)

Does anyone know if you can go ahead and purchase this cover without having to go through your solicitor? I've got the same problem and our solicitor wants to charge an additional £50 admin fee onto of the premium. Being a first time buyer, that could be best spent on the housewarming party

My solicitor told me it was only available from a solicitor (but they would say that) - I confirmed this also by looking at the literature from a CRL insurance provider.

£50 On a house warming party!....is it just going to be the 2 of us then?

Bring your own drink... bread sticks don't buy themselves you know!!

Thanks for the advice Retrobob

Yes, but ...

I'm not entirely sure that the specialist CRL insurance provider is the best source of info on this one, as they (and the solicitors) have a nice little earner set up. Try finding a local insurance broker and ask them if anyone can give you CRL cover even if you've investigated it, and if so at what cost. Explain that the standard provider will only help if you do no research in advance.

Or, of course, you could pay up and get everyone to bring their own breadsticks (and yours).

db

Just thought I'd post an update on this...

I managed to purchase insurance myself instead of going through the solicitor and it cameto a whopping £59.75! This covers us for 25 years with an indemnity up to £250,000.

We went with www dot clsl dot co dot uk who were a little taken back at us trying to buy this ourselves but ended up sorting this out without any problems at all and we managed to do it all over the phone in less than 10 minutes.

Obviously £59.75 won't be same for everyone but thought I'd post this to let you know just in case, like us your a first time buyer and are stuck with the same problem.

The breadsticks are back on!!

Cheers

Congratulations - a little enterprise often goes a long way.

I'm rather partial to cheese straws, if you feel like lashing out.

db

I notice there have been a few bits in the news of late.

If I purchase a leasehold property do I still need to obtain this insurance. Neighbours who have been in the area for a while never had, but someone who purchased 2 years ago had to pay, but they were freehold.

Help.

There is help, but it's not very helpful! Put simply, nobody knows - including the Law Commission (whose job it is to have general oversight of the laws of England and Wales - Scotland has a different legal system). The Law Commission looked into CRL, and produced a report damning in its simplicity. When lawyers resort to clear words it usually means that there is no doubt about what they want to say.

In the case of leasehold properties and CRL, they say (and I quote directly from their document)

So: nobody knows in general terms, nobody could be sure even if they could see your lease, even if you had a clause saying that you would have to pay land charges, then CRL might or might not be covered. Nobody can even be sure if your land were covered. Normally there is some case law on this sort of issue, but nobody has ever tested whether leasehold property has CRL in court.

You might find your property doesn't have CRL - even if a close neighbour does, or you might find out the hard way that it does. Then you could find that the CRL in your case was £38.50 - or £50,000. Then you could try to make your landlord pay, and have the dubious honour of clarifying matters for the Law Commission. As to whether you would have to cough up - "Well, do you feel lucky?"

If you can't face the whole thing then you have two options:

1) Walk away from the property

2) Buy CRL insurance. Note that this seems to solve all your problems, but doesn't. Back to the Law Commission again, this time back in true legal form seeing all sorts of possibilities which the rest of us might not contemplate - in this case the question is , "What happens if the church roof is damaged by terrorism?" It turns out that you're not covered against terrorist attacks on a church roof, which might produce demands for chancel repair payments. Perhaps you should evaluate the likelihood of terrorists attacking any nearby churches.

More likely is that any claims for CRL, even if met by your CRL insurers, might reduce the value of your home. That bit of financial damage is not covered by the insurance. You can extend your CRL insurance to cover all future purchasers of your house, at extra cost, but that might not be enough to reassure everyone.

There is also going to be increasing pressure on governments to come up with some better system for financing the repair of church roofs, and the abolition of CRL - but don't expect anything that involves the Church of England and money to be solved quickly. The Church, whether it likes the proposals or not (and it won't like the first draft - it never does) will take years and years to argue over the matter.

Meanwhile, you will also hear it said that if you have done any investigation about CRL, then no one will insure you. THIS IS NOT TRUE - one of the companies which first saw the potential in CRL insurance made it a condition of the insurance that you had no idea whether or not you needed it. Others have been a little more flexible. You could try googling "Chancel Repair Liability" and "ChancelNSR" or "Chancel Repair Liability" and "Countrywide" as well as the company clsl, whose website address is given in earlier posts in this thread. (I think I can't give you actual clickable links on this forum.).

If you've read the whole of this thread, you will also see that in some places you'll be told that only your solicitor can buy CRL insurance; this too is untrue - you can save money by negotiating the fee yourself as first_time_buyer found. Shop around.

HTH

db

Edit: I say here that the report is by the Law Commission. It is not, it is by the Law Society (the professional body for solicitors), but makes reference to an earlier report by the Law Commission.

I am currently selling my leasehold flat which is in a council owned building on land which is owned by the council. My solicitor has advised me that I should have chancel repair insurance but in my opinion, this is incorrect and should be allowed for in the service charge levied on each flat in the block. As the council block is very near a church, it is extremely likely that all the land round here was owned by the church and therefore the council should have chancel repair liability insurance. Since they are the freeholders and own the land, it is likely that they know nothing about chancel repair liability since no mention of it is made in our annual service charge details. Individual occupants of these flats whether they are tenants or leaseholders are therefore not liable individually for chancel repair liability insurance, but the council is and the premium should be shown as being part of the annual service charge. Should I advise the council to check that they will be responsible for chancel repairs if the land on which their council blocks are built may be church land orifinally?