We are selling our house, we have a carport (built we assume at or around the same time as the extension and the garage - late '60's - we bought the house in 1997)
The buyers solicitor queried if we had any building regs approval for the car port (we did have the plans etc. approved for PP as it happens for the extensions). Of course we didn't.
So a letter arrives today saying he is saying that we take out an indemnity policy because of this (to cover the buyers against whatever potential liability they would be exposed to). Now in this instance he seems to be talking out of his arse as AFAICS a carport of
Not normally. There is a four year legal limit I believe and in fact a much shorter time in practice. Thus the policy usually only has to cover the cost of a solicitor to sort out the legalities and if necessary a regularisation fee with the local authority.
Sounds like they haven't thought through what the worst-case scenario is i.e. the Council decide they're not at all happy with the car port and ask them to remove it. That'll hardly break the bank, or cause the value of the house to plummet. Why should they worry?
Went throuigh similar shenanigans selling me mums house a couple of minths ago.
Basically te purchasers solicitors may be linbale to be sued if they fail to dot every I and cross every T - in our case it was rihht of access via a private road which had been used uninterruptedly for 50 years.
The amount of delay that it cost me in refusing to pay the 300 or 400 quid indemity, was instrumental in losing about 1500 interest on the money if the sale had completed earlier. Needless to say no one told me it was just a one off payment of a few hundred quid.
In the end I just said 'bollocks, I haven't got all the guarantees on the windows, me mum is dotty and doesn't know what its all about, the road is there and everyone uses its and if you don't want the sodding house stop pratting about and I'll sell it to someone else'
This relayed in a slightly more polite way via the estate agent, did the trick.
From what I can establish it was just lawyers making work for themselves. Its a lwayer scam and an insurance scam. Each gets profit out of providing extra cover that is totally uncesesary. Bit like extended warranty at dixons.
My experience in other case of this nature involoving lawyers is to make a firm statement that wot you see is wot you get, the price is for the property as seen and with such guarantes as I am able to provide, and if you don't like it sod off and stop wasting my time.
I really get pissed off with people who make an offer and then start trying to screw the price down once they have eliminated the competition.
He is trying to cover your backside and his. It is now standard practice after a solicitor and his client lost an expensive court case when the client did not disclose various things he should have done. Realistically you have little choice but to take the advice because most if not all solicitors follow the same procedure.
I understand the principle of doing this - I've no issues with that really, in fact we have already agreed to pay for an indemnity policy regarding another matter, and the extra isn't that much really. It's less than GBP200 and it really isn't worth potentially holding up our sale (wife starts new job on May 2nd, we want moved ASAP.) And our solicitor did say that it's something they have become more careful off in the last few years.
And so far things have gone fine with the sale, got the asking price quickly, I'm sure their survey would have given things to barter the price down but they didn't try any of that, don't want to screw things up over a small matter really.
It's just in this particular aspect AFAICS the carport doesn't have building regs approval, because it is exempt from the requirements, so there is no need for anything anyway.
This just led me on to wondering what liability if any people were open to.
Out of interest, how does regularisation work? Is it basically a case of saying - ok it's been here all these, here we go. Or do they check if something meets the regs first?
I believe you state what work has been done, when it was done (with some sort of proof) and then they come and see it and may ask for some critical bits (foundations, lintels) to be exposed to ensure they are there.
he solicitors arewell within their rights to pint these things out, but once pointed out they ae legaly unassialble. Its between the two actual parties to decide wheher to proceed on that basis or not. You cannot sue someone who has said 'that may not be to building regs' if it turns out it isn't.
Only someone who failed to exercise due diligence in etsblashing whether it was or not.
As I recall it the particular case involved a dishonest cleint and a less that careful solicitor but someone will be along shortly to correct me! I suspect he is just being ultra cautious! Nevertheless, people have become increasingly litigious so it is probably best regarded as insurance.
That is the problem because sellers are often "economical with the truth" and the solicitor can be left being liable particularly if the client has no surplus funds. In any case it is best regarded as insurance that you hope you never have to claim against.
Yes, the indemnity policy is basically to provide cover for the buyers in the event that someone was to sue them in the future (it's regarding a breach of a restrictive covenant on the house - and if lack of BRegs had been an issue against any possible action regarding that)
It doesn't provide us any cover, nor the solicitors against us having told any porky pies.
Well yes, he would not be serving his clients interests if he did not draw these things to their attention and suggest this course of action to them. Of course he would leave himself open to action if he didn't.
But it doesn't offer them (solicitors or buyers) any general protection against us being 'economical with the truth'. As I understand it the indemnity policy is limited to covering the specific risks outlined
Yes. Typically you might have a specific situation that is an unknown. And can't be predicted. And isn't covered by normal insurance.
Your solicitor as a butyer has a duty to poi8nt out to you where all teh possible pigs in the particlar poke you are buying are, and make you aware of teh fact that by payimng twicve what the house costs in contingency insurance, you can stop worrying about them. Thats his job,.
You are not obliged to take his advice. Merely refrain from suing him for not giving it in the first place.
In this case it seems utterly specious, because any modifications and structures that are more than 12 years old are I think de-facto outside buliding control's remit.
You can buy a house with tiny winodws, no insulation and a step ladder to the upstairs. No opne can prevent you. What BC does it to prevent you frnm builkding one like that today.
Onlky health and safety can actually order you out of a property that is deemd unfit for habitation. Cf teh bloke that lived in a house with a stream feeding water to him, and then something happened and H & S said it wasnt fit to drink and condemned teh house.
It's be handy if someone could point to some documentation on this aspect. I've heard various figures on this point, but I've not been successfully been able to search out anything on the web on it.
Anyway, in this case it's meaningless as the car port is exempt from building regs anyway. (well current ones, god knows what those in 1968 said)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.