Advice On Purchasing A Listed Property (Any COs Out There?)

[Househunter]

D&T = damp and timber

Thank you, Abi for the clarification!

...The latest (for anybody who's interested) is that I've put in a couple of offers, but the vendors appear unwilling to budge much at all on the asking price, despite my flagging up the fact there's no LBC on the planning portal for any work done on the house. They don't acknowledge my point that the works are therefore illegal. (I doubt the agent is notifying other buyers of this, either.)

The agent said their solicitor "feels happy" that indemnity insurance paid for by the vendor (not much of an offer, as it's cheap) "should cover any future liabilities". ...Provided that I "have made no direct approach regarding the potential breaches". ...And although he speaks of "potential breaches", as far as I understand it, they are actual breaches, since --- assuming the planning portal is reliable --- the work was done without LBC.

To be frank, I'm thinking of walking away, as this all sounds a bit dicey.

 

[Flyfisher]

...The latest (for anybody who's interested) is that I've put in a couple of offers, but the vendors appear unwilling to budge much at all on the asking price, despite my flagging up the fact there's no LBC on the planning portal for any work done on the house. They don't acknowledge my point that the works are therefore illegal. (I doubt the agent is notifying other buyers of this, either.)

I'm not surprised they won't acknowledge that the works are illegal - why incriminate themselves? However, I would be very surprised if they really don't understand this by now - if only having checked it after you've mentioned it.

The agent said their solicitor "feels happy" that indemnity insurance paid for by the vendor (not much of an offer, as it's cheap) "should cover any future liabilities". ...Provided that I "have made no direct approach regarding the potential breaches". ...And although he speaks of "potential breaches", as far as I understand it, they are actual breaches, since --- assuming the planning portal is reliable --- the work was done without LBC.

Fine, if their solicitor 'feels happy' then they should be able to provide a formal letter of confirmation of what the indemnity insurance WILL cover, based on the fact that everyone involved in this potential transactions KNOWS that alterations have been carried out to the property without LBC.

I 've usually found that asking for written confirmation of what people have said 'off the cuff' tends to concentrate their minds!

To be frank, I'm thinking of walking away, as this all sounds a bit dicey.

It does, though I'd say you're doing the right things in confronting the known issues. If they can't help resolve or insure them to your satisfaction then it won't be your fault if you do walk away.

 

[Househunter]

Thanks, Flyfisher --- I think you put your finger on it with this...

Fine, if their solicitor 'feels happy' then they should be able to provide a formal letter of confirmation of what the indemnity insurance WILL cover, based on the fact that everyone involved in this potential transactions KNOWS that alterations have been carried out to the property without LBC.

...I shall write to them again.

 

[88v8]

One cannot insure against fire when the building is already alight.

Ivor

 

[Househunter]

One cannot insure against fire when the building is already alight.

...Now that's exactly what I think!

Surely the very fact that there are no LBCs on the local authority's (publicly viewable) website means that insurance won't fly.

I'm wondering whether anyone here has successfully made a claim on such an indemnity policy. I imagine that getting the insurer to pay out on one of these things would be like getting blood from a stone...

 

[Flyfisher]

I seem to remember a similar sort of thing being quite topical a few years ago regarding chancel liability (whereby a property has historical obligations to contribute to repairing the local church, or the chancel part of it anyway).

As I recall, there were two basic options for buyers (well, three of you include just ignoring the whole thing) - pay for a chancel liability search or pay for liability insurance. The downside of the search option was that it could only guarantee a positive result, ie the property DOES have a liability, whereas a negative search was not guaranteed to be reliable, ie there might be a liability but the search didn't find it (really helpful!). But once a search had been conducted then the insurance option was no longer available . . . or something like that.

Anyway, another example of the vagaries of buying a property with potential issues hanging over it and sometimes having no reliable way to protect against the downside. Brings to mind that Clint Eastwood film . . . . 'do you feel lucky?'

 

[Househunter]

Thanks for your reply, Flyfisher --- the agent rang yesterday to chase me up and said that their solicitor thought the insurance would do, but I told him that made no sense, as there are clearly no LBCs.

I'm going to speak with a solicitor myself, and see what he says...

 

[Flyfisher]

Good idea to talk directly to the solicitor - I'd want to do the same thing, and get written confirmation.

No offence to estate agents but they are really not the ones to advise about such things. Even if they actually know something about the subject, their motivations are not aligned with the buyers best interests and they can offer no professional indemnity, unlike a solicitor.

 

[Househunter]

Good idea to talk directly to the solicitor - I'd want to do the same thing, and get written confirmation.

I should've been clearer --- I meant I was going to see a solicitor of my own!

...Which I've done, and he said he would not proceed.

No offence to estate agents but they are really not the ones to advise about such things. Even if they actually know something about the subject, their motivations are not aligned with the buyers best interests and they can offer no professional indemnity, unlike a solicitor.

The agent doesn't actually seem too interested in all of this, as far as I can gather. When I talk to him about this, he doesn't really listen to the points I make: his eyes glaze over within about fifteen seconds of my speaking to him, then he interrupts me! He wants me out of his hair, no doubt!

 

[Househunter]

...Seems as though someone else encountered the same problem as I have in this thread over on the MoneySavingExpert forum (although --- thank God --- I saw it looming before I went and spent anything on surveys etc.) . I'll link to it as I found it helpful.

Reading it was like experiencing déjà vu...

 

[Flyfisher]

Thanks for the progress report, especially that link to a similar discussion.

Interesting point about indemnity insurance being invalid because of unauthorised alterations being a criminal act. I'm certainly no lawyer but my understanding is that such insurance is aimed at indemnifying the home OWNER because the listing system makes the current OWNER responsible for any reparations of unauthorised works even though they may not be responsible themselves. Thus the criminal offence would still hang over the person(s) responsible, which seems entirely reasonable!

The agent doesn't actually seem too interested in all of this, as far as I can gather. When I talk to him about this, he doesn't really listen to the points I make: his eyes glaze over within about fifteen seconds of my speaking to him, then he interrupts me! He wants me out of his hair, no doubt!

That doesn't surprise me in the least. The agent only wants to sell and anything else is a distraction. In my view, estate agents charge an extortionate amount for the little value they bring to the table whereas solicitors charge very little for the legal peace of mind and insurance they offer. I'm no particular fan of solicitors, but at least they are a regulated profession with professional indemnity insurance that provides protection against their mistakes. I'd certainly buy a house without using an estate agent (and have done so) but would never handle the conveyancing myself - it might seem fairly straightforward but the DIY approach provides no insurance against mistakes - and believe me they can happen!

Apologies, bit of a rant there

Anyway, it sounds as if you've done all the right things but this time it was just not to be. At least you've not been caught out. Onwards and upwards!

 

[Househunter]

Thanks for the progress report, especially that link to a similar discussion.

Well, I thought I can't be the only person wrestling with such a situation, so the more information that I can cram into this thread, the better it's likely to be for anyone else who comes here looking for answers...

...And the answer does seem to be, "walk away", which is a pity.

Interesting point about indemnity insurance being invalid because of unauthorised alterations being a criminal act. I'm certainly no lawyer but my understanding is that such insurance is aimed at indemnifying the home OWNER because the listing system makes the current OWNER responsible for any reparations of unauthorised works even though they may not be responsible themselves. Thus the criminal offence would still hang over the person(s) responsible, which seems entirely reasonable!

As far as I understand (and I think you may have said this in an earlier thread), only the person who carried out the work would be in the criminal category (and thus could go to jail or be fined for it): anybody who bought the property subsequently wouldn't be treated as a criminal, but they would nevertheless become liable were an enforcement notice served against the unlawful work. ...I picture it (rightly or wrongly) as something akin to being in receipt of stolen goods: if you bought them in good faith, then you're not classed as a criminal like the individual that did steal them, but you may be told to return them to their rightful owner, and suffer loss as a result. Maybe the analogy is not exact, but that's the parallel I'd draw.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. The agent only wants to sell and anything else is a distraction. In my view, estate agents charge an extortionate amount for the little value they bring to the table

Oh, you'll find no argument from me there!

whereas solicitors charge very little for the legal peace of mind and insurance they offer. I'm no particular fan of solicitors, but at least they are a regulated profession with professional indemnity insurance that provides protection against their mistakes. I'd certainly buy a house without using an estate agent (and have done so) but would never handle the conveyancing myself - it might seem fairly straightforward but the DIY approach provides no insurance against mistakes - and believe me they can happen!

Agree completely. I recently sold my house in Germany, built in about 1830 and also "listed" (i.e. protected under German law). I'd bought it through an estate agent, and in Germany, the buyer pays the estate agent's commission. My agent had some neck: when I wanted to buy a neighbouring garden, which was being sold for €4000, he wanted to charge me a commission of €1,250! Unsurprisingly, I said "Nein!" and eventually he caved in and charged me just over 7% on it instead. When I decided to sell it on, the thought of lining the pockets of estate agents stuck in my craw. So, a German friend of mine dropped by, took a few photos and put it online for me --- and, by God's good grace, it was sold in a matter of weeks without my paying a bean!

It'd be wonderful if I could find a little place over here within my allotted budget (£100K) without having to go through an agent, but I'm sure Britain's a different kettle of fish...

Apologies, bit of a rant there

No worries --- you're preaching to the choir!

Anyway, it sounds as if you've done all the right things but this time it was just not to be. At least you've not been caught out. Onwards and upwards!

Thanks, Flyfisher --- I appreciate all your help. ...And I enjoyed your rant, too.