Chancel Liability Insurance

[xanthe]

We need to take out one of these just in case as we fall into the catch-all cover-your-backside clause on such things. I've done some phoning around and most companies will only deal with solicitors not the general public. Our darling solicitor manages to make the simplest thing complex and charge accordingly so we are trying to do the leg work ourselves.

Can anyone recommend a good one?

We were also wondering about the cover we should get. The quotes I've had are for £100k and £250k of cover for 25 years and we can either have to cover just us as owners or as a successive policy that will cover the property regardless of owner for 25 years.

The quote we could get ourselves came in at:
Individual Policy -£45.88 for £100k of cover and £59.88 for £250k
Successive Policy - £70.88 for £100k of cover and £100.88 for £250k

We plan this to be our 'at least 20 years and possibly forever home', so the successive policy may not be useful given that the whole Chancel Repair thing may be obsolete in 20 years or so.

Do those sound like good quotes - are their cheaper/better ones that we could tell our solicitor to just go and buy for us? I know we could be jointly and severally liable for any claim by the church (there are 8 other properties of a similar age in the road so it's unlikely that we would be the only ones liable - especially as we are one of the smallest properties). Would you go for the higher amount of cover or would £100k seem about right? Church is a whacking great big one considering the size of the village and Grade I listed!

Any advice gratefully received!

 

[Keithj]

My memory isn't what it was, but hasn't the law changed on chancel liability? Didn't it have to be registered by some specific date, after which it would be deemed to have lapsed?

I was asked some years ago to do a load of digging in the records to see if there were any chancel liabilities that could be registered. We decided, on principle, not to look.

I'll go and have a browse...

 

[Me!]

I thought that the church was given a deadline for registering this liability, and that since October 2013 this insurance wasn't needed?
http://www.sintons.co.uk/news/end-chancel-repair

 

[Me!]

And it seems Keith can type faster than me

 

[Keithj]

Yes, it is approximately as I thought. Check with a decent solicitor, but my understanding is that if the chancel repair liability hadn't been registered with the Land Registry by October 2013, there is no liability on subsequent owners of the property. The original owner (pre-Oct 2013 ownership) remains liable as long as he/she owns the house.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, that's my understanding as well. Existing home owners may still be liable after the October 2013 date but if a new owner buys a property on which the chancel liability is not recorded then they will have no liability.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Yes, I was told the Chancel Tax has now gone--(we've just recently exchanged contracts on another property). However when we bought this present house, 6 years ago, our Vendor paid the tax when the requirement was discovered during the course of conveyance. It was a one off payment £70.00 and was sorted out by our Solicitor.

 

[xanthe]

Thank you!

Have done some digging and from what I can work out, it's not as simple as it appeared.

- Churches could register an interest up until the October 2013 free of charge.

- After October 2013, they can still register an interest, but they have to pay a fee and they can only do so IF no search has been done at the Land Registry.

- Anyone who bought their property before October 2013 is still liable for any claim even if the church hasn't registered, but purchasers after that date are not liable if the church hasn't registered and they do a search at the Land Registry.

- If the purchaser does a Land Registry search as part of the buying process, the church still has the chance to nip in and register between the search being done and completion.

- If you buy a property that has been sold since October 2013 - so you are the second purchaser then I can't find out if you are exempt even if the previous owner didn't carry out the search at the Land Registry.

- It appears that the Land Registry annulment may only apply to that one property but not others in the same area.

It all seems ridiculously complicated.

Husband thinks that solicitor hasn't done a search at the Land Registry but just advised us that we may be in an area that is liable. Perhaps that is because it's cheaper just to buy the insurance rather than do the search. However, if we do the search, and the church hasn't registered then that would negate any need to purchase the insurance for ourselves or for a successive buyer. If it has then we can factor that into the insurance amount etc.

I know that if you ring the church and ask them directly then you can't then insure, but surely if you ring and ask without giving your name or the address of the property then they would never know that you had asked? :?

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't think the recent changes have been aimed at abolishing chancel liability, only to help ensure it is a KNOWN liability.

From what I've read, the issue seems to be that it's difficult for home owners to discover if they are liable and only find out when the church comes knocking at their door with a hefty bill.

This seems like a reasonable approach to me and is probably far simpler than trying to reverse ancient rights.

Of course, a known liability may have an effect on house prices, but I suspect this will depend on what insurances will become available. After all, even if a property is known to have a chancel repair liability it is probably a very hard to quantify risk (unless home buyers pay for a survey on the relevant church perhaps?) so I would expect insurance to be available for such a risk, in much the same way as we can insure against flooding, subsidence and other risks.

 

[xanthe]

Blimey, to do a full search can only be done at Kew at the National Archives by hand. You can either do it yourself - which looks complicated - or pay them £25 for each 15 minutes to do the search for you.

If the search (generally around £150) shows that your property is liable then you can't get the cheapy insurance anymore. I believe you can get insurance still but it is individually assessed on likelihood (and probably the size of the church and current state of repair) and even basic insurance packages are in the £thousands.

Apparently lots of people think that because they purchased their property after 2013 that chancel repair liability doesn't apply to them which is not the case unless they have applied for First Registration and the church have failed to file their own claim before completion.

However, according to the Law Society, until a case it tried in law and precedent set, or the Land Registry sets some legal ground rules, it is still unclear what the final position actually is - it could be that the First Registration thing only applies to that applicant and not to any successive buyer. The PCC may have another opportunity to nip in and register their own interest once contracts have been exchanged but before completion with a subsequent buyer.

My head is going round in circles... it's totally bonkers and basically we are going to just take out the insurance so that for the sake of £50 we are covered for at least £100k.

 

[Flyfisher]

As you say, totally bonkers and in the grand scheme of things I'd pay that £50 as well.

Your description of the Kew records situation is probably the reason why these rights are generally not registered in the first place as it would cost the church a small fortune to dig through the records for every church in the country. From their perspective, much better to wait until a church requires chancel repairs and then focus on that particular situation.

Yes, £50 added to the already high cost of buying a house seems a bit of a bargain under the circumstances.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Good decision. In fact, it has made me think that I will have to RE check about our recently exchanged property, as I do not recall the matter coming up---

 

[LadyArowana]

I was asked some years ago to do a load of digging in the records to see if there were any chancel liabilities that could be registered. We decided, on principle, not to look.

Rather late to this discussion, but congratulations on taking what I consider a very ethical stand. It seems unfair to expect people to pay to maintain a religious structure based on some very old arrangements when those involved may have no connection to the faith.

 

[Keithj]

It's the age-old problem: as trustees of the charity called the PCC, we are legally "obliged" to protect this unethical liability. As ethical and busy people we explained that we had no willing volunteers with time available to undertake the search.

I doubt if many church people would object to the concept being abolished.

 

[xanthe]

If English Heritage changed their requirement for PCCs to pursue all potential sources of income before appealing for funds, then that would probably remove a lot of the problems.

Keithj - that is indeed an admirable stance to take. Would possibly be worth churches taking the stance that yours has publishing a statement to that effect - you might find a number of people who would rather pay a small donation to the church in lieu of paying money to the insurance people. Despite being a card-carrying secular humanist, I'd far rather put my £50 towards the upkeep of the local church.

In the meantime, it appears that conveyancing solicitors and insurance companies have a nice little side-line going on. I was particularly miffed that all but one company were not even prepared to tell me what cover was available for what cost. I have to trust what my lawyer tells me - hmmm. The whole point of my doing the legwork was too save him phoning round for a good deal at vast cost to me.

As a result we are going to go with the company that is prepared to be open and transparent and that we can do ourselves.

 

[MatthewC]

It's the age-old problem: as trustees of the charity called the PCC, we are legally "obliged" to protect this unethical liability. As ethical and busy people we explained that we had no willing volunteers with time available to undertake the search.

I doubt if many church people would object to the concept being abolished.

Our diocese has a useful pdf document at http://www.oxford.anglican.org/support-services/legal-registry/ (click on "Chancel Repair Liability") which gives the Church's view on this. It also has a link to the National Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/chancel-repairs.htm#30366 which might help.

Our PCC took the view that we were totally unaware of any such liability and certainly were not going to waste money on a pointless search. This was then minuted at a PCC meeting in accordance with para 8 of the pdf above. Hence you could ask to see the PCC minutes (they are public documents) for the couple of years before Oct 2013 to see if they also discussed it, or just casually ask if they have discussed it without specifically mentioning your particular house. I think they will be quite forthcoming as it is an unfortunate embarrassment to most of us.

 

[DJH]

I recall from a previous life when working on the roofs of some chancels that the account was settled by the Church Commissioners who had responsibility for some reason of repairs to them.

I used to be paid by cheques drawn on their own bank?

Doug