chancel liability; sign government petition! + advice needed

[skier-hughes]

Back to my original point, if there is so much going on, if I was thinking of buying a house which may be registered by the church I would openly ask the church, if they said no in writing, Bob's your Uncle, if they say yes, you don't buy.

If as you say the Church is actively pursuing this line of enquiry it's only a matter of time before they do register, not if they do.

I am totally against this, but just playing Devil's advocate, on the one hand Pt is saying don't ask them because they might not know, and on the other they are being told to do all they can.

 

[Nemesis]

Re petitions - limited use as there are so many.

Contacting MP and saying that the law needs changing - yes.

 

[ptcottage]

DO NOT ASK YOUR CHURCH!!!

Regardless of whether you're trying to buy a house, or whether you already own one, approaching the PCC automatically nullifies your ability to get insurance. It is possible to proceed with a house where a liability has been identified as long as the seller secures this insurance - or you do once you get the property. There are companies/insurers who carry out this search - although it is grossly incomplete, they'll still insure you but ONLY if you have not approached the church for clarification. Please read my entry above on the subject.

For someone like me who wants to buy, or someone who is already a homeowner, this insurance, once obtained, is only as good as long as the church does not put you on their list in a 25 year period. Basically, it's a race to make sure you get this insurance before the church points the finger at your house. GET THE INSURANCE, but keep fighting this law. The insurance doesn't protect your future house sale if the church then identifies you, it only provides payment if you're sent a bill. There is no protection for this. Sure, the cover may be for 25 years, but would you buy a house that was only protected for this period and then was unrenewable? It's as good as buying a 25 year lease on a house if you have any intention of selling.

 

[Flyfisher]

My point was that insurance is the wrong vehicle for this kind of problem. We obviously need a legal fix. Insurance is for stuff like fire and theft not the law being an ass.

In a perfect world I'd agree with that. In the real world you have an immediate risk of incurring this liability and having to pay up. You have the choice of waiting for a change in the law or taking control and covering the risk yourself. Your choice.

In this case, insurance seems to be the best vehicle for this problem, in the sense of guaranteeing your protection from the risk. Waiting, or even actively lobbying, for a legal fix does nothing to reduce your current risk.

 

[skier-hughes]

Maybe I'm missing your point Pt.

I've bought my house now to live in untill I die, well so long as the surrounding green belt doesn't get sold off and we get surrounded by ugly houses.

So, I hope to be here for the next 40+ years.

If I was about to buy the house I could get insurance for the first 25 years, but if on day 25 years and 1 the church came to me for money I'd have to pay up.

I totaly see your point about if the church knows you can't insure it, but if the house is not yours at that time... what difference does that make to you? You just don't buy the house.

Ok, the present owners then have a problem, but in all honesty, if I'm about to spend several hundred thousand pounds I'm looking after number 1.

People have surveys done on houses and if this shows up structural problems you either move in knowing you have work to do and negoiate a price accordingly, or you walk away.

This to me is the same.

Graham

 

[Flyfisher]

Back to my original point, if there is so much going on, if I was thinking of buying a house which may be registered by the church I would openly ask the church, if they said no in writing, Bob's your Uncle, if they say yes, you don't buy.

I think the problem is that the church is unlikely to know and won't be able to say yes or no, but once you have made enquiries you may not be able to take out insurance. The best I've seen is a search that will tell you if your property has ever been in a parish at risk. If it hasn't then I think you're in the clear, if it has then the property is at risk, even though it seems inordinately difficult to quantify that risk.

The following is extracted from here
From time to time, Diocesan Registrars receive enquiries from solicitors acting for purchasers of property as to whether any particular property carries with it a liability for chancel repairs. For the reason already given, that there is no definitive diocesan register, it is unlikely that a Registrar can, without a good deal of research, give a categoric answer one way or the other as to whether there is any person or body liable to meet the cost of repair of the chancel of a church, unless the Registrar happens to have documentary evidence in the Registry that the liability exists in a particular case . . . . . If a solicitor acting for the purchaser of a property in a parish in the Diocese of Peterborough wishes to enquire of the Registrar whether any particular land carries the liability for chancel repairs, the Registrar is willing to advise whether there is any relevant information in the Archdeacons’ returns, or in the Registry archives, but the absence of any relevant information does not guarantee that no liability exists. The solicitor and/or the purchaser may have to undertake their own further research.

If you're really keen to know more there are a couple of quite detailed papers linked on the above site.

 

[Flyfisher]

So, I hope to be here for the next 40+ years.

Fair enough, so what are you going to do now? You may or may not have a liability and you can do nothing to change that fact. So, do you buy some insurance to protect yourself for 25 years and hope the whole thing has died down or been voided by then, or just take the risk?

 

[skier-hughes]

I was arguing the case for

"about to buy a property"

Which is pt's position.


Once moved in and purchased is a whole different arguement, where asking the Church for clarification is definately a no-no and insurance is a worthwile item to look into.

Graham

 

[Penners]

...the insurance is around £100 then I'd say it was a 'no-brainer' when buying a new house, and is seriously worth considering by all property owners

Presumably, Flyfisher, your use of the word "new" in this context doesn't actually mean newly built? I know someone who lives in a street of 1960's bungalows, with a view of the village church about 200 yards away. Surely that type of property wouldn't carry any risk of this type, would it?

 

[biffvernon]

In a perfect world

I'm an idealist

The last time the church went too far in collecting money we had The Reformation. It allowed a lot of vernacular building based on ex-monestry recycled masonry.

(That's from the abridged version of History)

 

[ptcottage]

Presumably, Flyfisher, your use of the word "new" in this context doesn't actually mean newly built? I know someone who lives in a street of 1960's bungalows, with a view of the village church about 200 yards away. Surely that type of property wouldn't carry any risk of this type, would it?

Oh yes it would.

This is precisely why we need more media coverage to educate the public on this issue. These laws are medieval, and as such rely on the property boundaries as set then. The houses on these lands may have long gone, but the actual land may still be liable. It might just be a corner of your front yard, you're still liable. So yes, there will absolutely be instances where there is a new build on old land that is liable.

Further, don't presume that several of the houses in your area might be equally liable - the church only has to identify one to make a claim. It's then up to the one who gets the bill to prove there are other liable properties.

 

[ptcottage]

Maybe I'm missing your point Pt.

I've bought my house now to live in untill I die, well so long as the surrounding green belt doesn't get sold off and we get surrounded by ugly houses.

So, I hope to be here for the next 40+ years.

If I was about to buy the house I could get insurance for the first 25 years, but if on day 25 years and 1 the church came to me for money I'd have to pay up.

That is correct. You'd have to pay up, and you'd still be the one the church can come to whenever there is a claimable repair. So, your heirs would inherit a property with potentially unlimited repair bills, and they'd be stuck with a property they can't sell because of it.

 

[skier-hughes]

As for my question - I am currently trying to purchase a property, which I know was once owned by the church.

So, my point Pt is that you do your utmost to ensure that your house is not covered by the church. The best way being to get the church to say that there will not be a claim, so you write to them to get them to say yes or no.

If they say yes then you don't buy and if they say no, you keep the piece of paper and if they ever come calling you produce it.

I'm arguing for contacting the church pre-purchase, not post.

Graham

 

[Anys]

And what do you do about nasty neighbours who want to ruin your rural idyll by asking the church themselves about your property? Or perhaps they're not allowed to do so? It can be surprising how vindictive or jealous types lurk in the prettiest of villages ... and certainly in towns. It could all turn into a nightmare.

 

[Flyfisher]

...the insurance is around £100 then I'd say it was a 'no-brainer' when buying a new house, and is seriously worth considering by all property owners

Presumably, Flyfisher, your use of the word "new" in this context doesn't actually mean newly built? I know someone who lives in a street of 1960's bungalows, with a view of the village church about 200 yards away. Surely that type of property wouldn't carry any risk of this type, would it?

Apologies for the confusion - I was using 'new' to mean new to the buyer, not the age of the house. My understanding is that the liability lies with the land, so you don't even need to have a house to be caught out

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm arguing for contacting the church pre-purchase, not post.

That seems reasonable - if you're prepared to walk away if you get an ambiguous result, which seems to be the most likely outcome.

 

[Flyfisher]

And what do you do about nasty neighbours who want to ruin your rural idyll by asking the church themselves about your property? Or perhaps they're not allowed to do so? It can be surprising how vindictive or jealous types lurk in the prettiest of villages ... and certainly in towns.

Interesting point, if a little paranoid. I can't see how such a neighbour could be prevented from such a course of action, although they would run the risk of catching themselves out because such liability resides in the land, so they might find their house is built on the same parcel of land that has the liability.

From what I've read, it's quite likely that many people would be liable (if the liability exists) but the church only has to chase one identified person for the full amount. It is then up that person to chase anyone else they can find in order to spread the cost.

It could all turn into a nightmare.

Indeed!

 

[Flyfisher]

In a perfect world

I'm an idealist

The last time the church went too far in collecting money we had The Reformation. It allowed a lot of vernacular building based on ex-monestry recycled masonry.

(That's from the abridged version of History)

Now you're talking! Maybe some sort of mass disobedience would shame the church into abandoning this whole thing, although as the Bishop of Coventry has pointed out the PCCs, as charitable trustees (or something), actually have a legal duty to maximise their financial advantage by whatever means. It really is a mess.

I wonder what would happen if a Mosque is discovered to have been built on land with a chancel repair liability ?

As for re-cycled monastery building materials, our house is a beneficiary of that - the C17 addition is based around a quite magnificent carved oak beam. I don't know if that helps with our potential liability though!

 

[middi]

I can undersatand the intricacy which exist regarding these old parish laws and so on. The way I see it is that if " liable"parishioners have to mend the church, can they in turn ask the church to mend their homes when it is required ? .

If this is not the case, then some blatant discriminating is taking place.

Someone should tell the church that the world has moved on a bit, and another blatant truth is that we have managed to manufacture societies where even the house of God has to work for it's money, I am sorry to say.

The wool has been pulled over too many faces by the church in the past, so the moral should be to ask and not to demand.

They will find it extremely difficuld to get away with it nowdays and to rely on old laws would be regressing.

 

[Nemesis]

However - the law exists and it is able to be enforced, as the Wallbanks have found to their huge cost.

There is no liability the other way!