chancel liability; sign government petition! + advice needed

[middi]

...........and this boils down to acient laws which are now extremely discriminating.

The church, and all that is supposed to stand for, hides behind this law for the sake of balancing the books. NO CHANGE HERE THEN.

 

[worms]

I'm with Skier-Hughes on this. If you are the buyer, ask the church for an assurance and if they won't give it, walk away!

As to the Biff approach - why don't the Church allow everyone to buy themselves out of any obligation for £100. Gets the chancel repaired without the insurance company getting any richer.

However, I see from the front of today's FT (fund management section) that the Church Commissioners have a fund of about 7.5 million euros so I am not feeling particularly sympathetic to their claims on anyone else's money for repairs!

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . so the moral should be to ask and not to demand.

Sadly, it seems the church is not taking such a reasonable view. Have a read of this to see how things can get out of hand. It seems the church did, at first, ask but even though the family offered to give up land worth £21k the church just continued to demand more and more.

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

You're certainly right that the whole thing has become difficult - the family have had 20 years of stress and worry and have been effectively bankrupted even though the church hasn't really benefitted (as far as I can tell) because this whole action has rendered the land worthless, so the family can't pay anyway. If the church hadn't been so greedy they could have had £21k of repairs to their precious chancel many year ago.

It's a funny sort of church that places more value on their buildings than the well-being of their parishioners.

 

[middi]

The church has lot and lot of experience when they have to shoot themselves in the foot. They never miss.

 

[Nemesis]

Part of the problem stems from the fact individual parishes really are liable for church expenditure. They can get some extra funding but there certainly isn't enough to repair all churches.

Congregations are falling, and clergy need paying...

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm with Skier-Hughes on this. If you are the buyer, ask the church for an assurance and if they won't give it, walk away!

Fine, but now imagine you are trying to sell your house . . .

As to the Biff approach - why don't the Church allow everyone to buy themselves out of any obligation for £100. Gets the chancel repaired without the insurance company getting any richer.

Don't forget that, once identified, this liability lasts forever. So far, insurance is only good for 25 years. The church wouldn't let the Wallbanks buy themselves out for £21k, presumably because they figured they could sting them for even more.

 

[Flyfisher]

Congregations are falling...

Hardly surprising really, if this is the way the church behaves.
Let them sell the churches if they can't afford to maintain them.

 

[worms]

but now imagine you are trying to sell your house . . .

The point, though, is that I'm not! And even if I was I am beyond the reach of the C of E. and this legislation.

Presumably the OP has no reason to have fears over any sale of his own. So the logical approach would be to seek the reassurance of asking the only people that can provide him with an absolute assurance that there is no problem. If you want to give the sellers a week's warning to get their insurance together fair enough, but that is their problem.

If a once-off £100 from nearly every house in England isn't enough for the Church, then they could make it only applicable to the current owners, with an additional sum on each successive owner. Its a win-win - the Church get extra income, the householders get the security they need.

In a sense it is like how all of Scotland had to buy out the feudal superior some years ago - a one-off payment to get rid of an annual feu-duty.

 

[Nemesis]

Actually, the church is selling off properties. There's a limit though as to what can be done with a redundant church, especially a grade I listed one.



http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.9238

 

[biffvernon]

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 think you should return the stolen property or at least open your house for holy services.

 

[Penners]

You can't mention the Reformation on this forum. That Martin Luther clearly didn't have LBC to nail his theses to the church door.

 

[Moo]

And what about that Henry VIII and the monasteries?
Lucky for him that Evelyn wasn't around in those days.

 

[Penners]

Tee-hee - the beheading would have been on the other foot, eh?

I hereby claim the prize for worst mixed metaphor of the day

 

[Flyfisher]

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 think you should return the stolen property or at least open your house for holy services.

Don't give them any more ideas :shock:

 

[another_richard]

Why don't you just pop into the National Archives in Kew and do the survey yourself and forget the solicitors:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=223&j=1

is a good start.

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . or pay for a basic online check for £15, but this will only give you a definite 'no' or a 'maybe', based on location within certain parish/districts - although it's a lot easier than 'popping into' the Kew archives.

It seems it's the clarification of the 'maybe' that's the problem.

 

[Moo]

Tee-hee - the beheading would have been on the other foot, eh?

And, of course, his goose would have been well and truly Cooked.

 

[ptcottage]

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.

I've done a little more digging in light of this suggestion - more legal fun! If I do enquire directly to the church (or my solicitor does), thus negating any possibility of the house owner taking out liability insurance, he can then sue me for interfering with his sale (whether to me or to someone else). So, anyone thinking of asking the church for clarification on a prospective purchase, be prepared for a lawsuit from the seller.

Do remember that although I may not proceed with this particular purchase, this problem can come up on any sale, anywhere in the country. It's just a huge unknown.

 

[Flyfisher]

I've done a little more digging in light of this suggestion - more legal fun! If I do enquire directly to the church (or my solicitor does), thus negating any possibility of the house owner taking out liability insurance, he can then sue me for interfering with his sale (whether to me or to someone else). So, anyone thinking of asking the church for clarification on a prospective purchase, be prepared for a lawsuit from the seller.

I find this very hard to believe; was this real legal advice?

99% of people who intend to buy a house have some sort of survey carried out. Sometimes that survey will reveal a problem that causes the prospective buyer to pull out of the deal. How many people have ever subsequently been sued for 'interfering with the sale'? Can you really be sued for the consequences of discovering facts?

I really don't believe this particular issue could be a problem in practice - but, hey, I'm not a lawyer so who knows?

 

[Penners]

And, of course, his goose would have been well and truly Cooked.

Oh yes! Full marks for that one!