Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Well not by me, being a veggie.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
chancel liability; sign government petition! + advice needed
- Thread starter ptcottage
- Start date
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
Flyfisher said:I find this very hard to believe; was this real legal advice?ptcottage said: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.
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?
I also find this hard to believe for exactly the same reasons.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I've wondered the same thing. I don't know if they are being grossly unrealistic but I'm sure they are being grossly opportunistic. But that's no reason, in itself, to ignore the risk.
I presume they have no claims data to work with at present, so it'll be interesting to see how the premiums change as things develop. Perhaps people conveying property in 2011/2012/2013 when the issue, may have escalated even more and premiums have skyrocketed, will wish they had taken out such cheap insurance. Or maybe events yet to occur might have made the whole issue go away by then. It's just a 'bet' really.
But most people pay out hundreds or even thousands of pounds each year on insurance that they hope never to claim on, so another £4 per year shouldn't break the bank. I know the principle goes against the grain, but then so does the whole issue!
I presume they have no claims data to work with at present, so it'll be interesting to see how the premiums change as things develop. Perhaps people conveying property in 2011/2012/2013 when the issue, may have escalated even more and premiums have skyrocketed, will wish they had taken out such cheap insurance. Or maybe events yet to occur might have made the whole issue go away by then. It's just a 'bet' really.
But most people pay out hundreds or even thousands of pounds each year on insurance that they hope never to claim on, so another £4 per year shouldn't break the bank. I know the principle goes against the grain, but then so does the whole issue!
I presume insurance companies are competent enough to watch the news to predict changes in claims ahead, and incorporate this into their pricing.
If so, maybe they plan to deal with any future claims by a PR showdown with the church, which I would think would be a good option in this case.
If not, how are they going to compete successfully in a capitalist marketplace.
NT
If so, maybe they plan to deal with any future claims by a PR showdown with the church, which I would think would be a good option in this case.
If not, how are they going to compete successfully in a capitalist marketplace.
NT
Hi all,
Well, I think it's good news - or at least somewhat hopeful if not completely conclusive...
The solicitor ran a ChancelCheck search and we got the certificate back (as opposed to the report - click on samples here: https://secure.clsl.co.uk/prices.php
In a nutshell, the certificate implies that all is ok if not perfect. If we had has the report back (the one that automatically advises insurance), we'd probably not go ahead with the purchase. We'll likely get insurance anyway (it's cheap enough) so that we can rest at least a little easier if anything changes between now and 2013 (or beyond).
The uncertainty of the whole thing is ridiculous and a timebomb. I don't think I've left a single website on the subject unread. With public records becoming more and more accessible on the internet, by 2013 it'll be a piece of holy cake for the church to identify all of the many thousands of liable properties.
I'll say it again, sign the petition!
Thanks, all.
[/i]
Well, I think it's good news - or at least somewhat hopeful if not completely conclusive...
The solicitor ran a ChancelCheck search and we got the certificate back (as opposed to the report - click on samples here: https://secure.clsl.co.uk/prices.php
In a nutshell, the certificate implies that all is ok if not perfect. If we had has the report back (the one that automatically advises insurance), we'd probably not go ahead with the purchase. We'll likely get insurance anyway (it's cheap enough) so that we can rest at least a little easier if anything changes between now and 2013 (or beyond).
The uncertainty of the whole thing is ridiculous and a timebomb. I don't think I've left a single website on the subject unread. With public records becoming more and more accessible on the internet, by 2013 it'll be a piece of holy cake for the church to identify all of the many thousands of liable properties.
I'll say it again, sign the petition!
Thanks, all.
[/i]