Selling a property - buyer requesting indemnity policy
Discussion
Hoping somebody can help me understand this.
Currently selling our parents' house. Sadly our mum died just after the sale was agreed so it became subject to probate. It's been in the balance for 5 months but has just been granted.
It is on a private road. Buyer requested details on drainage after the survey which we were able to furnish in minute detail (down to the material used for pipes etc!) due to the original drawings for the house being present (built in late 80s).
We agreed to an indemnity policy on the drains as they seemed worried about it and we wanted to show willing; it didn't look likely to cost a huge amount and it seemed to be standard that the seller pays.
We've just had a request for further indemnities on the sewers (potentially being built over, lack of information on servicing/maintenance), lack of building regs (pertaining to sewer and lack of info), absence of easement (lack of rights for sewer maintenance), and limited title (as the property cannot be sold with full title guarantee as sellers have no personal knowledge of the property's history).
Whilst the total cost is less than a thousand and in the grand scheme of things isn't much, we accept an offer which was well beneath the (fair & reasonable) asking price, so it does grate a bit.
With regard to their worries - so as far as we know it is a standard sewer beneath the private road. There have never been any issues or queries about it over the last 13 years that my parents owned the property, and I have no reason to think there was any problem with building regs. There's no reason to assume that it has been built on as there has been no further building on the site, and I have no such proofs or indemnities on the sewers on the property I own. Is this a "thing" with private roads? Are the buyers being paranoid? Should we be paying for their paranoia?
Regarding the limited title - this annoys me a bit. We have all the house documentation - in fact I have more history and paperwork for this house than I do for my own in which I have lived for 20 years. All questions answered to the best of our knowledge. ChatGPT seems to suggest that this is standard thing with probate sales and that the seller pays it. Can this be the case? There is no question over ownership, will not contested, probate granted.
I guess I am looking for some reassurance and balance. The tone of the email from the solicitors feels slightly aggressive although this may be as I am not used to the legalese and I appreciate it all may be standard practice. Whilst I apprecaite it may not be worth rocking the boat over a 3 figure sum, I don't want to be bent over, and wonder whether it is worth suggesting that we split the bill? Is that reasonable? (especially as we took a gut punch with the asking price)
Thanks in advance.
Currently selling our parents' house. Sadly our mum died just after the sale was agreed so it became subject to probate. It's been in the balance for 5 months but has just been granted.
It is on a private road. Buyer requested details on drainage after the survey which we were able to furnish in minute detail (down to the material used for pipes etc!) due to the original drawings for the house being present (built in late 80s).
We agreed to an indemnity policy on the drains as they seemed worried about it and we wanted to show willing; it didn't look likely to cost a huge amount and it seemed to be standard that the seller pays.
We've just had a request for further indemnities on the sewers (potentially being built over, lack of information on servicing/maintenance), lack of building regs (pertaining to sewer and lack of info), absence of easement (lack of rights for sewer maintenance), and limited title (as the property cannot be sold with full title guarantee as sellers have no personal knowledge of the property's history).
Whilst the total cost is less than a thousand and in the grand scheme of things isn't much, we accept an offer which was well beneath the (fair & reasonable) asking price, so it does grate a bit.
With regard to their worries - so as far as we know it is a standard sewer beneath the private road. There have never been any issues or queries about it over the last 13 years that my parents owned the property, and I have no reason to think there was any problem with building regs. There's no reason to assume that it has been built on as there has been no further building on the site, and I have no such proofs or indemnities on the sewers on the property I own. Is this a "thing" with private roads? Are the buyers being paranoid? Should we be paying for their paranoia?
Regarding the limited title - this annoys me a bit. We have all the house documentation - in fact I have more history and paperwork for this house than I do for my own in which I have lived for 20 years. All questions answered to the best of our knowledge. ChatGPT seems to suggest that this is standard thing with probate sales and that the seller pays it. Can this be the case? There is no question over ownership, will not contested, probate granted.
I guess I am looking for some reassurance and balance. The tone of the email from the solicitors feels slightly aggressive although this may be as I am not used to the legalese and I appreciate it all may be standard practice. Whilst I apprecaite it may not be worth rocking the boat over a 3 figure sum, I don't want to be bent over, and wonder whether it is worth suggesting that we split the bill? Is that reasonable? (especially as we took a gut punch with the asking price)
Thanks in advance.
Edited by NiceCupOfTea on Wednesday 15th April 17:53
GiantEnemyCrab said:
This is perhaps one overzealous low skill conveyancer.
You can just say they can poke it / give you the money.
The amount of nonsense indemnity policies sold weekly much be huge. Wonder how many are claimed on! Box tick.
It's a very cosy little industry - you or I cannot approach and purchase such a policy, or seek several quoations, only solicitors have access to them and the prices seem to be stubbornly inflexible.You can just say they can poke it / give you the money.
The amount of nonsense indemnity policies sold weekly much be huge. Wonder how many are claimed on! Box tick.
Is /was anyone else interested in the property?, because you've taken a lower price I guess not, but it would be nice to be able to tell the buyers to go to hell, we did with Mum in Laws Bungalow, but then had 4 chasing it.
Your own conveyancer /solicitor should be helping or advising you on this, they charge enough.
Your own conveyancer /solicitor should be helping or advising you on this, they charge enough.
It’s a difficult one, I’ve been in this position before on both sides and really you can either agree to pay it and move forward or stand in and risk a sale falling through.
On my last house I bought one as the purchaser relating to boiler position if I remember correctly for about £100. When I sold the house there was a shallow puddle in front of the front door (which was raised up a step anyway) when the surveyor came and they tried to get me to pay for an indemnity relating to flooding which there was no risk of because it was at the top of a hill no where near any water source such as rivers etc, I stood on and said no and the buyer proceeded anyway.
On my last house I bought one as the purchaser relating to boiler position if I remember correctly for about £100. When I sold the house there was a shallow puddle in front of the front door (which was raised up a step anyway) when the surveyor came and they tried to get me to pay for an indemnity relating to flooding which there was no risk of because it was at the top of a hill no where near any water source such as rivers etc, I stood on and said no and the buyer proceeded anyway.
The only indemnity policies I've had to buy or ask for relate to land registry anomalies.
But one of the conditions is that you can't do anything that might mean the actual owner of said bit of land (if there even is one) might come out of the woodwork and make a claim so you have to claim on the policy!
Ergo that bit of land stays unclaimed.
In this case they buyers probably won;t be able to start digging around the building regs for any work done as that would indemnify the policy. It's a very cosy little earner for someone.
But one of the conditions is that you can't do anything that might mean the actual owner of said bit of land (if there even is one) might come out of the woodwork and make a claim so you have to claim on the policy!
Ergo that bit of land stays unclaimed.
In this case they buyers probably won;t be able to start digging around the building regs for any work done as that would indemnify the policy. It's a very cosy little earner for someone.
Similarly, helped with sale of my fathers house a while back - they'd bought the house as a new build (24 years earlier) and, at the time of the original build, had had a conservatory added. All worked through with the original builder; although the conservatory was added on by a sub-contractor.
Had no paperwork in relation to the conservatory bit; so had to fork out about £100 for an indemnity... It grated, but in the scheme of things we just accepted it...
Had no paperwork in relation to the conservatory bit; so had to fork out about £100 for an indemnity... It grated, but in the scheme of things we just accepted it...
NiceCupOfTea said:
Thanks all.
While it grates, we are going to suck it up and pay it. I just can't be arsed with blotting the copy book; just want the place gone.
That's your prerogative of course and I understand the sentiment/reason, but a sewer shared between multiple properties is absolutely the responsibility of the water company and nothing to do with a residential property. Therefore there is no reason why you should have any records whatsoever to do with the construction, maintenance and rights of said sewer.While it grates, we are going to suck it up and pay it. I just can't be arsed with blotting the copy book; just want the place gone.
If your parents property is the only one attached to the sewer then its potentially a different story.
Either way this stretches the realms of reasonable requests for indemnity policies (which are often abused these days, but it seems to be an increasing trend). I'd be inclined to tell the buyers to pay for it themselves if they think it's that important.
PhilboSE said:
NiceCupOfTea said:
Thanks all.
While it grates, we are going to suck it up and pay it. I just can't be arsed with blotting the copy book; just want the place gone.
That's your prerogative of course and I understand the sentiment/reason, but a sewer shared between multiple properties is absolutely the responsibility of the water company and nothing to do with a residential property. Therefore there is no reason why you should have any records whatsoever to do with the construction, maintenance and rights of said sewer.While it grates, we are going to suck it up and pay it. I just can't be arsed with blotting the copy book; just want the place gone.
If your parents property is the only one attached to the sewer then its potentially a different story.
Either way this stretches the realms of reasonable requests for indemnity policies (which are often abused these days, but it seems to be an increasing trend). I'd be inclined to tell the buyers to pay for it themselves if they think it's that important.
NiceCupOfTea said:
However, ChatGPT seems to think it is fairly standard for the seller to pay in probate sales / private roads
I wonder if that's because the buyers conveyancers know that probater sellers will be more inclined to concede / quick sale...NiceCupOfTea said:
It's been a millstone around our necks for over 3 years and we just want it gone.
Ah, that changes things, in that case I completely get the desire to get shot and move on.It’s quite likely that the buyer will have no knowledge that the indemnity has even been asked for. Their conveyancer will have decided what is being asked for and it will be presented to the buyer in the exchange pack as a done deal.
You could’ve pushed back and likely succeeded, but in the present climate it’s just not worth the risk.
You could’ve pushed back and likely succeeded, but in the present climate it’s just not worth the risk.
I believe the limited title guarantee is standard for probate
I believe it is a legal term basically confirming you are selling as a third person.
Weirdly I administered a relative’s probate I still had to answer loads of questions to which we just answered not known. I have no idea why we still have to go through this nonsense process
I believe it is a legal term basically confirming you are selling as a third person.
Weirdly I administered a relative’s probate I still had to answer loads of questions to which we just answered not known. I have no idea why we still have to go through this nonsense process
When selling our last house the buyer wanted one as the conservatory didn’t have pp. I explained it didn’t need it as was permitted development, but they said they still wanted one! I refused and they relented.
When selling another property the buyer wanted one as we hadn’t been paying the ground rent on it. neither had anyone for the last 150 years as the beneficiary of it was dead… We paid that one though just to get shot of the house.
When selling another property the buyer wanted one as we hadn’t been paying the ground rent on it. neither had anyone for the last 150 years as the beneficiary of it was dead… We paid that one though just to get shot of the house.
NiceCupOfTea said:
Thanks all.
While it grates, we are going to suck it up and pay it. I just can't be arsed with blotting the copy book; just want the place gone.
This is the best for your situation.While it grates, we are going to suck it up and pay it. I just can't be arsed with blotting the copy book; just want the place gone.
the policies are not that expensive as I recall having had to buy them for purchase and sales over the years.
never need to claim on one either thankfully.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff