Title Deed Colouring - query

[Planet Claire]

Hello, I hope someone can just give me some info on this before I speak to my solicitor. I'd rather go into the conversation with a bit of knowledge rather than nothing.

I'm in the process of selling my flat and we're on the verge of exchanging contracts. After a question last week about identifying my parking space on the plan, the buyer's solicitors (same company as mine) are now saying that the colouring on my lease is incorrect and they want me to fund an indemity policy to cover it.

This is the bit of the plan showing my property, which they sent to me to identify the parking space. The plan is from the Land Registry.



The parking space and garage is the top area in red, the one that looks like an 'r' (or wonky L). The top bit of the 'r' is the parking space and the vertical bit, the last rectangle in that block, is the garage.

This is what they sent to me yesterday:
The colouring on the Lease plan is incorrect in that the parking space should be coloured green, but is actually coloured blue.

Now, there was a plan attached to the original lease documents, so I'm assuming that is what they are referring to, but obviously I don't have that anymore, it's gone to the solicitors.

Is this really an issue? It obviously hasn't been raised in the 30-odd years that my flat has existed and it has changed hands a few times relatively recently. Could there be something in the lease that says the parking space is identified on the plan in green, but some numpty, when drawing it coloured it blue?

Does it matter what the orignal paper lease plan colour is when the Land Registry one is all in red?

I've tried Googling, but not much luck.

I'm getting to the point where I'm feeling that this would be 'nice to sort out but isn't really an issue' and the solicitors are pushing it through (at my expense) because no doubt they'll receive some commission on the policy. I've already agreed to an indemity policy for something else because of my 'defect lease'.

Thanks

Edited for spelling

Edited by Planet Claire on Thursday 15th January 12:40

[Planet Claire]

I've just found this on colouring conventions:

Blue tinting (or blue hatching) = Right of way over the property for use by others
Green tinting (or green hatching) = An island of land excluded from the property

I'm now actually thinking that being coloured blue is correct as the garage block isn't very wide and a car would probably have to drive over my parking space to get into the garages opposite (unless it was an original Mini). Plus, if ever the garage was sold off separately, which many have done, then there would need to be right of way over the parking space land to get into my garage.

So, does my thinking seem logical, and more importantly, is it correct?

Edited for formatting

Edited by Planet Claire on Thursday 15th January 12:42

[Vaud]

How much are we talking for the indemnity?

[Planet Claire]

About £150, which is on top of the £230 for something else.

I know it's not a great deal, but I don't want to pay this, especially when I now think the plan is coloured correctly.

[hornetrider]

I wonder what the cost of the policy is to them

[SK425]

I can't offer any advice I'm afraid, but I can sympathise. I got bum-raped for some stupid indemnity rubbish too last year when I sold my house - although reading your post I now feel lucky that I got away with only being stiffed for £77. It seems that there is an industry built on the basis that there are things that will never, ever happen ever to anyone ever in the whole history of the universe ever, but just in case here's an insurance company that can sell you a surprisingly-priced policy to cover it.

The bit that really baffled me is that the beneficiary of that policy, should the unimaginably unlikely event occur and the policy have to pay out, will be the lady who bought my house. So why the feck isn't she the one who has the honour of paying the premium???!!!

I don't think the solicitor was being paid any commission by the insurer.

[Muncher]

I've not got a quote for an indemnity policy for that before but it does sound quite expensive to the kind of things I normally get quotes for.

[MrHargreaves]

I think under SRA rules any commission paid by the insurer belongs to the client not to the solicitor (this may have changed)

if the buyer needs a mortgage it will probably be a requirement of the mortgage that the issue is resolved or a suitable indemnity policy put in place.

Does sound a bit toppy in my experience. Ask the solicitor to get a quote from a an alternative provider?

None of this means you have to provide the policy if you don't want to, but accept that you may lose the buyer if you refuse

[Rude-boy]

Muncher said:

I've not got a quote for an indemnity policy for that before but it does sound quite expensive to the kind of things I normally get quotes for.

Defective Lease Indemnity policy. Without full title and Lease can't comment on the problem but would say the following:-

1. We don't get any commission on IP's. I personally bloody hate them as I would always rather it was right in the first place but sometimes it is a business decision, especially when selling. Had an issue last year I knew I could get resolved but it would have cost £1,000+ to sort and take about a month. IP was about £250 (Inc IPT) and was quoted and taken out within an hour for a specific defect. (For those that know, no contact with other party, known local issue easily resolved with a willing third party but they and their legal people are very slow and a bit toppy on costs.)
2. If there is already one IP for a defect in the lease why are they suggesting a second policy? Surely they should be looking at the original and extending the disclosure of known defects with a small increase in the premium IME.
3. Get them to get a quote off more than one IP provider.

[hornetrider]

SK425 said:

The bit that really baffled me is that the beneficiary of that policy, should the unimaginably unlikely event occur and the policy have to pay out, will be the lady who bought my house. So why the feck isn't she the one who has the honour of paying the premium???!!!

Quite. We got stung with having to buy Chancel Repair liability cover on selling our house recently. What the fk has it got to do with me, I won't be the beneficiary of the policy.

Money for old fking rope.

[Planet Claire]

Rude-boy said:

2. If there is already one IP for a defect in the lease why are they suggesting a second policy? Surely they should be looking at the original and extending the disclosure of known defects with a small increase in the premium IME.

It is actually an extention to the proposed indemity policy ('proposed' as it hasn't been purchased yet, at the point of sale I think they said). But yes, I could ask them to shop around.

Costs aside, it's more about the colouring I'm concerned with and whether it really is an issue.

Think I'm just going to have to phone them and argue the toss about the fact I feel it has been coloured correctly and can understand why there would be a right of way over the parking space.

Thanks.

Thanks

[robdcfc]

Could it not have been coloured green originally and has faded to a blue hue with age?

[SK425]

hornetrider said:

SK425 said:

The bit that really baffled me is that the beneficiary of that policy, should the unimaginably unlikely event occur and the policy have to pay out, will be the lady who bought my house. So why the feck isn't she the one who has the honour of paying the premium???!!!

Quite. We got stung with having to buy Chancel Repair liability cover on selling our house recently. What the fk has it got to do with me, I won't be the beneficiary of the policy.

I was equally baffled when my solicitor told me that I was the first client he'd ever had who viewed it in those terms.

[Rude-boy]

hornetrider said:

Quite. We got stung with having to buy Chancel Repair liability cover on selling our house recently. What the fk has it got to do with me, I won't be the beneficiary of the policy.

Money for old fking rope.

You weren't the beneficiary of the policy but you achieved the sale of your property by agreeing to fund the cost. This is aside from the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat and I can't recall the last time I had to get or insist upon such a policy, although always do a search.

CRL policies are money for old rope as a rule though, a market driven by fear of a very, very, remote potential of there being a liability and then that it will even be enforced.

Anyway,

Back on topic.

OP, there are a lot of reasons for the incorrect colouring from crappy LR scanners to some idiot giving the Secretary/trainee the colouring in job and not checking it properly (or being brain dead themselves when they did it...)

The answer will be to look at the original copy of the lease (if still exists) and see if it is correct there. If it is a simple letter to LR enclosing and they will rescan and correct. If it is wrong there then it is a Defective Title issue (yes all know intent but it's this sort of little thing that leads in (wild guess at timescale) 20 years to major clusterfks as some smart arse choses to cause trouble for their own ends.

As a rule I don't find that Clients worry too much about the cost of the IP's I have to get - they are fairly much the same sort of premiums with like for like policies and everyone has their pet that they know is good and that they have read the policy docs from. That said if there is ever a query I always get at least one other quote. That said you are usually getting policies on sale and so the answer as to which to get is the cheapest the Buyer solicitors will wear!!!

[Planet Claire]

robdcfc said:

Could it not have been coloured green originally and has faded to a blue hue with age?

That's a possibility, but I don't have the document to hand now to check.

SK425 said:

hornetrider said:

SK425 said:

The bit that really baffled me is that the beneficiary of that policy, should the unimaginably unlikely event occur and the policy have to pay out, will be the lady who bought my house. So why the feck isn't she the one who has the honour of paying the premium???!!!

Quite. We got stung with having to buy Chancel Repair liability cover on selling our house recently. What the fk has it got to do with me, I won't be the beneficiary of the policy.

I was equally baffled when my solicitor told me that I was the first client he'd ever had who viewed it in those terms.

That's what I said. I took the property without indemity insurance, if the buyer wants it then they should pay for it. However, I wanted the sale to go through quickly, which is why I agreed I would pay for it, and in a way I can understand why my lease is 'defected'.

I phoned the solicitor about 20 mins ago but my case worker is out on lunch so I'm expecting a call back soon. But the more I think about it, if the colour convention bit I quoted above is correct, I feel blue is the right colour and not green as they suggest.

[Rude-boy]

SK425 said:

I was equally baffled when my solicitor told me that I was the first client he'd ever had who viewed it in those terms.

I am surprised. I must get asked that exact question about 1 in 5 policies on sale that I have to advise are obtained.

BTW if you want to have a punt at how likely it is that a problem is ever going to occur look at the level of the premium vs level of cover. £26 for £400k of cover in perpetuity - yeah, their worried about the risk on those issues...

Finally (before I have to go do some work!!!) often the solicitors know full well that the policy is a heap of junk and that a properly advised Client would almost certainly 'take a view' on such an issue. Sadly we also have to work with the CML Handbook and that is 99% black and white. Also don't forget that if you are not having a mortgage the person you sell to is likely to need one and so if you pass on the policy at your seller's cost then you need to be prepared to pay for one when you sell.

Don't start on additional premiums to increase the limit of indemnity where the built in escalator (if any) is behind the curve....

[Rude-boy]

Re Colour convention.

Yes there are colours we tend to use as standard (red for property, blue for retained land, brown for access, etc, etc) but these are not set in stone.

[superlightr]

superlightr said:

Planet Claire said:

Hello, I hope someone can just give me some info on this before I speak to my solicitor. I'd rather go into the conversation with a bit of knowledge rather than nothing.

I'm in the process of selling my flat and we're on the verge of exchanging contracts. After a question last week about identifying my parking space on the plan, the buyer's solicitors (same company as mine) are now saying that the colouring on my lease is incorrect and they want me to fund an indemity policy to cover it.

This is the bit of the plan showing my property, which they sent to me to identify the parking space. The plan is from the Land Registry.



The parking space and garage is the top area in red, the one that looks like an 'r' (or wonky L). The top bit of the 'r' is the parking space and the vertical bit, the last rectangle in that block, is the garage.

This is what they sent to me yesterday:
The colouring on the Lease plan is incorrect in that the parking space should be coloured green, but is actually coloured blue.

Now, there was a plan attached to the original lease documents, so I'm assuming that is what they are referring to, but obviously I don't have that anymore, it's gone to the solicitors.

Is this really an issue? It obviously hasn't been raised in the 30-odd years that my flat has existed and it has changed hands a few times relatively recently. Could there be something in the lease that says the parking space is identified on the plan in green, but some numpty, when drawing it coloured it blue?

Does it matter what the orignal paper lease plan colour is when the Land Registry one is all in red?

I've tried Googling, but not much luck.

I'm getting to the point where I'm feeling that this would be 'nice to sort out but isn't really an issue' and the solicitors are pushing it through (at my expense) because no doubt they'll receive some commission on the policy. I've already agreed to an indemity policy for something else because of my 'defect lease'.

Thanks

Edited for spelling

Edited by Planet Claire on Thursday 15th January 12:40

Just being a thiko - your plan above. The wonky L or R at the top of the picture is outlined in red - yes. There is no colouring or tinting of this I can see. This from your description is your parking space and garage. where is the tinting?

The extract from the Land registry you have shown 'should' be correct in all respects. If they are looking at a different extract from the land registry they should show you a copy of it.

If indeed the parking space is tinted blue then as you have correctly said it should be blue so to allow access for other users of the garages and is thus not a defect and thus you should not have to pay. If the other side are concerned then they can alleviate their concern buy taking out the insurance.

Below this you have outlined in red and tinted blue is this your property?

and below that you have a square box shape outlined in red. Is this a garden?

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 15th January 14:34

[p1esk]

Rude-boy said:

CRL policies are money for old rope as a rule though, a market driven by fear of a very, very, remote potential of there being a liability and then that it will even be enforced.

Yes, I wouldn't dispute that, though I did hear of a case in which a property owner did get stung for a huge CR bill which he couldn't afford to pay, and the whole thing was a complete disaster for him.

So, it might be extremely unlikely to arise, but if it did...well to me that doesn't bear thinking about.

Anyhow, we paid a premium of about £10-15 when we bought our current property a few months ago, so at that price I'd always pay it and have the peace of mind.

[hornetrider]

p1esk said:

Yes, I wouldn't dispute that, though I did hear of a case in which a property owner did get stung for a huge CR bill which he couldn't afford to pay, and the whole thing was a complete disaster for him.

When I was doing my research into this BS, there was one major story which came up, and I believe it was this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094403/Pa...

'Glebe' Farm. The clue is in the name!

And so a cottage industry in insurance was born.