Claiming on Indemnity Policy – Anyone with experience claiming?

These policies indemnify the home owner should the local authority take any enforcement action under the policy term time against any unauthorised work. Thats it. They dont cover the work itself being crap.

If the homeowner contacts the local authority, then the policy is normally void.
 
Sponsored Links
Blimey what would be the chances of LABC randomly turning up to take enforcement action on such things as this........most definitely reeks of a money for old rope scenario!
 
Blimey what would be the chances of LABC randomly turning up to take enforcement action on such things as this........most definitely reeks of a money for old rope scenario!
It can depend.

If the alterations are life safety related (fire, means of escape, loft conversions) then the council are more likely to enforce building regulations - and the time limits are open ended - they get injunctions after 12 months, but still the chances of such deminish over time. They can find out randomly, word of mouth, a disgruntled neighbour or friend - or the seller.

Things like roof and window replacements can be seen in passing, but may be less likely to be enforced against because of time and cost and the benefit of any such enforcement. This type of work will be limited to enforcement within 12 months though, as no injunction would likely be granted by a court. But my local council is proactive in looking for re-roofing work.

For planning issues, again it is visible externally, and the council can become aware in the same ways as above but there are the four or ten year enforcement limits.

What homebuyers don't tend to be aware of is that these policies don't protect them from bad work, only from council enforcement. So if the work is deemed satisfactory, or has been present a long time then the policies are not much use and dont atually provide any security at all.

But more pertinent is the impact of unauthorised work on home insurance policies. Unathorised work, could be by default deemed not up to any required standard and increase risk - thus could void a claim if the insurer was not made of it in the proposal.
 
If this work was don in the mid 90s, why is there a need for FENSA certificates? I thought this requirement didn't come in until 2002?
 
Sponsored Links
That doesn't stop over enthusiastic solicitors insisting on insurance. They just follow a check list.
 
Remember that Solicitors work for you as the buyer. They advise, you instruct.
Turned out not, I said no and they said that creates a conflict of interest between me and the mortgage company, so if I said no they had to refuse to act for the mortgage company and I'd have to find a new solicitor for them at extra cost and delay.
 
Turned out not, I said no and they said that creates a conflict of interest between me and the mortgage company, so if I said no they had to refuse to act for the mortgage company and I'd have to find a new solicitor for them at extra cost and delay.
That's bizarre. What they are saying then is that the buyer has to agree to everything that the Solicitor advises to the mortgage company - which in itself is conflicting and implies that no Solicitor should act for two parties that have inherent different interests.
 
That's bizarre. What they are saying then is that the buyer has to agree to everything that the Solicitor advises to the mortgage company - which in itself is conflicting and implies that no Solicitor should act for two parties that have inherent different interests.
Kind of, and your summary is correct. Solicitors are forbidden to act where there is a conflict of interest on the matters in hand. This can come to light if they receive conflicting instructions. But generally it's assumed that the buyer and mortgage company have the same interests in terms of the house purchase.

They are saying that if the buyer and mortgage company interest are the same, then one solicitor can act for both. A bit like if you are buying with your partner you would use one solicitor.
If the situation comes to light that there are differences in interest between the mortgage company and yourself, or even between two joint buyers, the solicitor cannot act for both and the other party must appoint an independent solicitor to protect their interests.
 
The mortgage company has a charge on the property, so solicitors aren't representing the buyer, they are representing the buyers. If one buyer wishes to expose the other to a level of risk that the other has indicated they don't wish to accept then that creates a conflict. That isn't to say poor advice can't be challenged and alternative insurance is always worth considering.

However, I do struggle with the idea of seller warranting to the buyer via insurance, which binds the buyer to confidentiality.
 
Turned out not, I said no and they said that creates a conflict of interest between me and the mortgage company, so if I said no they had to refuse to act for the mortgage company and I'd have to find a new solicitor for them at extra cost and delay.

The buyers has an option to take the Solicitors recommendation or not. Its not compulsary.

The valuation confirms to the lender that the property is worth what they are lending on it (ie in default, if sold they will recoup their outlay), so there is no reason for the Solicitor to say that there will be a conflict if the buyer does not take his advice contrary to the advice he gives his other client the lender.

I suspect your Solicitor was not as truthfull as he should have been.
 
The valuation confirms to the lender that the property is worth what they are lending on it
Not entirely, the valuation checks the physical property but the CML has a detailed set of procedures for solicitors to determine if a property meets their requirements over and above the valuation.

A valuable property from the valuation could have serious defects in the title or other searches that make it worthless, and the solicitor is responsible for ensuring the relevant enquiries are satisfactory before proceeding.

The example would be if a property was built without planning permission on a farm field in national park and was subject to enforcement. The valuation would be 100s of thousands but the resulting demolition costs would make it worthless. The insurance would give the mortgage company back their money if you were to then default on your repayments. If the solicitors didn't make you buy the insurance, then it would be their pii that would give the mortgage company their money back.
 
The example would be if a property was built without planning permission on a farm field in national park and was subject to enforcement. The valuation would be 100s of thousands but the resulting demolition costs would make it worthless.
Thats a bit different to buyng insurance in the context of this thread - and you would not be able to compare the meerkat for that situation.

If the solicitors didn't make you buy the insurance

They can't make you do anything - they work for you.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top