House rewired, no certificates.

[JohnW2]

Solicitor quoted the £16 when I asked for advice on this. We'll go down that route and see what happens.

Fair enough. As I said, if it really is £16, and if the buyer would be happy with just that, then it would be daft not to pay it - but it does sound ridiculously low. If true, that cost of the premium would be an indication of how 'vanishingly improbable' the insurer believed it to be that they would have to pay out (I'm sure you could get a very cheap insurance against your house being hit by a meteor!!). However, in you shoes I wouldn't bother paying even £16 unless/until the buyer (or their solicitor) had indicated that they would regard that as being enough to resolve the issue.

If they want an inspection doing I will get one done.

If you did that, you would have to be prepared for the buyer to try to haggle about price on the basis of whatever work was 'recommended' as a result of the inspection (most inspections result in at least some 'recommendations'). In general, I would say that if a buyer wants an inspection of the electrical installation undertaken, they should commission and pay for it. Even if you had all the required paperwork from 5 years ago, that would not guarantee that the installation is now satisfactory, or even safe - and it is for a buyer to decide whether they require reassurance about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

To be honest I'm less worried about the buyers, more so their mortgage lender throwing a hissy fit.

The lender getting busted up over the lack of a completion certificate from 5 years ago.

Some electrical work was not notified 5 years ago. Nothing will happen. No one will do anything.
If it proved to be faulty and totally unsafe, the indemnity will NOT cover any of the cost of repairs, rectification or claims for damage, personal injury or anything else.

It's purely to cover legal costs in the event the local authority takes action due to the work not complying with Building Regulations - something which will not happen, as the work was completed 5 years ago.

 

[JohnW2]

Some electrical work was not notified 5 years ago. Nothing will happen. No one will do anything. ... If it proved to be faulty and totally unsafe, the indemnity will NOT cover any of the cost of repairs, rectification or claims for damage, personal injury or anything else.

As I've said, Quite so!

It's purely to cover legal costs in the event the local authority takes action due to the work not complying with Building Regulations - something which will not happen, as the work was completed 5 years ago.

Indeed - and, as I've said, if the proposed premium is £16, then that is a very clear indication of how likely the insurer thinks that their would be a claim!! In fact, I would not have thought that £16 would even cover their admin costs in issuing the policy!

Kind Regards, John

 

[lasors]

Indemnity will only be bought if their solicitor tells ours they want one.

We're aware we might be in for some haggling over price, if they want to start that. I'm quietly confident there's nothing majorly wrong anywhere.

Watch this space, I will report back.

 

[JohnW2]

Indemnity will only be bought if their solicitor tells ours they want one.

Fair enough.

We're aware we might be in for some haggling over price, if they want to start that. I'm quietly confident there's nothing majorly wrong anywhere.

That may well be right. However, as I implied, it's far from impossible that an inspection would identify a good few things which were "minorly wrong" and/or "recommendations for improvements" - and buyers might well try to haggle on the basis of that.

In my experience of 'seeing' a fairly large number of property transactions taking place, there sometimes comes a point when (unless desperate to sell) one has to tell a potential buyer (or their solicitor) to either stop quibbling or to withdraw from the purchase - at which point most of the 'quibblers' will back down. Indeed, with particularly difficult buyers, my family member who does all this buying and selling of property sometimes actually does the 'withdrawing', telling the buyer that they are free to make another 'quibble-free' offer for consideration if they so wish. Don't forget that, in England and Wales, "sold subject to Contract" means absolutely nothing - if either party decides, for whatever reason (or 'no reason'), not to sign the Contract, there is no sale!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it proved to be faulty and totally unsafe, the indemnity will NOT cover any of the cost of repairs, rectification or claims for damage, personal injury or anything else.

It's purely to cover legal costs in the event the local authority takes action due to the work not complying with Building Regulations - something which will not happen, as the work was completed 5 years ago.

Bernard will tell you you are wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

Bernard will tell you you are wrong.

He might - but, as I recently wrote, it would make absolutely no sense for a insurer to offer an 'affordable' policy (let alone a £16 one!!!) that would cover the cost of any remedial/rectifying work that might be required on an electrical installation without having a clue as to what they might be letting themselves in for!

It would be like handing £16 to an insurer who would then pay for all the necessary 'remedial work' on one's 5 or 10 year old car!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree.

But bernard does not.

 

[bernardgreen]

As I said. Read the terms of the indemnity....... I agree the maximum payout from a £16 indemnity will be limited in amount and may only cover legal costs to obtain re-imbursement of the osts of the work that is found to be necessary in connection with the matter for which the indemnity was issued.

 

[JohnW2]

As I said. Read the terms of the indemnity....... I agree the maximum payout from a £16 indemnity will be limited in amount and may only cover legal costs to obtain re-imbursement of the osts of the work that is found to be necessary in connection with the matter for which the indemnity was issued.

Quite so - and, I would suggest, the same for a £160 policy or even a £500 one.

You also seem to be implying that there might be scope for litigation against someone to recover the cost of remedial work to the electrical installation that might be required. However, if the house (including electrical installation) is sold "as is", without any lying or misrepresentation of the facts, then I'm not at all sure that it would be possible to recover those costs from anyone. Don't forget that even if a full set of documents/approvals were available for the historical work (which presumably would satisfy the buyer) that would not preclude the possibility that a lot needed to be spent on the installation now (e.g. the rodents might have been extensively at work in recent years!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

I was talking in general terms about indemnities. They can be issued for many varied reasons.

Some of the figures are amazing. One property was built on the site of an old vehicle workshop and filling station. The first purchaser ( off plan ) did not know that no "contamination survey" had been carried out. When she sold it the purchaser's solicitor noticed there was no paper trail about possible contamination. For less than £ 200 single premium the new owner has up to £ 250,000 cover for remedial work should contamination of the ground ever be a problem. The under writers obviously accept that there is ;es than a one in 1250 chance of contamination being a problem. That based on the fact that the property is almost 20 years old and one of 8 that were built on the site and none have ever reported any contamination problems.

You can take out an indemnity to cover anything. Even to cover the costs incurred if a certificate you trusted turns out to be bogus.

 

[JohnW2]

Some of the figures are amazing. ... For less than £ 200 single premium the new owner has up to £ 250,000 cover for remedial work should contamination of the ground ever be a problem. The under writers obviously accept that there is ;es than a one in 1250 chance of contamination being a problem. That based on the fact that the property is almost 20 years old and one of 8 that were built on the site and none have ever reported any contamination problems.

Exactly. An insurer will base the premium on the amount insured and an actuarial assessment of the probability of the risk. In a case such as we are discussing, there is no way that (without an EICR) an insurer can assess the extent and probability of the risk. If an EICR is done, then an indemnity becomes moot, since the probabilistic element has then gone from the melting pot - and an insurer obviously wouldn't then offer a policy for a premium lower than the estimated cost of the required work identified by the EICR.

You can take out an indemnity to cover anything. Even to cover the costs incurred if a certificate you trusted turns out to be bogus.

Sure, and you don't even have to get something could an 'indemnity' from an insurance company. William Hill or suchlike will give you odds on any such risk, provided that they have some way of assessing the magnitude of the risk they are taking on. If there were insufficient information to enable them to make a reasonable assessment of the risk, they would either decline to take the bet or would only offer very poor odds (c.c. asking for a very high premium for an indemnity).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was talking in general terms about indemnities.

You might be.

Everyone else is talking about the one which the OP is being pushed into paying for to insure the buyer against the costs of the local authority taking enforcement action against him because somebody other than him did not notify electrical work done 5 years ago.