Hi,

Buying a house and this was flagged up.
Is it a real thing (would churches claim it?) and is insurance neccessary?

Thanks

Highly unlikely church would come after you but the indemnity policies are generally dead cheap so not worth delaying sale / purchase over.

I think the answer is yes in all cases. Unlikely but possible

My insurance was about £50 and covers the lifetime of my ownership so not worth the risk really.

Yes, it’s a real thing. Classic tiny weeny risk of horrendous ruinous outcome. Just buy the insurance.

I’ve had it a couple of times. The issue seems to be that the records are so bad that solicitors can’t definitively rule out the possibility and the church are chancers who if they think there’s a possibility of passing on repair costs will do (and they can be significant!) and your chances of fending them off are slim and expensive. Consequently there’s a nice little earner for someone flogging you a worthless insurance policy (read the exclusions, particularly the one where it says they won’t pay out if you have made any enquiries of the church with regard to chancel liability….). I’d be minded to tell the church to do one if they ever came knocking.

Can’t remember what we did as it was years ago. I guess ask yourself – Has the Church (whatever flavour) ever been known to act dodgy in any way whatsoever?

Churches have come after people for very large sums of money in the past, so I’d make sure you were watertight insured over it.

I seem to recall paying it.

Yep, we paid it, it wasn’t much in the grand scheme of things and seemed the easiest way of doing things.

Couple sell house to pay Church

Get the insurance

Couple sell house to pay Church

never heard of it before so googled & yeah that’s the first article to appear! Also seems to imply though that for properties where this is a very real possibility, insurance may be extremely expensive or even unobtainable? So I’d definitely make sure that wasn’t the case BEFORE buying the house!!

**** parasites.

I’m just going through the same question. I have found suggestions online that if the house has sold since October 2013, then the Church had to lodge their claim at that time, and if they did not then no further claims are possible?

https://www.searchesuk.co.uk/news/is-chancel-repair-liability-still-an-issue/

So, the house we are buying sold in 2015 and I can see nothing on the deeds, which I believe means there is no possibility for liability? If the house hasn’t sold since 2013 then I think the Insurance is worth it – especially as has already been mentioned, the insurance is invalid if you make enquiries as to whether you may be liable!

(Edit) We have been quoted about £5 – £6 for the insurance, so its not expensive!

The policy is really cheap but the solicitor does it all.

I had a friend who recently bought a house and the solicitor was all over the Chancel Liability and in a panic about it.

I wonder if conveyance solicitors have some reason to be ‘overemphasizing’ this liability? Was there a recent court case or an instance of a church billing residents? It was my understanding that this liability was best treated as a kind of fossil or relic?

Edit – It seems that back in 2008, churches had until 2013 to register a property as being liable at which point this liability should be flagged on the deeds/land registry documents. If they didn’t do this then a property could in theory still be liable but it would be more difficult for them to claim.

I’ve had to have it previously. It’s cheap and not worth the risk of not getting it. As a fully fledged non-believer, archaic nonsense like this needs eradicating. Complete bullshit.

It is the classic type of thing insurance companies do. They are effectively taking a bet against something with very long odds, but with a punitive financial penalty if you are that unlucky one in a 100,000.

Your conveyancer will never be able to check for potential chancel issues on every house move they do, the piece of paper may be sat in a solicitor’s clerk’s safe dating from decades ago….

So the industry looks for a way to indemnify individual clients, make an easy profit and hardly ever have to pay out. Where it gets more questionable for me is when it is a third party (lender) insisting you have indemnity. But it doesn’t cost much (such are the odds the insurance firm are betting on), so easiest to suck it up. There are much more stressful things about moving house. Dealing with twunts in general being the main one.

^Much more eloquently put than my semi-rant

For those calling churches parasites for pursuing this, I believe that in some cases where it has been pursued they didn’t really have a choice, as it is an avenue they were forced down (i.e. by financial rules of having to investigate all avenues).

The insurance cost is minimal; pay and forget.

As for…

I’d be minded to tell the church to do one if they ever came knocking

That would lead to litigation; all of the ‘organised’ religions in the UK have deep pockets and have, on occasion, forced the issue leading to a painful outcome for the other party.
csb’s comment is worth noting.

For those calling churches parasites for pursuing this, I believe that in some cases where it has been pursued they didn’t really have a choice, as it is an avenue they were forced down (i.e. by financial rules of having to investigate all avenues).

Perhaps by the same insurance companies who then sell homeowners chancel liability insurance? 😀

Perhaps by the same insurance companies who then sell homeowners chancel liability insurance?

Shhhhhhh. You’ve just revealed the whole operating model of insurance companies.

Wasn’t there a particularly depressing episode with a MTB coach and a guy who ended up a quadriplegic? I recall a lot of ire being directed at the claimant, but I’m pretty sure his life/critical injury insurer wouldn’t pay out unless all other opportunities to apportion blame had been eliminated. Basically forcing him to try to sue.

Insurance is basically a racket. It ranges from ‘reputable’ insurers to dodgy one selling unnecessary policies to vulnerable people, but it is all premised on betting against an outcome. Avoiding that outcome, by whatever means, is the art of the small print.

For those calling churches parasites for pursuing this

That would be me and it’s not only for this issue. Churches of all denominations have preyed on the weak for centuries, how do you think they got so rich?

If Chancel is mentioned on the deeds then pay the insurance.

If there is no Chancel on the deeds, then the Church can no longer dig out dusty old docs stating its due.

The rules changed a few years ago forcing the church to prove your liability or drop it forever.

Interesting bit on Wikipedia…

Chancel Repair Liability has existed for several centuries and the Government has no plans to abolish it or to introduce a scheme for its redemption. The Government has, however, acted to make the existence of the liability much simpler to discover. From October 2013, chancel repair liability will only bind buyers of registered land if it is referred to on the land register. By that time, virtually all freehold land in England and Wales will be registered. The Government believes that this approach strikes a fair balance between the landowners subject to the liability and its owners who are, in England, generally Parochial Church Councils and, in Wales, the Representative Body of the Church in Wales. The Government acknowledges that the existence of a liability for chancel repair will, like any other legal obligation, affect the value of the property in question, but in many cases this effect can be mitigated by relatively inexpensive insurance. It is for the parties involved in a transaction to decide whether or not to take out insurance.[15]

If there is no Chancel on the deeds, then the Church can no longer dig out dusty old docs stating its due.

The rules changed a few years ago forcing the church to prove your liability or drop it forever.

I’m not sure that relief from the liability is quite as absolute as you think.

For those calling churches parasites for pursuing this,

Oh I assumed he was calling the insurance companies parasites..,.