23/02/2011 12:32:00
InvalidIndemnity
Posts: 2
|
Dear Administrator,
I am in really bad situation, I made a mistake and without reading a document I have signed it, I bought a property in June 2006 which has no planning permission on it, there were number of papers I did sign and one of them states that "I am fully aware of the scenario that this flat has got no planning permission but I am going ahead with it because of the indemnity policy on it, in case council take any action this indemnity policy will cover me", I have signed this document and was so dump and stupid to sign it. Council issued a PCN in feb 2009 following with Enforcement notice in September 2009 which is within 4 years. I did a appeal against the Enforcement and I lost. In the meantime I manage to contact Indemnity policy inusrers and they come back with this policy is invalid as it states for its validity the building work should be taken place prior 12 months period, so I found out in early 2010 that policy is invalid.
I am a lease holder and I cannot do any changes to revert it back to single dwelling. My current solicitor did a claim against my conveyancing solicitor and after a long time there insurers's solicitor come back with really harsh reply and they have rejected everything, they are not accepting any liability for anything because of that signed document, if you want I can provide you with their replies and the document I did sign for backn in June 2006.
Now my current solicitor asked me we have left with no choice apart from taking them in court and do the case against them (Suing them) which is ok but I financially I have got no options as it requires a lot of money to take someone in court and you never know whether you can win it or not then all the costs.
Please can you give some advise on this? I am really looking for some honest opinion.
Kind Regards,
Asim
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|
24/02/2011 14:38:19
www.clicklegalservices.co.uk
Administrator
Posts: 374
|
I think as there are allegations as regards solicitors we would need to know who the solicitors are, who are involved. I would ask that you e mail the details privately on john.killen@barnetts.co.uk. Once I have this I may be able to do something of a reply on the forum.
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|
07/03/2011 10:57:50
www.clicklegalservices.co.uk
Administrator
Posts: 374
|
The waiver form that you have signed does not make good reading.
However, presumably it is the case that whilst they were pointing out the risks, the main point was that you were taking a risk, you were taking a risk with the benefit of what you were told was valid insurance backing. I would have thought that the real issue was the fact that they failed to ensure that there was sufficient or adequate indemnity insurance? It is common for the seller to pay for the insurance, but to assign the benefit of it to the buyer, on completion.
The solicitors should have checked that the insurance was adequate for your needs. If it was not, they should have told you, and either (a) got the seller to take out better insurance (costlier) or (b) told you to take it out (c) told you to "walk away".
I cannot comment on why an indemnity was refused - nor why the sols are defending the claim, although I can say that it is not unusual for searches etc not to be done - and for defective title indemnity insurance cover to be taken - but I am unsure that you would have ever have had cover if you - or the sellers - knew there were breaches beforehand. The actual terms of the policy would have to be looked at carefully.
It would have been interesting to see as well whether your building society have/are pursuing them as well.
I don't really think the matter is suitable for a "No Win No Fee" agreement on what you have said at this stage, although I think you would be well advised to ask your solicitors to take a barrister's opinion on your prospects. That in itself will cost money, but may be money well spent.
I hope this helps.
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|
12/03/2011 10:53:11
InvalidIndemnity
Posts: 2
|
I do apologise for the delayed response. I will provide you some more details, I have a very quick and urgent request from you Sir, I have a refusal of my Indemnity policy insurer back in November 2010 which states:
"As you are aware, the above indemnity policy provides cover in respect of works fully completed at least 12 months prior to the Date of Commencement. The date of Commencement of the policy is 17 July 2006, and therefore only works fully completed prior to 16 July 2005 would be covered."
And the original policy states that:
"Exclusion
This policy does not cover any loss in respect of any works over 12 months old prior to the Date of Commencement otherwise covered hereunder where such loss has resulted directly from additional works carried out upon the Property or from any application by the insured to the local authority for any planning consent ot building regulation consent after the Date of Commencement"
I just need to understand are the above mentioned statements are same as it looks to me the as reason of rejection they mentioned is contradicting with the original Exclusion clause in the Indemnity policy. Also, Date of commencement mentioned are different.
Please if you can point out to me whether they both are same statements, I will be really grateful to you.
Kind Regards,
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|
20/03/2011 10:07:32
www.clicklegalservices.co.uk
Administrator
Posts: 374
|
I think the issue is whether they are entitled to repudiate the claim. They have said in essence anything completed before 12 months pre completion is covered. Your conveyancing solicitors should have either (a) made proper enquiries as to whether everything was completed (and therefore covered) and if it was, only then recommended the policy to you or (b) if it was not completed (and therefore likely not to be covered by the policy) either told you not to proceed - as the policy was worthless or sourced another policy elsewhere which did give you cover (and asked you to then pay the increased premium).
It simply sounds like the letter rejecting is summarising the original policy excclusion.
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|