Well for one they could petition to get it removed. And it is most certainly their fault if they then exercise their right to use the clause.
Chancel Liability... wtf?
- Thread starter Haggisman
- Start date
Well for one they could petition to get it removed. And it is most certainly their fault if they then exercise their right to use the clause.
It isn't a case of the church resorting to unethical methods of fundraising. Stop being such a bloody drama queen.
Give us money or we'll take you to court and potentially bankrupt you.
Sure sounds unethical to me!
You're being unnecessarily facetious and clearly have no desire to actually have a talk about this. Enjoy.
You appear to be missing the contract issue. The actual position is 'Honour the contract you agreed to when you took ownership of the land, or we will get the court to enforce it'.
deed covenants are common, and can give you a whole variety of responsibilities and potential costs, it is why getting them checked professionally is so important.
PHP:
So explain to me exactly how it is ethical?
It's not a term that appears in any contract you sign, it's not a term that can be negotiated. It's based on a law that was conceived hundreds of years ago, and has zero relevance today.
I fail to see any reason why it still exists?
Except it doesn't appear in the contracts, if it did it wouldn't be so much of an issue, because you would a) know if you were liable or not, and b) potentially be able to negotiate it.
Last edited:
IMO this is the next financial services mis-selling scandal after PPI is sorted. I've never heard of a church forcing residents who live on land once owned by the church to pay for repairs. I have heard of plenty of churches who campaign amongst their own congregations for money for building repairs. I bet the insurers love this - mug off gullible fools, who will blame someone else and not them.
Actually it is more "Honour the contract that was agreed many hundreds of years ago that isn't mentioned on your deeds and you knew nothing about. Oh it possibly has unlimited liability."
Which seems a tad unfair don't you think?
A contract can have unfair terms which can be thrown out at court. I'd argue that this is unfair and should have been thrown out. Obviously the house of Lords disagreed with my view at the time of the appeal. For the sake of £45 for 25 years it would be worth just getting the insurance.
Actually, it's a potential liability (like the majority of these searches come back).
Amazing. Just had some people at the door try to offer me a leaflet with christian propaganda on it. Told her she was having a laugh - I think the look on my face made it clear she should make herself scarce, as she practically ran down the drive! XD
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
We were advised to buy it. Tbh I think more a scam from insurance companies/conveyancers. There's no way the church would ask for money, even if they do have the right to do so. The law wood be changed to stop them if they had the nerve to try.
No, no it wouldn't. In fact, it's already been all the way to the supreme court and clearly established that the process is valid, and the government (both Labour and Coalition at various times) have stated there is no plan to change the law.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Have you read the wiki page linked in the thread?
Was just reading about that:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home...ar-legal-battle-with-the-church/29408.article
Utterly terrible.
To begin with the Chancel repair liability doesn't have anything to do with the Catholic Church just in case you thought it did by the claims of paedophile rings etc...
The issue is the land your house is built on was on church owned land that was used to build rectories owned by various institurions such as monasteries and universities etc to install rectors, the rectory was responsible for funding church repairs as part of their responsibilities and when that land was ceded, sold or it was taken by the state the liability remained. Everyone (particularly if you are buying in a road with name Church, or are near to a medieval church or parish in which one is extent) should check the registry as a matter of course (your solicitor should do this) and all you do, if you decide to proceed and buy, is take out Chancel Liability insurance which is pretty cheap, about £100 for perpetual insurance on an unlimited potential liability, so a one off payment, I think you can get it cheaper for 25 year periods but I only have experience with the perpetual type. It wasn't a big deal, just part of the contractual obligations associated with the property, although I must admit to a bit of outrage when we first found out about it.
You can always ask the vendor to pay for it, it was something we considered but it wasn't that much money so we didn't bother, we would had there been a confirmed liability as insurance for that is somewhat more costly.
Last edited:
It feels _slightly_ unethical. My deed itself states I need to pay a yearly fee to a properitors assosation and disallows me to own any animal bigger than a cat. Personally I don't think you should be able to include such clauses in a land deed but I was aware of them when I signed so I can't really complain too heavily about it I guess.
It still rubs me the wrong way but I have no real desire to get a dog nor do I think the properitors assosation is a terrible idea, it's just being locked into it by deed that feels funny. I particularly feel once I own something it should be mind and any further demands on what I can and cannot do with it should be nullified with exception of that which comes directly from the state like planning laws or taxes* for example.
* Not a fan of taxes on property either to be honest. I've already been taxed on my income. Once I spend that on property, I don't like the idea of being hit up again for more tax.
Last edited: