Hopefully an easy one.......(where's the smiley button...) 

I have a leasehold semi on a 999 years lease - we're only 148 years in, so I'm not unduely concerned. The last known landlord died intestate 15 years ago...we've lived in the house 11 years, with no persons ever requesting anything.The mortage papers show that the landlord can charge 7 years back rent at £5 per year...hence my calm attitude.

We're in the process of re-mortgaging and the solictors are requesting Absent Landlord Indemnity Insurance - sort of understand where their coming from but clearly they've not seen the full mortgage document. However the intended charge is £ 140, four times the amount  I'll have to pay IF the landlord (or an aire), ever comes forward - surely this can't be right!

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. 

As a PS/  - when can I buy my own leasehold? 

Hi Molmeister ---- The only reason for this indemnity cover is to cover the buyers of your property against any chance of the back payments being demanded all of a sudden by the deceased landlords successors.

At the moment according to contract the most they could be backcharged for is 7 years at £5 = £35 in total after you move out, this is the maximum amount that you would be liable for, so I cannot see why they would not take a deposit of £35 off you to cover this risk on your behalf without you needing this expensive policy.

Once you've sold it the new owners would be liable for the £5 annual charge anyway, so that should be arranged by them and in fact the policy would not cover them for future ground rent anyway.

This policy could be deemed as mis-sold because it's going to cost £140 when the maximum it could be of benefit is £35 which is absolutely ludicrous. !!!

You could make a written offer to stand this yourself out of your own back pocket, if they use common sense they would accept that. ????

These policies and the need for them has really gone over the top nowadays.

PS -- Smiley button is in,"options" when you write a post or edit one..

Good advice ! I agree it seems maddness but wasn't sure how to 'get round it' , but you've given me some food for thought

 Thanks again

conmankiller

I wrote to solictor along the lines of your response as it made good sense BUT the response was not quite as I expected..namely...

"Unfortunatley I understand what you are saying but the absent landlord insurance doesn't just refer to ground rent. In the case that a landlord was to return and not agree with something that had been done to the property and try to sue you this is a risk for [remotgage compnay] which is why they require this insurance before they will re-mortgage the property. 

Is this correct.....I feel that I may have to pay.....Thanks

Hi ---- Unfortunately if it's going to be a condition of the mortgage being granted, then you do not have any other choice but to pay....... sorry.

This is just another way innocent people are screwed at a time when these institutions know full well large sums of money changes hands, they jump on board for a cut with their greedy snouts, it makes me wonder if these policy companies are financially linked to the lenders. !!! (Brown paper envelopes at Xmas.... nudge, nudge)

The chances of you being sued are almost nil, and indeed might even be covered by legal expenses insurance on your home insurance. ?

But at the end of the day you will probably have to grin & bear it, but it does need changes to the system, these policies are springing up for the most petty unneccessary reasons nowadays.

On a lighter note the bit in your post about the actual landlord returning made me chuckle, what would he look like..... The ghost of Christmas past. ?    : - )

LOL - Yep I think you're right. What am I going to be sued for (really?), the house hasn't changed in 150 years...(s)he can only claim £5 a year so there going to sue me for thousands coz I've got a rabbit or something.....money for old rope...

As the solicitor said "no policy, no mortgage"......barrel over, tucked up .......where's my cheque book.......

Hi MM --- Indeed when they run out of reasons for these indemnities to be in place, the next will be an indemnity... indemnity, just in case an indemnity is not in place.......It's just another money making farcical situation, at the expense of the already stretched consumer. !!

It needs action taking.

without perlonging this thread.....I absolutely agree, there's covering your butt and then there's covering your butt at my expense. To cap it all, you have to be a commercial broker or solictor to take out this insurance so you waste time trying to find someone who can help and end up , giving up and forking out £140 on a totally worthless policy because once again you feel it's easier to capitulate and don't have time to keep swimming up stream.

I'm changing my name from Molmesiter to Tired Old Salmon (TOS) - as in I no longer give a Tired Old Salmon