Difficult neighbour threatening sale. Help!

[HeyPesto55]

Need some advice please. We have a difficult downstairs neighbour who has spent 2 months questioning why they need to provide a piece of easily obtainable information to finalise our sale. I am at my wits end now because this is the last piece of information needed.

It is confirmation of their buildings insurance policy. A 2 min phone call.

I have tried being really nice, getting solicitors to call to explain why it is needed, pleading, begging, getting annoyed... all to no avail. I just don't know what else to do.

Would it be really bad to get the freeholder involved? Maybe suggest we are worried they don't have insurance?

I believe they have it, but they don't want to provide evidence. I know who the provider is. I think they are just being deliberately difficult (not really sure why other than to make a point).

Can I set up a policy in someone else's name? That might be a solution but I'd have to pretend it was their policy so feels like slightly dodgy territory...

Hesterton, thanks for the reply.

It's not slightly dodgy, its fraud.

I don't think you can insure the same thing twice, IYSWIM.

I've never heard of a neighbour having to provide insurance details, is that because it is a flat or it is something your buyers have asked for? They may have insurance now but what if they let it lapse tomorrow?

If it was your buyers request then tbh I'd be reluctant to hand over the details as well!

Does it have to be in their name? Can you buy a policy in your name - would that be good enough?

It is the flat underneath mine. There are 2 flats in the block.

When I bought it, we indemnified. The buyer's solicitors are not happy with that resolution. Apparently, there has been s shift in view on indemnities. I am no expert so can only trust the advice I've been given.

is your neighbour the freeholder? What does your solicitor say now?
Not sure why it might be a deal breaker in a sale but hope you get it sorted

EssentialHummus, I doubt it would as logically I would cancel it as soon as I could?

Do they have to have buildings insurance if they don't own the freehold?

We had to indemnify a property some years ago and it was all fine with all parties. Not sure what has changed since. The 'risk' was all on the vendors (our) side if a problem occurred further down the line and was common practice.

Can they even have a buildings insurance policy in a flat? They don't own the building, unless they are the leaseholder, and can't insure it.

Even if they did, which I doubt, they have no obligation to give you any of the details of their insurance.

It is often a requirement of a mortgage that you have buildings insurance. Otherwise I still don't see why they have to provide it, unfortunately. So the buyer of your flat would not be happy with you providing an indemnity for it?

Thanks sunshinesupermum, my solicitor says we need it as the solicitor won't recommend proceeding without it. I understand it might be an unusual stance but I fail to see the big issue really when it's a 2 min phone call.

It's so frustrating. She's a leaseholder like us. Would you contact the freeholder to apply pressure? Is that a really bad idea??

No, the indemnity is not satisfactory apparently. It's an unusual set up where the lease specifies we insure ourselves, rather than the freeholder.

The positive is we only pay a very nominal ground rent.

Who exactly is the freeholder? if there are only two flats it is usually on a share of freehold basis or the 'owner' of the house retains the freehold and is responsible for the building insurance. And yes it could well be your purchaser's mortgage provider who is insisting on seeing the buildings insurance.

Why do they have to provide it? Is this their request or a legal requirement?

You can't insure against something you don't have a vested interest in. Also, the neighbours are under no obligation to provide the details. If tact and diplomacy isnt working you're a bit stuffed!

Sorry HeyPesto x posted! If your neighbour is also a leaseholder like yourself I would definitely contact your freeholder.

But you can't have separate insurance policies for the 2 flats if you are leaseholders.

It's an unusual set up where the lease specifies we insure ourselves, rather than the freeholder.

I have never heard of a two dwelling property having separate insurances other than for contents obv.

Thanks everyone. I'm not sure I understand why the indemnity is not satisfactory either. The flat is purpose built, there are 2 flats on our side and 2 on the other side.

The solicitors are requesting (think it's them, not the mortgage co) evidence of insurance for only one of those flats, directly beneath us.

I think our neighbour is making the same point as you, she doesn't understand why and doesn't see why she should. In the real world though, she's just being a difficult tw*t isn't she?? She has insurance and it would take 2 mins to sort...

GrandOlejukeofyork, why is that?

This is the current set up. There are 4 flats in total.

You said there are 2 flats in the block. If you have 2 separate buildings insurance policies, who insures the roof? The floor between the flats? The hallways, the stairs, the shared walls?

Think about it practically, you have insurance, they let theirs lapse. the block burns down. Your insurer can't pay to rebuild just your flat, can they? What is the insurable property coverage?

There are 4 flats in the block, sorry for not being clear.

There are 2 flats each side. It looks like semi detached house, IYSWIM. We are both jointly responsible for the roof, this is stipulated in the lease.

I don't think it's that unknown for the freeholder to specify the leaseholders insure. Unusual, but it does happen. Well google and my solicitor say so anyway