No benefit in paying

I wholeheartedly agree with the letter from Roger Bower regarding good leasehold title (see [2000] Gazette, 6 July, 16).

The same situation prevails in this area, and in nearly 20 years of practice I am not aware of any problems ever having arisen.The new requirement to take out indemnity insurance in cases of good leasehold title means that clients are being asked to pay for something that confers no practical benefit whatsoever.

However, the worst aspect of the problem is that clients quite naturally ask why an indemnity policy wasn't taken out when they bought the property, often only two or three years ago.

The explanation that it wasn't at that time considered necessary frankly sounds unconvincing, and the client could be forgiven for thinking that I was trying to excuse my own shortcomings.The present situation is an absolute gift for the indemnity insurers, and one can't help the cynical thought that many members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders have financial links with the insurers who issue these policies.This would seem an ideal opportunity for the Law Society to demonstrate that it wishes to help the profession as a whole.

Surely the Society could arrange some form of master policy to cover all 'routine' good leasehold titles, so that for a hopefully modest annual subscription we could all be covered.

Michael Loveridge, michael.loveridge@totalise.co.uk