Hi all. I'm having a problem getting correctly formated "certificate of currency" (hereafter COC) from an insurance company in relation to a property that will be used as security against a mortgage (for another, bigger property) that is due to be drawn down next month.
I'm perplexed why this is an issue, as this type of transaction must happen many times a day in NZ.
The apparent problem only emerged last week just before the insurance company, bank, and conveyancing solicitor all shut up shop for the Xmas break, leaving me hanging about whether this problem can be easily resolved, and whether it will affect settlement or not. But rather than sit around worrying about it, I'd like to use the holiday period to understand what might be going wrong, and maybe even be in a position to offer my own advice to the relevant parties and encourage a speedy resolution in the new year. There doesn't seem to be a great wealth of information on COC's online, so I'd appreciate hearing about any advice or experience that anyone else may have!
So in summary, the bank lending me money on the property (a major lender) need a COC from my insurance company (a major insurer) in relation to my security property. The security property is mortgage free, and it is a flat in a very small block. Insurance on the flat is paid at the body corporate level. The problem is that the bank tells my conveyancing solicitor that the COC must have listed:
(1) The bank as an interested party (i.e. they are holding the flat as security);
(2) Me as an interested party (i.e. as an owner of one of the flats); and
(3) the exact address of the flat.
The insurance company, however, say that they cannot produce a COC in this format. They have already listed the bank as an interested party (that part is fine), but their "system" is not capable of producing a COC with me as an interested party (although they say they will tell the bank verbally that I have an ownership interest, should the bank call). Also they can't list the exact residence address on the COC (i.e. the flat number), as the insurance policy is for address of the the whole block.
Look, as I say, I'm really perplexed by what might be going wrong here. I'd appreciate any insights!
I'm perplexed why this is an issue, as this type of transaction must happen many times a day in NZ.
The apparent problem only emerged last week just before the insurance company, bank, and conveyancing solicitor all shut up shop for the Xmas break, leaving me hanging about whether this problem can be easily resolved, and whether it will affect settlement or not. But rather than sit around worrying about it, I'd like to use the holiday period to understand what might be going wrong, and maybe even be in a position to offer my own advice to the relevant parties and encourage a speedy resolution in the new year. There doesn't seem to be a great wealth of information on COC's online, so I'd appreciate hearing about any advice or experience that anyone else may have!
So in summary, the bank lending me money on the property (a major lender) need a COC from my insurance company (a major insurer) in relation to my security property. The security property is mortgage free, and it is a flat in a very small block. Insurance on the flat is paid at the body corporate level. The problem is that the bank tells my conveyancing solicitor that the COC must have listed:
(1) The bank as an interested party (i.e. they are holding the flat as security);
(2) Me as an interested party (i.e. as an owner of one of the flats); and
(3) the exact address of the flat.
The insurance company, however, say that they cannot produce a COC in this format. They have already listed the bank as an interested party (that part is fine), but their "system" is not capable of producing a COC with me as an interested party (although they say they will tell the bank verbally that I have an ownership interest, should the bank call). Also they can't list the exact residence address on the COC (i.e. the flat number), as the insurance policy is for address of the the whole block.
Look, as I say, I'm really perplexed by what might be going wrong here. I'd appreciate any insights!