Dead body in the garden.

[123everton]

With reference to the discovery of Dinah Macnichol (I offer my sincere condolences to the family) but what I'm wondering is this, the people who live at the house now had nothing to do with this crime. They now have a house that'd be difficult to sell, and probably won't want to live in again. Would that be covered by normal buildings insurance? Uncomfortable reading I know, but if it happened to you, what would you do?

[meredith101]

The original question crossed my mind also. I think few people would want to live there. Can it be demolished though? The West's one was in a good place for it, end of a block, I think? This one would leave a hole. I'm almost certain the council/insurance has no obligation to them.

[Stu Dent]

Insensitive to the victim's family, yes. Insensitive to you or other reading this with no connection to the victims, why?

It is what it is: a skeleton, a body etc. Even to people of religion, the person ceased to be a person upon death.

I agree with you that the house will (at least for a time) hold less value. But the reasons for that are, I'm afraid, down to hocus pocus... There is no rational reason for the present or future owners to feel uncomfortable living in that house other than, as you said, tourists such as Villa's Martin O'Neil (I'm not joking either). That's the only reason why I wouldn't want to live there. Anyway, the tourists will find something else to interest themselves with.

[meredith101]

Reason isn't the only machine behind human experience and action..........which is why most people wouldn't stay there.

[123everton]

That bag of bones was someones daughter, maybe I'm showing my age (36) I still believe in showing respect for the dead. To each their own.
Bewlay has raised a reasonable point, but I'm thinking that the house has a mortgage on it, the owners have an investment in it and bank a stake in it. If you the owner don't want it anymore for that reason, were do you stand legally?
Bewlay would offer full whack for it?

[society]

Stu Dent I agree with you.

When a family member die in the house he/she is living in together with the rest of the family, do the rest of the family relocate? No, they don't. There is nothing wrong with the house. Why would the house deemed unfit for living in?

[Pippa68]

Thre are probably quite a few stories like this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml ?xml=/property/2001/05/12/tpinside12.xml

Only most of us don't know about what went on in our houses.

[Bewlay Bros]

I have never offered full whack for a house in my life!!!!!!!

But if I were in a position to move, liked the house and the price was right it would not bother me at all.

Most people die in a house (many in hospital, OAP homes etc) but still quite a few at home.

All because the person was brutally murdered, it makes no difference.

I have a friend in Somerset who lives in a converted church. Although the building is listed, dramatic changes inside have turned it in to a real des res.

But the garden is still full of tombstones which can not be moved. They are set aside, but it can not detract from the fact if he has a BBQ, we are in a graveyard!!!

[Pippa68]

Likewise Mr P converts old mental institutions into fantastic penthouse apartments.

Most of those appear to have unmarked graves under the floors.

[123everton]

It's the nature of the death that's causing the issue, and often if someone dies in the house the family does relocate (I've seen it happen) and they passed away in hospital quite peacefully.
My objection with Stu Dent is to describe two teenage girls brutally and horrifically murdered as skeletons, we're all skeletons just some of us are still alive.
I find it remarkable that I have to try and remind (presumably adults) about the sanctity of human life and to show at least a little empathy.
If it's your house and your happy to stay there, that's fine, if your happy to buy it at whatever price that's fine also (no quarrel with that opinion), but please don't refer to them as skeletons. The value of a human being is alot more than the sum total of their parts. Or is that too much mumbo jumbo?

[Ice.Maiden]

It's funny you said all that BB - I have friends who also live in a converted church - with a graveyard as part of their garden - and no one gives a thought to the bodies which lie underneath. However, these latest finds are macabre, maybe because the victims were young when murdered. The bones belong to someone's daughters, & I feel very sorry for the parents who have to wait and see who/what else is unearthed. It also struck me, on seeing an aerial view of the house, that an adjoining neighbour appears to have a few similar paving stones, formed into a square. I sincerely hope that........

[Pippa68]

I don't actually see why the nature of the death is so much of an issue.

Lots of people have to stay in hotel or motel rooms that have been occupied by suicide or murder victims ~ they just don't know about it most of the time.

I think that is the real issue ~ knowing about it.

[123everton]

Lol!
I'd find it funny living in a Church (but that is my mumbo jumbo) I'd have no problem living next door to a graveyard, I don't mind buying, living in a house that someone died in (peacefully) best place to go.
But say the day before the find the house was worth �200000 and you bought it �12000, that's an �80000 deficit who pays for that? If the mortgage was �175000 (I don't think so in this instance) who covers the missing �55000? Assuming they refuse to go home.
The question is a little insensitive (I have to admit) because ultimately 2 people (at least) have died, and I'm talking about money. But there are other people involved and it's not their fault.

[society]

I'd live in a graveyard and sleep on a grave (-:

[123everton]

We call them tramps around here :-)

[society]

I was making a point of how it would be wiser to be afraid of the living than of the dead. (-:

[Stu Dent]

The current owners will have to cover any loss of value - it's pretty obvious! But the reason why is because no duty of care is owed by the murderer to any future owner. Apart from that, Peter Tobin is potless (assuming he is the murderer), and criminal injuries compensation doesn't cover loss of value to property - only to those physically injured as the result of crime they have not contributed to. So there you have it. The present owners will just have to get on with it.

Why any loss of value should occur though is effectively because there are far too many over exciteable and easily offended people who believe in mumbo jumbo.;-)

[123everton]

It is indeed sad but true (for them) that the owner will have to cover the deficit, I'd imagine that pursuing the murderer would produce alot more heat than light, if the offender is married and the partner not an accomplice how much of the collective wealth could be attributed in compensation, in reality the murder victims' family would (and should) have first choice on his money. Although I find the placng of a pound amount value on a human life distasteful, I'm in no position to judge on that matter, and I can't think of an instance in British law.
You were certainly suckled on the milk of human kindness Stu Dent, the level of your empathy is truly notable.
But seriously pop down to Margate you might be able to lay your hands on a cheap house, because only a fool would pay full price for it:-)

[jessiedog]

I can't answer your question as originally put but, further to the debate on the subject, I used to live in a house in which a suicide took place but I didn't know until after we had moved when my mother told me. I never liked the house whilst there and was really glad when we moved. Various people have died in the house we now live in, as it is a couple of hundred years old and there are graves in the adjoining churchyard of the past residents (died in situ so to speak). I love this house though and do not want to leave it and hopefully never will need to.

However, I cannot imagine wanting to live in a house as described in the recent news reports and imagine that most people would feel likewise. I certainly think this is a case where some form of restitution should be made to the current occupants.

An insurance company could probably make a healthy profit by redevloping the site as offices anyway.

[123everton]

I can understand fully why someone would'nt want to live in a house were there had been a brutal murder (or body concealed for several years) and I do sometimes wonder if people are able to leave some sort of presence(atmosphere, vibe) behind them.
I'd have no qualms living next door to or overlooking a cemetary either (although I'd be careful not to play loud music or burn rubbish if there was a funeral going on), on a personal level I don't think it would trouble me greatly if someone had commited suicide in my house, but as a previous correspondent pointed out, knowledge is the key. What you don't know can't hurt you, but you did'nt know and still did'nt like it there.
The question (uncomfortable as it is) won't be answered here we can only formulate a consensus.
The owners of the house find themselves in an awful position, for which some will view with indifference or possibly even disgust.
Bricks and mortar insurance (I said contents earlier) should hopefully cover it, but I've never read my policy (at all!) to see if it allows for this matter.
Because bricks and mortar deals primarily with the bricks and the mortar, if the house is made habitable, then the insurance people will almost certainly tell you "to get on with it."
A nightmare for all concerned.

[ladyb]

well all i can say i wouldnt want to live in ahouse where murderd people have been, As for the poor people who lived in that house they should be offered the asking price so they can buy another house.