restrictive covenents

Page 1 of 3  
Some kind person pointed me to this ng who thought someone may have some advice.
Buying a 200k house which has been greatly extended ( ex council I think).
The sellers got planning permission for it, but where unaware that they needed the covenents sorted out also.
So now my solicitor is saying they need to get retrospective permission, or get a full market price insurance on the house.
Anyone any idea of what problems might occur, or the time scale for such things ?
Fed up trying to get an answer out of Robin Bastards & Sons
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:30:20 -0000, Nervous O'Toole wrote:

I think it all depends on who owns the covenants. If it's ex council, then it could take a long time, council legal departments aren't Known for any sense of urgency. You might do better to ask in uk.legal.
Personally, I wouldn't touch it until the prob is sorted!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

full building regs approval & planning permission etc but had done nothing about the restrictive covenants which stated that the estate builder (Barratt) had to approve any external modifications. It only took about a week (and a significant payment) for them to get retrospective permission. However there was no problem with the work, I am not sure what would have happened if Barratt had refused the permission.
It would presumably be the council in your case, dunno if that would be better or worse. Do you know what the restrictive covenants are, and if the work done is in accordance with them? There are usually things like not extending the building line forward of the original line.
--
Tim Mitchell

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Thanks for the replies. I did ask in UK legal, and was pointed here. All I know is that 'there is a provision that no alteration can be made without the consent of those having a benefit from the covenent'
Apparently Robin Bastard & his son say, 'You will know there are restrictive covenent affecting most properties'.in a brief letter. Yeah right, I didn't, and obviously the people who built the extension didn't either.
Robin wants a cheque for another £47 today as well for summat or other. Managed to ring back about that.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the look of the development to make sure you don't make totally inappropriate changes to your house (though presumably the planners would have something to say about that too). Most "housing estate" houses have them, along with others about not keeping pigs in your back garden or building 6ft high walls round your front garden, or keeping caravans in front of the house permanently, sometimes running a business from the house is also not allowed. We wanted to add a new back door, just wrote to Barratt telling them what we wanted to do, they wrote back a few days later saying it was OK with them, so I have filed that away for any future buyer.
Well at least you know about it now, if you want to have any work done once you've bought it.
--
Tim Mitchell

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the case of my late parents' house, turning it into a mental institution or holding fairs in the garden (I'm not sure how, given the size) are among the things prohibited.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the case of my ex ( and now ex as in sold it four years ago) there were all kinds of restrictive cvenants , but I was never told about them until I sold , when I found out I'd broken one!
The one in question was the front garden can be used as nothing other than a front garden and it was to remain an open front ( not walls or fences) In fact almost every single person on the estate, council tenants and owner occupiers had broken that one way or another.
I built a hard standing area with the full knowledge and written permission of the council and the council estate office ( someone told me I needed their pernission), but I was the only person on the estate who ever even got that! What I was not told ( and what I think you may need) was that I needed a legal document which relaxed the condition of the covenant ( an easement I think it was called). That cost me fifty pounds from the council legal dept. My solicitor dealt with it and it took him about a week to get the paper back signed sealed and delivered. Had I had to do it myself I suspect they would have made me wait longer!
By the way, another covenant on the list I had was no TV a aerials. There wasnt a single house without one. The reception was appauling even then. Apparently ( well I know because I remember as a child) the council installed redifusion cable ( remember that anyone?) . Redifussion changed to aerials in the mid 1970's and supplied aerials to all houses. No one bothered to ease that covenant! <g>
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mich wrote:

All the houses on our estate built about 23 years ago have covenants like these. e.g. no aerials, front hedge < 0.5m high, no business use... The developers are no longer interested. The council say it is up to neighbours to take defaulters to court. They will not enforce covenants, only planning/building regs..
So you can ignore them, because if neighbours have the balls to take legal action then this would have to be declared when they want to sell their properties ....
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A flat we looked buying at had a "No religious meetings" (would have been a problem for us to hold a church home-group!) and Auctions ban (lease restriction rather than deeds covenant).
D
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I seem to remember from college days years ago that the benefit of a restrictive covenant is lost if the originator no longer has any interest in the land. (Interest can mean owning adjoining land). So, taking Barratts as an example, once they've sold all the houses and moved off the site completely they no longer have any interest in the land. The covenant then becomes invalid and if they try taking you to court for breaking the covenant they will most probably lose. I think you have to go to the Lands Tribunal to get the covenant officially lifted.
Peter
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

25 years ago. But our solicitor seemed to think the covenants were still valid and he is an experienced property conveyancer.
--
Tim Mitchell

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Mitchell" wrote

Yes - I used the wrong word - the covenant would still be valid. I should perhaps have said unenforceable.
P
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not necessarily. The benefit of the covenant may have passed to the other residents of the development. This doesn't always happen, but it frequently does. Apart from that, you were right.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

are in reality unenforceable and the above explains why. They really are only effective and useful in the first few years of a property's life.
--
Chris Green ( snipped-for-privacy@x-1.net)

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk wrote:

The above is erroneous for the reason already posted.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Mitchell wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Mitchell wrote:

Still valid, but not enforceable, therefore a waste of time.. (But like many laws really :-) e.g. we have one that says no ext aerials. But no aerial = no tv. Therefore covenent unreasonable, so no-one inc LA will challenge non-complilance.. So every house has ext aerial...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not allowed to set up as a Hatters, Bleaching Vitriol Glass or Copper Works, Iron Foundry, Soapboiler, Tallow Chandler melter of fat or pipe maker. Damn.
David
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I bet not being able to be a melter of fat was a bit of a blow!!?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Lobster" wrote | I'm not allowed to set up as a Hatters, Bleaching Vitriol | Glass or Copper Works, Iron Foundry, Soapboiler, Tallow | Chandler melter of fat or pipe maker. Damn.
My drying green shall be used only for the purpose of drying or bleaching clothes, or for ornamental or garden ground. No brewing, distilling, chemical works or manufacture of any kind shall be carried out upon the subjects, nor shall the subjects be used as licensed premises for the sale of wines, spirits or malt liquors.
There is a provision that each dwellinghouse shall be used solely as a dwellinghouse for not more than one family - which prevents the granting of an HMO licence.
Slightly menacingly, if any proprietor shall contravene or fail to implement any of the foregoing burdens then his title to his property and all that follows thereon shall in the option of us become null and void and the proprietor shall forfeit his whole right and title to the dwelling house and common parts...
Owain
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.