restrictive covenents

[Nervous O'Toole]

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

[Wanderer]

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!

[Tim Mitchell]

In article , Nervous O'Toole writes

Had this with our house, owner had added a garage & conservatory, had 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.

[Nervous O'Toole]

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.

[Tim Mitchell]

In article , Nervous O'Toole writes

That sounds like the same thing as ours. It basically is a control over 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.

[nightjar]

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

[mich]

"nightjar .uk.com>"

institution

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!

[David Hearn]

"nightjar .uk.com>"

institution

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

[Christian McArdle]

I my not use mine as a house of ill-repute, nor sell spiritous or intoxicating liquors.

Christian.

[Tim Mitchell]

In article , Christian McArdle writes

I'm going to have to look up my deeds, there were some bizarre ones. I'm not allowed to build anything from corrugated iron in the garden, for one.

[Peter Taylor]

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

[Tim Mitchell]

In article , Peter Taylor writes

Well in our case, Barratt is certainly no longer on the site - was built

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

[Peter Taylor]

"Tim Mitchell" wrote

Yes - I used the wrong word - the covenant would still be valid. I should perhaps have said unenforceable.

P

[Andrew Mawson]

So Christian, what on earth possessed you to buy it ??????

Andrew

[Christian McArdle]

The fact that the covenent is in favour of someone who died over fifty years ago.

;-)

Christian.

[dg]

The thing to remember with covenenants, is that they can only be enforced by the person who benefits from them. Many properties have covenants, but they relate to a builder or other body long gone, or who would have no interest or possibility in enforcing the covenant.

Also there must be a good relationship between the covenant and the person benefiting form it, and it must relate to the land or use of it. For example, some posts have mentioned paying a fee to the builder (eg Barratt) to remove a covenant or as some sort of retrospective payment for 'breaching' a covenant. Now if Barratt have no intrest in the land (ie all the houss are sold) then the covenant to them could be nulified, and not enforcable.

Covenants run with the land and not the person, so if that persons interests in the land deminish, so does the convenant.

You should first ensure that the covenants are still valid and enforceable, before letting the solicitor take any more money off you.

dg

[David W.E. Roberts]

O.K. - cancel the party then :-)

[John Laird]

This seems to be a common one. Mine is worded more along the lines of "may not run a business", so I quietly work from home and raise two fingers to it. There are a couple of exclusions - usual mafia, doctors and lawyers I think.

[BillR]

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 ....

[BillR]