A couple of strange covenants on house we are buying.

[m3jappa]

We are currently proceeding with the purchase of a house local to us. The whole area does have an array of covenants, i know that.

Upon seeing the deeds there is a note which i have attached below with regard to the blue strip of land and it being related to something to do with the ministry of fisheries.

Upon looking i have found this department was closed in 2002 and merged into defra. I can only assume it has something to do with the nearby rive, perhaps it was an old track?
Our solicitor also doesn't know what it is (although we are yet to properly speak with her, this is just a message I've had passed on.) They are saying really there should be an indemnity. They have asked the vendor to supply one or to pay the £330 for one but the vendor has just flat blank refused! Who should pay for one? if one is even needed. The house has been there since 1986 and changed hands at least 3 times as far as i can tell.

Im fairly confident it means nothing but i just want to be sure.

Second issue, probably much easier is the deeds say no changes are to be made to the property, we want to clad the top sides and render the front and also do an extension. The solicitor has said we should contact bovis for permission and its very unlikely it would be a problem. or we could just do it and take an indemnity out (obviously my worry is bovis say no). The house currently has a conservatory, the solicitor says that should have an indemnity, although for us its no issue as we will be removing it.

I am sure i read somewhere that strictly speaking even if you have the relevant planning the covenant maker can enforce them. Although it is highly unlikely. Especially 30 years after they were built.

It appears after speaking to the solicitor we are of a rare few who actually read the deeds properly. Id probably tend to agree as it appears a lot of people do as they please.

Edited by m3jappa on Thursday 12th January 19:57

Edited by m3jappa on Thursday 12th January 20:04

[m3jappa]

Thanks blue. I was hoping you would see this. What do you think the fisheries thing is? Does it matter?

With regard to the other one, do you think it's ok to extend, clad etc? Other local houses have certainly extended. Are Boris likely to be ok about it or do I just do it?

[m3jappa]

Thanks for the information, I'll speak with solicitor but as always ph sets things straight.

Our solicitor and estate agent both think the seller should pay, I'm not sure and can see both sides, im under the impression the seller is pretty tight and pretty short sighted. We aren't the first to try and buy the place, the last buyer got so pissed off he offered 20k less the day before exchange.
We aren't going to do that and just want the house. It's a good price for a good house and we are happy, I may attempt to dig my heals in a bit but won't jeopardise the deal. For 300 quid it's ridiculous, from my PoV it's 600k and from his PoV he's buying a place for a touch under a million so if neither of us can afford it then there's a bigger problem somewhere.

I'm amazed at how tight some people can be but that's why I'll probably never be rich perhaps

[m3jappa]

S11Steve said:

I'm only familiar with leases and building reg indemnity after a steep learning curve on my last house purchase, however I would recommend doing your research on Bovis Homes. I had a very bad experience with them 10 years ago, resulting in receiving a hefty out of court settlement, and I understand that the fundamental problems with their management and sub contractors has not improved much, if any, in the last 10 years.

In what respect? In terms of quality?

As it's a 30 year old house I'm not too worried, as long as it hasn't got subsidence, damp issue type problems and the thing is basically solid I'm not concerned. We will be pulling a lot apart modernising it anyway.