Restrictive Covenants
Discussion
Hi All,
I'm in the process of buying a property that was built by a developer who's put a number of restrictive covenants on the property. Nothing unusual, but somewhat annoying nonetheless.
1) No caravans/boat trailers. (Might want a caravan in the future)
2) Private motor cars only. (Occasionally bring a van home from work for deliveries)
3) Property only to be used as private dwellinghouse (I'm also self employed and work from home...)
4) Front garden - no hedge/shrub over 2ft (It's about 6ft atm! But we like the privacy given)
5) Front garden - to remain unenclosed (Has a gate/fence all round + hedge! and again, we want to keep that).
6) Not to cause any nuisance (Dennis -v- Davies [2008] held that building work could be a nuisance and blocked a planned extension - and I was planning on altering the garage).
The developer is Bryant Homes Central Limited - now I presume that some of these issues can be dealt with by an indemnity policy, but has anyone ever had any dealing with Bryant Homes to get covenants waived/removed?
Cheers in advance for any help, and I have asked these questions to the Solicitors involved, but being solicitors they move at the speed of slow....!
I'm in the process of buying a property that was built by a developer who's put a number of restrictive covenants on the property. Nothing unusual, but somewhat annoying nonetheless.
1) No caravans/boat trailers. (Might want a caravan in the future)
2) Private motor cars only. (Occasionally bring a van home from work for deliveries)
3) Property only to be used as private dwellinghouse (I'm also self employed and work from home...)
4) Front garden - no hedge/shrub over 2ft (It's about 6ft atm! But we like the privacy given)
5) Front garden - to remain unenclosed (Has a gate/fence all round + hedge! and again, we want to keep that).
6) Not to cause any nuisance (Dennis -v- Davies [2008] held that building work could be a nuisance and blocked a planned extension - and I was planning on altering the garage).
The developer is Bryant Homes Central Limited - now I presume that some of these issues can be dealt with by an indemnity policy, but has anyone ever had any dealing with Bryant Homes to get covenants waived/removed?
Cheers in advance for any help, and I have asked these questions to the Solicitors involved, but being solicitors they move at the speed of slow....!
developers often include a covenant like this.our house also has some.they are included so as to keep the development tidy and controlled whilst they are selling houses. In reality covenants would probably not be enacted. And in my experience are often ignored.
i'd imagine that if it was concerning you you could contact the developer to seek to have them removed. But there would be legal costs associated with this.
I am not a solicitor.
i'd imagine that if it was concerning you you could contact the developer to seek to have them removed. But there would be legal costs associated with this.
I am not a solicitor.
My understanding of these things is that the builder writes these in so as they are building out the development the place is kept tidy so he can get full value for all the rest of the properties.
If the builder has built the development out and moved on he can't show a loss, so any civil action would be unenforceable as there is no loss.
Your neighbours I believe can try and enforce the covenant but again need to be able to show a loss which is theory is possible depending on what you intend to do.
Moving in and taking the proverbial is not going to make you many friends I imagine
If the builder has built the development out and moved on he can't show a loss, so any civil action would be unenforceable as there is no loss.
Your neighbours I believe can try and enforce the covenant but again need to be able to show a loss which is theory is possible depending on what you intend to do.
Moving in and taking the proverbial is not going to make you many friends I imagine
Fizpop said:
developers often include a covenant like this.our house also has some.they are included so as to keep the development tidy and controlled whilst they are selling houses. In reality covenants would probably not be enacted. And in my experience are often ignored.
i'd imagine that if it was concerning you you could contact the developer to seek to have them removed. But there would be legal costs associated with this.
I am not a solicitor.
i'd imagine that if it was concerning you you could contact the developer to seek to have them removed. But there would be legal costs associated with this.
I am not a solicitor.
Fab32 said:
My understanding of these things is that the builder writes these in so as they are building out the development the place is kept tidy so he can get full value for all the rest of the properties.
If the builder has built the development out and moved on he can't show a loss, so any civil action would be unenforceable as there is no loss.
Your neighbours I believe can try and enforce the covenant but again need to be able to show a loss which is theory is possible depending on what you intend to do.
Yep - that was my understanding also, it's a shame they didn't put a time limit on those conditions - they did on other building work within 3 years of the property being sold initially, and 21 years for access to service stuff (which expires next year)If the builder has built the development out and moved on he can't show a loss, so any civil action would be unenforceable as there is no loss.
Your neighbours I believe can try and enforce the covenant but again need to be able to show a loss which is theory is possible depending on what you intend to do.
Fab32 said:
Moving in and taking the proverbial is not going to make you many friends I imagine
Of course, but that doesn't mean that someone might take against me having building work done, and be sufficiently clued up to cause me some hassle!My last place was a new estate, lots of covenants as above.
They turned a blind eye to me occasionally bringing back the caravan for a few hours to load / unload.
However, after i was forced to leave it on the drive for 10 days, about a week after i moved it i received a snooty letter from their solicitors threatening legal action etc!
Other covenants included not parking vans on the drive, which didn't stop half the people on the estate!
After a few years, once half the estate had those free solar panels fitted to their houses, the developers decided that they too were a breach of covenant. That breach however could be resolved by paying the developers £600 +vat - nice little earner!
They turned a blind eye to me occasionally bringing back the caravan for a few hours to load / unload.
However, after i was forced to leave it on the drive for 10 days, about a week after i moved it i received a snooty letter from their solicitors threatening legal action etc!
Other covenants included not parking vans on the drive, which didn't stop half the people on the estate!
After a few years, once half the estate had those free solar panels fitted to their houses, the developers decided that they too were a breach of covenant. That breach however could be resolved by paying the developers £600 +vat - nice little earner!
In my (admittedly limited) experience, covenants can be overcome. My first home was a one bed bungalow, which had a covenant on it prohibiting further development. I applied to convert the garage and extend the property. This was turned down by the council. I appealed and it was found in my favour by the Planning Inspectorate (it think that was their title).
You do seem to have a lot of restrictions on the property, many of them in my opinion, unreasonable. Perhaps it might be a good idea to speak to a solicitor specialising in planning/property and see what they say. I can't see how it is reasonable for a developer to dictate what you can put on your own driveway.
You do seem to have a lot of restrictions on the property, many of them in my opinion, unreasonable. Perhaps it might be a good idea to speak to a solicitor specialising in planning/property and see what they say. I can't see how it is reasonable for a developer to dictate what you can put on your own driveway.
Covenants are very complex so it's hard to really say anything just on a few lines from them but in general the covenants are for the benefit of land and land holders, so generally they are there for your neighbours any maybe a management agent. Although they are signed between the buyer and the developers, that is because that i who the transaction is between. The covenants are only there for the developer while they still hold part of the development. If Bryant homes were still in business and still selling properties on the same site, they still probably could not lift the covenants as they benefit properties on land they no longer own. The only ones they could lift would be ones they are named in or specifically related to them, eg one saying you cannot alter the property without permission from the developer.
Your neighbours could enforce a covenant, they would not have to show a loss, just that their was land that benefited from a covenant and you are breaching it in a way that effects their land or their use/enjoyment of it.
This is rare unless it's something which causes them a serious issue, as it can be an expensive and risky to take someone to court over a breach of covenant.
Your best bet would be to get indemnity insurance for the existing breaches if it's that important to you to keep things like it, the fact that indemnity insurance costs f
k all and lasts for ever and day should give you a clue to the likeliness of there ever actually being any enforcement. The problem is developers just stick in what ever they want, because they know they don't get enforced once they leave, so they put in a big list of restrictions, which gives them sweeping powers to stops it becoming a caravan site while they're still trying to sell houses then hope the residents will be able to apply a common sense approach afterwards.
The case you mentioned is quite an interesting read and highlights just how complicated these issues can be.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1081....
They did not actually come to the conclusion that building an extension could cause a nuisance, they concluded that the construction of an extension which when completed would be an annoyance would breach a covenant concerned with the prevention of activities that may be or become a 'nuisance or annoyance'. If it had said nuisance alone they might have had to come to a different conclusion on this point.
Is this a new build?? how old is the house, restrictions on new build properties usually expire after several years, my new build had that no walls at the front of the garden and front garden paving were not allowed for 4 years, so 4 years and one day paving went in and a wall with gate etc.
Caused some agro when I found out the neighbor opposite complained to the builder and the council about it despite having the opportunity to object when planning permission was applied for, and this despite the fact he came across to me and said he had no objection to the wall being built.
Anyway due to his objections during the construction, I was able to install a letter box on the wall which pleased the wife greatly.
Caused some agro when I found out the neighbor opposite complained to the builder and the council about it despite having the opportunity to object when planning permission was applied for, and this despite the fact he came across to me and said he had no objection to the wall being built.
Anyway due to his objections during the construction, I was able to install a letter box on the wall which pleased the wife greatly.
Macadoodle said:
In my (admittedly limited) experience, covenants can be overcome. My first home was a one bed bungalow, which had a covenant on it prohibiting further development. I applied to convert the garage and extend the property. This was turned down by the council. I appealed and it was found in my favour by the Planning Inspectorate (it think that was their title).
You do seem to have a lot of restrictions on the property, many of them in my opinion, unreasonable. Perhaps it might be a good idea to speak to a solicitor specialising in planning/property and see what they say. I can't see how it is reasonable for a developer to dictate what you can put on your own driveway.
Covenants are not a planning issue, you can get planning permission for something but it can still be in breach of the covenant on your deeds (AFAIK IANAL etc).You do seem to have a lot of restrictions on the property, many of them in my opinion, unreasonable. Perhaps it might be a good idea to speak to a solicitor specialising in planning/property and see what they say. I can't see how it is reasonable for a developer to dictate what you can put on your own driveway.
SLCZ3 said:
Is this a new build?? how old is the house, restrictions on new build properties usually expire after several years, my new build had that no walls at the front of the garden and front garden paving were not allowed for 4 years, so 4 years and one day paving went in and a wall with gate etc.
Caused some agro when I found out the neighbor opposite complained to the builder and the council about it despite having the opportunity to object when planning permission was applied for, and this despite the fact he came across to me and said he had no objection to the wall being built.
Anyway due to his objections during the construction, I was able to install a letter box on the wall which pleased the wife greatly.
Was built in 1995, we'll be the second owners - the current owners bought it from the developer.Caused some agro when I found out the neighbor opposite complained to the builder and the council about it despite having the opportunity to object when planning permission was applied for, and this despite the fact he came across to me and said he had no objection to the wall being built.
Anyway due to his objections during the construction, I was able to install a letter box on the wall which pleased the wife greatly.
SteBrown91 said:
Our road had covenants when built to say the trees planted in each front garden must not be removed. However most have mysteriously disappeared (including ours) and the covenant states nothing about replacing the trees that 'die'.
Yep, I've got that one too!In my experience, once the developer has sold all the houses and ceased to be interested in the site, there's usually not much practical risk in breaches of covenant by homeowners. They're primarily there so the developer can keep the estate looking nice and tidy while they're trying to flog the remainder of the houses.
Other residents could try to enforce them but usually baulk at doing so when they're told how much it's likely to cost them to take it to court.....
So, you MAY be unlucky and find yourself with an arsey neighbour with pockets deep enough to bankroll their perceived point of principle, but more likely you'll get some harrumphing and moaning but little in the way of legal action to stop you doing so.
To borrow from Breaders, IAALBNYL so take your own advice
PS Not all solicitors work at "the speed of slow". If you're paying them a fixed fee to deal with conveyancing, you might start to think about why they're not really incentivised to bust a gut to deal with something that steps outside the norm. I'm not saying it's right, or good service, but it's the reality of paying peanuts.
Other residents could try to enforce them but usually baulk at doing so when they're told how much it's likely to cost them to take it to court.....
So, you MAY be unlucky and find yourself with an arsey neighbour with pockets deep enough to bankroll their perceived point of principle, but more likely you'll get some harrumphing and moaning but little in the way of legal action to stop you doing so.
To borrow from Breaders, IAALBNYL so take your own advice
PS Not all solicitors work at "the speed of slow". If you're paying them a fixed fee to deal with conveyancing, you might start to think about why they're not really incentivised to bust a gut to deal with something that steps outside the norm. I'm not saying it's right, or good service, but it's the reality of paying peanuts.
Lurking Lawyer said:
In my experience, once the developer has sold all the houses and ceased to be interested in the site, there's usually not much practical risk in breaches of covenant by homeowners. They're primarily there so the developer can keep the estate looking nice and tidy while they're trying to flog the remainder of the houses.
Other residents could try to enforce them but usually baulk at doing so when they're told how much it's likely to cost them to take it to court.....
So, you MAY be unlucky and find yourself with an arsey neighbour with pockets deep enough to bankroll their perceived point of principle, but more likely you'll get some harrumphing and moaning but little in the way of legal action to stop you doing so.
To borrow from Breaders, IAALBNYL so take your own advice
PS Not all solicitors work at "the speed of slow". If you're paying them a fixed fee to deal with conveyancing, you might start to think about why they're not really incentivised to bust a gut to deal with something that steps outside the norm. I'm not saying it's right, or good service, but it's the reality of paying peanuts.
Yep, I rang Taylor Wimpey this morning (who are who bought Bryant Homes) and they were surprised there wasn't a 5 year "clock" on these restrictions. They seemed rather open to modifying them though. Guess I shall have to see what they say!Other residents could try to enforce them but usually baulk at doing so when they're told how much it's likely to cost them to take it to court.....
So, you MAY be unlucky and find yourself with an arsey neighbour with pockets deep enough to bankroll their perceived point of principle, but more likely you'll get some harrumphing and moaning but little in the way of legal action to stop you doing so.
To borrow from Breaders, IAALBNYL so take your own advice
PS Not all solicitors work at "the speed of slow". If you're paying them a fixed fee to deal with conveyancing, you might start to think about why they're not really incentivised to bust a gut to deal with something that steps outside the norm. I'm not saying it's right, or good service, but it's the reality of paying peanuts.
Cyberprog said:
Yep, I rang Taylor Wimpey this morning (who are who bought Bryant Homes) and they were surprised there wasn't a 5 year "clock" on these restrictions. They seemed rather open to modifying them though. Guess I shall have to see what they say!
You may well have shot yourself in the foot here, note down exactly what was said while it's still fresh and do not contact taylor wimpy again until you have discussed this with your solicitor.If you start negotiation on getting covenants lifted you may well completely rule out being able to get indemnity insurance for breaching them, which could make the sale impossible if your mortgage lender insists on indemnity insurance for the existing breaches
ging84 said:
You may well have shot yourself in the foot here, note down exactly what was said while it's still fresh and do not contact taylor wimpy again until you have discussed this with your solicitor.
If you start negotiation on getting covenants lifted you may well completely rule out being able to get indemnity insurance for breaching them, which could make the sale impossible if your mortgage lender insists on indemnity insurance for the existing breaches
Ah, well, not bought it yet, the vendor would be responsible for an indemnity on the existing breaches prior to the sale.If you start negotiation on getting covenants lifted you may well completely rule out being able to get indemnity insurance for breaching them, which could make the sale impossible if your mortgage lender insists on indemnity insurance for the existing breaches
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff