Restrictive Covenants

Author
Discussion

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
I bought my house 2 years ago. It is 1955 build. There were a number of covenants, one of which was no shed, outhouse, hut, and one or two other things in the curtilage. This was interpreted by my lawyer as no conservatory yet a quick look at Google satellite showed a number of houses in the development sporting them. So I ignored the advice to take out the rather expensive, I thought, insurance against a challenge.

Another resident had contacted the covenant holder, after it going through multiple owners, and they wanted to charge him a percentage of the cost of having a loft conversion, again specifically excluded in the deeds. I forget the figure but it was something like 5% of a valuation, or similar wording. He'd got a brief on it and because three or four other houses had loft conversions allowed under previous ownership of the covenant, the advice was to tell the company to stick it.

Which he did. There were threats of a legal challenge but it did not materialise.

One covenant was no Gypsies. I pointed out at the time that this was racial and probably excluded under law. My brief told be to accept it as a challenge would be costly. One wonders what their advice would have been if it had said no blacks or Irish.

When seeking legal advice on another matter I also asked for them to look into the restrictions, one of which was a specified type of front boundary wall. The necessary brick type was hard to come by. When I said my house was 1955 build the brief said that he could look into it if I wanted advice, which would cost. However, before agreeing to it, I should ask myself what is the worst that could happen.

As only one house had gone brick at the front, so to speak, I just shortened my wall to give easier access.


Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
Sorry not got the time to do a full run through but suffice to say that in the last 3 weeks I've spent 5 hours refreshing my knowledge on these covenants. (Don't you love CPD!)

Anyway they are all very boggo normal covenants that you see on 99% of development houses.

It is highly likely that a number of them were imposed in the planning and almost certainly the Open frontage will have been down to this, or if on a corner it will be visibility splay requirements.

Your solicitor will be able to discuss your intentions with you can what the likely implications will be. Private individuals do sometimes try to enforce these, but as said the cost is not insignificant.

Building works are capable to causing a nuisance but so long as the neighbours are on side you will not get a peep out of most unless you are the sort who thinks 7am on a Sunday or 10pm on Tuesday is the right time to get that kangoo, hammer or grinder out.

There is also the question of proportionality. I would say that the no working from home covenant is breached by vast numbers of people. A mate ran his Recruitment Consultants, complete with employees, from his home for near on 10 years. There are thousands of E-bay businesses run from private homes that will be subject to this. Etc.

I am not offering you legal advice here, just a few observations to take your research on from. Speak to the Solicitor you have retained and you will get better, more you specific, advice than those that don't know can tell you and than those that do know but have PI to protect are willing to go into on a forum for free.

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
Ging, good point about the vitiation of IP but how much you want to bet that it fails with the dev through lack of annexation?

Cyberprog

Original Poster:

2,186 posts

182 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
Sorry not got the time to do a full run through but suffice to say that in the last 3 weeks I've spent 5 hours refreshing my knowledge on these covenants. (Don't you love CPD!)

Anyway they are all very boggo normal covenants that you see on 99% of development houses.

It is highly likely that a number of them were imposed in the planning and almost certainly the Open frontage will have been down to this, or if on a corner it will be visibility splay requirements.

Your solicitor will be able to discuss your intentions with you can what the likely implications will be. Private individuals do sometimes try to enforce these, but as said the cost is not insignificant.

Building works are capable to causing a nuisance but so long as the neighbours are on side you will not get a peep out of most unless you are the sort who thinks 7am on a Sunday or 10pm on Tuesday is the right time to get that kangoo, hammer or grinder out.

There is also the question of proportionality. I would say that the no working from home covenant is breached by vast numbers of people. A mate ran his Recruitment Consultants, complete with employees, from his home for near on 10 years. There are thousands of E-bay businesses run from private homes that will be subject to this. Etc.

I am not offering you legal advice here, just a few observations to take your research on from. Speak to the Solicitor you have retained and you will get better, more you specific, advice than those that don't know can tell you and than those that do know but have PI to protect are willing to go into on a forum for free.
Yep, thanks for the advice smile It's what I had already figured, and expected, and researched, they're really common, in theory nothing to worry about, and in practice rarely enforced. Just worries me, that's all smile We shall see what the developer comes back with cost wise, and of course, what my Solicitor's advise is.

TVR1

5,460 posts

224 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
To use a motoring analogy, why are you buying a 2 seat convertible and trying to work out how it will fit 5 people and a dog and has a large boot?

ging84

8,829 posts

145 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
TVR1 said:
To use a motoring analogy, why are you buying a 2 seat convertible and trying to work out how it will fit 5 people and a dog and has a large boot?
Things would be very different if it was not immediately clear which cars were 2 seat convertibles and which were not because many still had the 3 rear seats a massive boot, but a sticker from the manufacturer saying do not use, and it turned out that in a lot of areas the vast majority of cars which weren't ropey sheds or well out of many people's budgets turned out to be these type of 2 seat convertibles.

Cyberprog

Original Poster:

2,186 posts

182 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
Yep, we've only just found this out about 2-3 weeks into the process.