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

[blueg33]

If Bovis built it, they probably already paid for an indemnity on the fisheries covenant. Sellers solicitor should have details. But £350 isnt much in the scale of things. There are no rules as to who pays, even though the seller has a defective title

I doubt the other one will be insurable as the beneficiary is in no doubt and it will be a recent covenant.

[MentalSarcasm]

IANAL - but a Google of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act appears to suggest that it's the legislation that allows government/councils to buy land under a Compulsory Purchase Order, and that that was used by the Ministry (the deed says Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - nothing necessarily to do with fishing, probably the land itself, this Ministry eventually became DEFRA) to purchase the land back in 1960. They don't have a record of the land deeds pre-1960, so if someone shows up in the doorstep with a piece of paper from 1945 claiming that automobiles can't be parked on the land (for example), then you might have a problem.

At least that's my understanding of it, someone with actual law experience will hopefully be along soon.

[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?

[TooMany2cvs]

m3jappa said:

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.

To cover what? All an indemnity policy does is say "We'll pay for costs if this escalates."

All that covenant says is "The land had some covenants, and you're still bound by them, but nobody really seems to know what they were".

m3jappa said:

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 the vendor won't pay, then you have a nice simple choice. Pay for it yourself, decide it's not really needed, or walk away.

m3jappa said:

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.

If it was the housebuilder, and the house is part of a development, then they won't give a toss once all of the houses are sold. It's basically to keep their development looking like the brochure while they're still trying to flog it.

[blueg33]

The fisheries covenant is a new one to me, but if insured i think you will be fine. Its mainly about de risking for you and a future buyer.

I would speak with Bovis, they will make a charge and will be slow. I cant advise you to ignore it.

[nikaiyo2]

I have always felt that if a buyers solicitor feels an indemnity is required, for anything, to protect the buyer, then the buyer pays. It's no different to any insurance, the insured pays.

[blueg33]

nikaiyo2 said:

I have always felt that if a buyers solicitor feels an indemnity is required, for anything, to protect the buyer, then the buyer pays. It's no different to any insurance, the insured pays.

The counter argument is:

With an uninsured covenant the property is worth less, so if seller wants value generated by a clean title he should pay.

For £350 on a house that is worth hundreds of thousands, who cares about £350?

[Murph7355]

nikaiyo2 said:

I have always felt that if a buyers solicitor feels an indemnity is required, for anything, to protect the buyer, then the buyer pays. It's no different to any insurance, the insured pays.

I'm with blue. I've bought two houses with indemnities needed...seller paid (if they wanted to sell their house. Which they did).

[S11Steve]

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.

[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.

[S11Steve]

Ah, I thought it was a new build Bovis. After this long, that house will have had the issues resolved.

[blueg33]

Regarding the Bovis covenant. Although i don't think it will be insurable speak to insurers before speaking to Bovis, because once you have spoken to Bovis it definitely won't be insurable

[TooMany2cvs]

m3jappa said:

Our solicitor and estate agent both think the seller should pay

At the end of the day, who various people think "should" pay is all very lovely, but here in the real world, the vendor isn't going to. So... back to your three choices.
- Pay yourself
- Decide it's not really needed
- Walk away...

[TA14]

TooMany2cvs said:

m3jappa said:

Our solicitor and estate agent both think the seller should pay

At the end of the day, who various people think "should" pay is all very lovely, but here in the real world, the vendor isn't going to. So... back to your three choices.
- Pay yourself
- Decide it's not really needed
- Walk away...

It may be even more basic than that if, as you posted above, an indemnity would not cover your risks.

[TooMany2cvs]

TA14 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

m3jappa said:

Our solicitor and estate agent both think the seller should pay

At the end of the day, who various people think "should" pay is all very lovely, but here in the real world, the vendor isn't going to. So... back to your three choices.
- Pay yourself
- Decide it's not really needed
- Walk away...

It may be even more basic than that if, as you posted above, an indemnity would not cover your risks.

Which would come under "decide it's not really needed", wouldn't it?

[TA14]

TooMany2cvs said:

TA14 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

m3jappa said:

Our solicitor and estate agent both think the seller should pay

At the end of the day, who various people think "should" pay is all very lovely, but here in the real world, the vendor isn't going to. So... back to your three choices.
- Pay yourself
- Decide it's not really needed
- Walk away...

It may be even more basic than that if, as you posted above, an indemnity would not cover your risks.

Which would come under "decide it's not really needed", wouldn't it?

it would come under that or 'walk away'. I was pointing out that it looks like there may only be the latter two options and not three.

[Grumpy old git]

TooMany2cvs said:

Which would come under "decide it's not really needed", wouldn't it?

Assuming the op needs a mortgage, if the seller won't pay, either he pays or the op's solicitor must comply with their obligation to the lender and report the situation to them. The result of which will be the op takes out the polices or doesn't get the mortgage.

[peekay74]

We are going through a similar process on a property purchase which has numerous covenants on it dating back to 1912 and various subsequent conveyances that alter/remove historic covenants but the paperwork is not complete so difficult/impossible to ascertain what is applicable. There is even evidence that the original land owner forged documents which made it on to land registry! Without spending mega bucks and time taking it to court/land tribunal the only real option is to indemnify and my view is, and has been accepted that it is the vendors responsibility. What has been apparent is that the indemnity will not be given if there is any discussion with the Covenant beneficiaries. I do find it crazy that these old covenants, which are totally outdated are still enforceable. In our example I am a beneficiary of a covenant which says I need to give permission to any changes to my neighbours property - he has made loads of alterations over the years without permission. So theoretically I can move in and take him to court, even though I didn't even live there when the alterations were made! Similarly the other neighbour could stop me making changes even though he is currently rebuilding, again without permission!!! (Not needed from me though). It can be a minefield and ultimately something you need to take a view on...you can't stop the vendor being a dick over £350 I would be minded to just pay it and get on with your life, assuming it is the property you really want.