Getting a restrictive covenant off deeds.
Discussion
Has anybody crossed swords with The Land Registry?
There is acovenant in my house's deeds (Lake District) that was designed to stop outsiders from buying it as a 2nd or holiday home. As 'approved person' had to have lived in the vicinity for two years or have a firm job offer locally. I got around it on the grounds that working in media, I could plug the locality frequently, which I did.
Fourteen years on, I'm selling up. I just had an offer that's gone tits up because of the covenant. I'm letting it do so because on reflection, the offer was too cheeky...luckily, I only accepted verbally.
I call the covenant, 'The Yuppie Charter' but after all this time, things have changed and the property is now way beyond a first time buyer's budget.
I've started the research but if anyone's been there, advice would be very helpful. Thanks.
There is acovenant in my house's deeds (Lake District) that was designed to stop outsiders from buying it as a 2nd or holiday home. As 'approved person' had to have lived in the vicinity for two years or have a firm job offer locally. I got around it on the grounds that working in media, I could plug the locality frequently, which I did.
Fourteen years on, I'm selling up. I just had an offer that's gone tits up because of the covenant. I'm letting it do so because on reflection, the offer was too cheeky...luckily, I only accepted verbally.
I call the covenant, 'The Yuppie Charter' but after all this time, things have changed and the property is now way beyond a first time buyer's budget.
I've started the research but if anyone's been there, advice would be very helpful. Thanks.
It's not the Land Registry: you need to make an application to a special court called the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
You won't be able to do so effectively yourself, so it's time to check how deep your pockets are, then Lawyer Up (noting that just the fee payable to the Lands Chamber themselves is £880).
You won't be able to do so effectively yourself, so it's time to check how deep your pockets are, then Lawyer Up (noting that just the fee payable to the Lands Chamber themselves is £880).
Equus said:
It's not the Land Registry: you need to make an application to a special court called the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
You won't be able to do so effectively yourself, so it's time to check how deep your pockets are, then Lawyer Up (noting that just the fee payable to the Lands Chamber themselves is £880).
Thanks for the warning. I've plunged into the paperwork. It seems so far that if the case is accepted, it would be a simple modification or discharge or discharge of a 14-year-old restricion that's probably obsolete. You won't be able to do so effectively yourself, so it's time to check how deep your pockets are, then Lawyer Up (noting that just the fee payable to the Lands Chamber themselves is £880).
This sounds like a local occupancy clause which are not uncommon on newer properties in the Lake District. They are usually applied and policed by the local authority.
It would be odd if this restriction was only by way of a covenant in the deeds. There would usually be restrictions by way of conditions on the Planning consent or, most likely, an associated Section 106 legal agreement?
https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/housing/affordabl...
It would be odd if this restriction was only by way of a covenant in the deeds. There would usually be restrictions by way of conditions on the Planning consent or, most likely, an associated Section 106 legal agreement?
https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/housing/affordabl...
Pheo said:
Seems to me the convenant is doing it’s job by forcing down the price of your house to something which is affordable to people who have a record of living locally, and preventing someone buying it as a 2nd home?
Interesting, that's the way I read it too. Not sure why it should be removed.Vasco said:
Pheo said:
Seems to me the convenant is doing it’s job by forcing down the price of your house to something which is affordable to people who have a record of living locally, and preventing someone buying it as a 2nd home?
Interesting, that's the way I read it too. Not sure why it should be removed.Trenchard said:
Has anybody crossed swords with The Land Registry?
There is acovenant in my house's deeds (Lake District) that was designed to stop outsiders from buying it as a 2nd or holiday home. As 'approved person' had to have lived in the vicinity for two years or have a firm job offer locally. I got around it on the grounds that working in media, I could plug the locality frequently, which I did.
Fourteen years on, I'm selling up. I just had an offer that's gone tits up because of the covenant. I'm letting it do so because on reflection, the offer was too cheeky...luckily, I only accepted verbally.
I call the covenant, 'The Yuppie Charter' but after all this time, things have changed and the property is now way beyond a first time buyer's budget.
I've started the research but if anyone's been there, advice would be very helpful. Thanks.
Wouldn't it need to be priced accounting for the covenant, presumably you benefited from a reduced price. Similar story for agricultural ties, the property is usually a lot cheaper than one without. I think most people would try and remove it (easy to judge when it isn't your house), morals aside, I'd be surprised if its that easy though.There is acovenant in my house's deeds (Lake District) that was designed to stop outsiders from buying it as a 2nd or holiday home. As 'approved person' had to have lived in the vicinity for two years or have a firm job offer locally. I got around it on the grounds that working in media, I could plug the locality frequently, which I did.
Fourteen years on, I'm selling up. I just had an offer that's gone tits up because of the covenant. I'm letting it do so because on reflection, the offer was too cheeky...luckily, I only accepted verbally.
I call the covenant, 'The Yuppie Charter' but after all this time, things have changed and the property is now way beyond a first time buyer's budget.
I've started the research but if anyone's been there, advice would be very helpful. Thanks.
ozzuk said:
Similar story for agricultural ties, the property is usually a lot cheaper than one without. I think most people would try and remove it (easy to judge when it isn't your house), morals aside, I'd be surprised if its that easy though.
FWIIW, Agricultural Ties are easier to remove than Covenants, as a general rule.OK gents, thank you for your replies.
I've been having a dig and it appears that the district council is the policing outfit.
I bought the property at a reduced price but his was nothing to do with the covenant. The vendor left the house unheated in January '08. The postman's noticing water pouring from the letterbox was a clue as to what had happened. There were seven freeze bursts in the pipes, the ground floor ceilings were all on the floor and kitchen, being MDF, was porridge. I had all this done and since, spent a ton of money on the property.
Someone mentioned affordable housing for locals, which is fine but if I could make the purchase simply by contributing to the locality(which I did), it can't have been all that important. Equally, the 'new builds' part was something I remember mentioning at the time. The property used to be an office for a large firm that owns the mansion next and most of the area. My house was built as a stable/outbuilding for said mansion in 1875.
In addition to this, the property has appreciated a lot during my ownership and is probably well beyond the menas of a first time buyer. There are sound reasons for the restriction to be removed.
I've made an approach to the Upper Chamber and written to the council so I'll see what transpires.
I've been having a dig and it appears that the district council is the policing outfit.
I bought the property at a reduced price but his was nothing to do with the covenant. The vendor left the house unheated in January '08. The postman's noticing water pouring from the letterbox was a clue as to what had happened. There were seven freeze bursts in the pipes, the ground floor ceilings were all on the floor and kitchen, being MDF, was porridge. I had all this done and since, spent a ton of money on the property.
Someone mentioned affordable housing for locals, which is fine but if I could make the purchase simply by contributing to the locality(which I did), it can't have been all that important. Equally, the 'new builds' part was something I remember mentioning at the time. The property used to be an office for a large firm that owns the mansion next and most of the area. My house was built as a stable/outbuilding for said mansion in 1875.
In addition to this, the property has appreciated a lot during my ownership and is probably well beyond the menas of a first time buyer. There are sound reasons for the restriction to be removed.
I've made an approach to the Upper Chamber and written to the council so I'll see what transpires.
Unlikely that the covenant would be removed, certainly don't waste your time and money on the Lands Tribunal.
These covenants in National Parks are designed to work with planning policy and National Park guidelines to control who can develop and who they are developing for. The restrictions are designed to last for generations across multiple sales of the property.
It looks like its doing exactly what it was designed to do, it will effectively hold the price down so that a qualifying person ca live their. You say you bought cheaply, but it wasn't because of the covenant? If that is so you were either badly advised or naively ignored advice.
Can you post the exact wording of the covenant. The wording and beneficiary are critical, although in reality the chances of making a 14 year old covenant go away are virtually nil. Its hard enough with 90 year old ones.
These covenants in National Parks are designed to work with planning policy and National Park guidelines to control who can develop and who they are developing for. The restrictions are designed to last for generations across multiple sales of the property.
It looks like its doing exactly what it was designed to do, it will effectively hold the price down so that a qualifying person ca live their. You say you bought cheaply, but it wasn't because of the covenant? If that is so you were either badly advised or naively ignored advice.
Can you post the exact wording of the covenant. The wording and beneficiary are critical, although in reality the chances of making a 14 year old covenant go away are virtually nil. Its hard enough with 90 year old ones.
blueg33 said:
Unlikely that the covenant would be removed, certainly don't waste your time and money on the Lands Tribunal.
These covenants in National Parks are designed to work with planning policy and National Park guidelines to control who can develop and who they are developing for. The restrictions are designed to last for generations across multiple sales of the property.
It looks like its doing exactly what it was designed to do, it will effectively hold the price down so that a qualifying person ca live their. You say you bought cheaply, but it wasn't because of the covenant? If that is so you were either badly advised or naively ignored advice.
Can you post the exact wording of the covenant. The wording and beneficiary are critical, although in reality the chances of making a 14 year old covenant go away are virtually nil. Its hard enough with 90 year old ones.
OK, Thanks. These covenants in National Parks are designed to work with planning policy and National Park guidelines to control who can develop and who they are developing for. The restrictions are designed to last for generations across multiple sales of the property.
It looks like its doing exactly what it was designed to do, it will effectively hold the price down so that a qualifying person ca live their. You say you bought cheaply, but it wasn't because of the covenant? If that is so you were either badly advised or naively ignored advice.
Can you post the exact wording of the covenant. The wording and beneficiary are critical, although in reality the chances of making a 14 year old covenant go away are virtually nil. Its hard enough with 90 year old ones.
I've quoted you so I can read the questions and provide what you asked for.
It's a bit complicated so please bear with me. The vendor was the local papermaking firm, who got a transfer from the LMR railway in 1986. The paper firm owns the mansion next door and built my house as an outbuilding/stable in 1875. This is referred to in the deeds but oddly, the retained land includes the mansion's plot. here's the relevant plan...
The dominant tenement is outlined in red and the small brown patch to the right is the servient tenement. This is part of the private road to the station at the top of the plan. This is mentioned in the deeds in that the papermakers agreed to pay towards the upkeep of this plot and the conduits beneath it. 'My' part has a clause about allowing inspection and repair, not overloading the conduits and not parking there.
Now for the salient parts...
'The dwelling house on the Property shall be occupied as the sole or main residence by an Approved
Person'
'13: Definitions
"Approved Person"
a person who has been continuously:
(a) resident in the district of South Lakeland for two years; or
(b) has been permanently employed or has a firm permanent job offer in the district of South Lakeland: or
(c) is a widow or the widower of the previously Approved Person resident at the property; or
(d) in the case of a civil partnership is the survivor of the previously Approved Person resident in that dwelling together with any person living in the dwelling as a member of his/her household'
The property is not in the National Park.
As for the beneficiary, the only mentions are of the chap from which the railway folk got the land...in 1860! Then we have railway lot (1860), the papermakers (1986) and my partner and I (2008). This suggest to me that the papermaker is the beneficiary.
The perpetuity part is 80 years from the date of transfer. Lastly, I wasn't badly advised and I ignored nothing. I got the acceptance to purchase with just one call to the council.
HTH
Trenchard said:
OK, Thanks.
I've quoted you so I can read the questions and provide what you asked for.
It's a bit complicated so please bear with me. The vendor was the local papermaking firm, who got a transfer from the LMR railway in 1986. The paper firm owns the mansion next door and built my house as an outbuilding/stable in 1875. This is referred to in the deeds but oddly, the retained land includes the mansion's plot. here's the relevant plan...
The dominant tenement is outlined in red and the small brown patch to the right is the servient tenement. This is part of the private road to the station at the top of the plan. This is mentioned in the deeds in that the papermakers agreed to pay towards the upkeep of this plot and the conduits beneath it. 'My' part has a clause about allowing inspection and repair, not overloading the conduits and not parking there.
Now for the salient parts...
'The dwelling house on the Property shall be occupied as the sole or main residence by an Approved
Person'
'13: Definitions
"Approved Person"
a person who has been continuously:
(a) resident in the district of South Lakeland for two years; or
(b) has been permanently employed or has a firm permanent job offer in the district of South Lakeland: or
(c) is a widow or the widower of the previously Approved Person resident at the property; or
(d) in the case of a civil partnership is the survivor of the previously Approved Person resident in that dwelling together with any person living in the dwelling as a member of his/her household'
The property is not in the National Park.
As for the beneficiary, the only mentions are of the chap from which the railway folk got the land...in 1860! Then we have railway lot (1860), the papermakers (1986) and my partner and I (2008). This suggest to me that the papermaker is the beneficiary.
The perpetuity part is 80 years from the date of transfer. Lastly, I wasn't badly advised and I ignored nothing. I got the acceptance to purchase with just one call to the council.
HTH
Firstly - your advice should have told you that the covenant was a material risk when you come to sell on, if your solicitor didn't tell you that, you were badly advised, if he did then you ignored it or thought it wouldn't apply I've quoted you so I can read the questions and provide what you asked for.
It's a bit complicated so please bear with me. The vendor was the local papermaking firm, who got a transfer from the LMR railway in 1986. The paper firm owns the mansion next door and built my house as an outbuilding/stable in 1875. This is referred to in the deeds but oddly, the retained land includes the mansion's plot. here's the relevant plan...
The dominant tenement is outlined in red and the small brown patch to the right is the servient tenement. This is part of the private road to the station at the top of the plan. This is mentioned in the deeds in that the papermakers agreed to pay towards the upkeep of this plot and the conduits beneath it. 'My' part has a clause about allowing inspection and repair, not overloading the conduits and not parking there.
Now for the salient parts...
'The dwelling house on the Property shall be occupied as the sole or main residence by an Approved
Person'
'13: Definitions
"Approved Person"
a person who has been continuously:
(a) resident in the district of South Lakeland for two years; or
(b) has been permanently employed or has a firm permanent job offer in the district of South Lakeland: or
(c) is a widow or the widower of the previously Approved Person resident at the property; or
(d) in the case of a civil partnership is the survivor of the previously Approved Person resident in that dwelling together with any person living in the dwelling as a member of his/her household'
The property is not in the National Park.
As for the beneficiary, the only mentions are of the chap from which the railway folk got the land...in 1860! Then we have railway lot (1860), the papermakers (1986) and my partner and I (2008). This suggest to me that the papermaker is the beneficiary.
The perpetuity part is 80 years from the date of transfer. Lastly, I wasn't badly advised and I ignored nothing. I got the acceptance to purchase with just one call to the council.
HTH
Was your call to the Council was to verify status so that you could confirm that you met the covenant requirements?
If the Council are not the beneficiary and the covenant isn't linked to planning then I'm not sure they have a say.
I am now going to see if I cant find the planning consent. The covenant is consistent with a property that was granted consent only because the user is restricted by a set of pre-qualifications. Its very common where a development has only go the go ahead because it is affordable housing etc. Its highly liked to have been referred to in a S106 or S52 agreement, or a planning condition.
Ok. I'm not entirely sure which is your property, but I have a reasonable idea, does its name begin with M?. But research would indicate that there is a S106 agreement that creates a local occupancy requirement as part of planning permission. On 27/11/2012 this S106 requirement was revoked with permission number SL/2007/0050
This may relate to your property, in which case it should be possible to remove the covenant if you can identify the beneficiary. Yu will need the beneficiary to agree to remove it. Basically the covenant is there to enforce the S106 clause, but they work independently, in that one can be enforced without the other.
This may relate to your property, in which case it should be possible to remove the covenant if you can identify the beneficiary. Yu will need the beneficiary to agree to remove it. Basically the covenant is there to enforce the S106 clause, but they work independently, in that one can be enforced without the other.
Just out of interest, how do you find out what the wording of a restrictive covenant actually is? I've just closed off my mortgage and so am waiting for the deeds to be sent by the bank but in the meantime I got a copy of the title(?) and it says, under the Charges Register;
"A transfer of the land in this title dated dd/mm/yy made between Person A (builder of the house) and Person B (the first owner and person I bought the house from) contains restrictive covenants."
I bought the house 20 years ago and can't say I remember this being mentioned at the time, so assume it's not overly significant.
"A transfer of the land in this title dated dd/mm/yy made between Person A (builder of the house) and Person B (the first owner and person I bought the house from) contains restrictive covenants."
I bought the house 20 years ago and can't say I remember this being mentioned at the time, so assume it's not overly significant.
pincher said:
Just out of interest, how do you find out what the wording of a restrictive covenant actually is? I've just closed off my mortgage and so am waiting for the deeds to be sent by the bank but in the meantime I got a copy of the title(?) and it says, under the Charges Register;
"A transfer of the land in this title dated dd/mm/yy made between Person A (builder of the house) and Person B (the first owner and person I bought the house from) contains restrictive covenants."
I bought the house 20 years ago and can't say I remember this being mentioned at the time, so assume it's not overly significant.
You can get a copy of the transfer from the Land Registry by filling in a form and giving them a small amount of money."A transfer of the land in this title dated dd/mm/yy made between Person A (builder of the house) and Person B (the first owner and person I bought the house from) contains restrictive covenants."
I bought the house 20 years ago and can't say I remember this being mentioned at the time, so assume it's not overly significant.
blueg33 said:
I have found the land you show edged red. Its owned by a PLC, I cant work out what your property is exactly, so I can't track the planning consents.
Thanks again blueg33,My solicitor in York didn't warn me about the covenant at all. If memory serves all I did was tackle the approved person thing myself before the conveyancing was done.
The papermaker is James Cropper PLC. On the marked plot is the mansion, 'Melmore' and my gaffe, which is Melmore Stables. Here's a grab of a better plan that should clarify things. I've put it roughly in the orientation of the first plan...
The green arrow is marking the mansion (Melmore) and the red one shows my house (Melmore Stables).
As it happens, the South Lakeland authority said I'll receive a copy of the planning documents, maybe tomorrow.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff