quick non motoring legal question.......
Discussion
Hello legal chaps,
When you buy your house, typically it is written that it shall be a 'private dwelling house', and you can't run a business from there. However, as you get mobile hairdressers, writers, software writers and miriad other people that clearly do run their businesses from their own homes, what exactly is the criteria.
Friend of mine is a photographer, doing mainly weddings, but does have the odd person visiting his house for portrait sittings.
Infact, he has (at the request of his wife) a converted garage, set out to do just that whils also being a place to house is printers, photoshop Macs, paper etc etc.
What is the actual standing on this?. People clearly can't just walk in off the street, but technically I suppose it is a full time business.
any ideas chaps?
When you buy your house, typically it is written that it shall be a 'private dwelling house', and you can't run a business from there. However, as you get mobile hairdressers, writers, software writers and miriad other people that clearly do run their businesses from their own homes, what exactly is the criteria.
Friend of mine is a photographer, doing mainly weddings, but does have the odd person visiting his house for portrait sittings.
Infact, he has (at the request of his wife) a converted garage, set out to do just that whils also being a place to house is printers, photoshop Macs, paper etc etc.
What is the actual standing on this?. People clearly can't just walk in off the street, but technically I suppose it is a full time business.
any ideas chaps?
bryan35 said:
Hello legal chaps,
When you buy your house, typically it is written that it shall be a 'private dwelling house', and you can't run a business from there. However, as you get mobile hairdressers, writers, software writers and miriad other people that clearly do run their businesses from their own homes, what exactly is the criteria.
Friend of mine is a photographer, doing mainly weddings, but does have the odd person visiting his house for portrait sittings.
Infact, he has (at the request of his wife) a converted garage, set out to do just that whils also being a place to house is printers, photoshop Macs, paper etc etc.
What is the actual standing on this?. People clearly can't just walk in off the street, but technically I suppose it is a full time business.
any ideas chaps?
I think what you are talking about is a restrictive covenant.
These are a form of private planning control: they are restrictions on the development or use of land, enforceable by one landowner against another.
Typically no parking of vans, trucks outside, if open plan no hedges / walls etc etc.
Very often a covenant is placed on new estate type developments, because the builder wants to keep the place looking "as designed" whilst he sells the rest of the properties. Also some enter design competitions and so on.
Subject to some restrictions a covenant can be enforced by a court granting an injunction.
HTH: As Streaky says IANAL.
FiF
Hiya FIF,
thanks for that.
Everything you mention seems to be about affecting the 'look' of the area, as you say vans, trucks , hedges.
He had the garage built earlier, with planning permission, but other than that, his business has no visible or noise affects to the surroundins at all. He perhaps has more visitors, but didn't think that would be a problem.
thanks for that.
Everything you mention seems to be about affecting the 'look' of the area, as you say vans, trucks , hedges.
He had the garage built earlier, with planning permission, but other than that, his business has no visible or noise affects to the surroundins at all. He perhaps has more visitors, but didn't think that would be a problem.
Be aware that if you have an arsey council, they may slap business rates on part of your home. You also need to be aware of insurance , tax, power and telephone costs. These have different rates for business purposes and they have been known to force the business rates on people even if the "main use" of a dwelling hasn't changed.
Might be worth going to CAB for a quick chat about the situation.
Might be worth going to CAB for a quick chat about the situation.
Restrictive covenant. (i.e. preventing the owner from doing something) Burden of a covenant can not bind a successor at law. The burden can only run in equity, providing: it is restrictive, it benefits the land, it was intended to run with the land, the notice/registration rules have been complied with and the plaintiff has acted honestly and fairly.
Could also be due to a 'development/building scheme' which requires a defined area of land and all of the original purchasers of plots within the area to know about the covenants imposed on them all, and know that these covenants were intended to be mutually enforceable. If such a scheme is in place, all burdens and benefits (provided they are registered) run with the land, i.e. are enforceable
Abandonment or delay may result in the covenant being unenforceable, even if it does fulfil all of the above requirements or by S84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 as amended which provides for a discharge of a covenant if:
It should be deemed obsolete due to changes in the character of the property or neighbourhood; or
It impeded some reasonable use of the land, provided money is sufficient compensation and either (a) it provides no practical benefits of substantial value ir advantage or (b) it is contrary to the public interest; or
The parties agree either expressly or impliedly by their actions or omissions; or
It will not injure anyone entitled to the benefit
Hth
lol..sorry.
Burdened land, is the land affected by the covenant. A covenant is a promise to treat land in a certain way.
The burden of a covenant cannot run at law, i.e. it can not be enforced at law and does not legally bind a buyer of land.
To enforce a restrictive covenant, the person wanting to enforce it would first need to prove that the burden of it had run with the land to your friend, so that your friend has to abide by it, if they cant prove this, it isnt enforceable.
The rules for establishing if the burden of the covenant has run with the land to your friend are provided in the case of tulk v moxhay, they were the five conditions in the previous post. The original covenant would only bind a successor if:
*it is restrictive - i.e. it stops the owner from doing something
*it benefits the land - rather than just benefiting a particular owner, it has lonf term benefits e.g. for the area
*it was intended to run with the land - this is implied into the sale of land
*the notice/registration rules have been complied with - in registered land, a notice of the covenant should be entered on the charges register, this will show up on a copy of the register for that piece of land from the land registry
*the plaintiff has acted honestly and fairly - because the covenant is in equity, it requires fair and honest behaviour by the party trying to enforce the covenant.
If the person effected by the restrictive covenant can either show that the person trying to enforce it has abandoned enforcing covenants i.e. letting similar covenants on other buildings be ignored or that they have delayed enforcing a covenant, this will mean that the covenant may not be enforceable in the case of your friend.
If he is really bothered, a covenant can be modified (altered) or discharged (scrapped) by S84 of the Law Of Property Act, and the person affected by it must show that:
*It (the covenant) should be deemed obsolete due to changes in the character of the property or neighbourhood; OR
*It impeded some reasonable use of the land, provided money is sufficient compensation and either
(a) it provides no practical benefits of substantial value ir advantage or
(b) it is contrary to the public interest; OR
The parties agree either (to change/scrap it) expressly or impliedly by their actions or omissions; or
It will not injure anyone entitled to the benefit (i.e. in your friends case, would it effect anyone else?)
Of more practical concern will be the things munta mentioned ie business rates on part of your home, insurance, tax, power and telephone costs.
Better to be safe then sorry and get a bit of advice to put the mind at rest
>> Edited by llamekcuf on Tuesday 3rd May 13:33
Burdened land, is the land affected by the covenant. A covenant is a promise to treat land in a certain way.
The burden of a covenant cannot run at law, i.e. it can not be enforced at law and does not legally bind a buyer of land.
To enforce a restrictive covenant, the person wanting to enforce it would first need to prove that the burden of it had run with the land to your friend, so that your friend has to abide by it, if they cant prove this, it isnt enforceable.
The rules for establishing if the burden of the covenant has run with the land to your friend are provided in the case of tulk v moxhay, they were the five conditions in the previous post. The original covenant would only bind a successor if:
*it is restrictive - i.e. it stops the owner from doing something
*it benefits the land - rather than just benefiting a particular owner, it has lonf term benefits e.g. for the area
*it was intended to run with the land - this is implied into the sale of land
*the notice/registration rules have been complied with - in registered land, a notice of the covenant should be entered on the charges register, this will show up on a copy of the register for that piece of land from the land registry
*the plaintiff has acted honestly and fairly - because the covenant is in equity, it requires fair and honest behaviour by the party trying to enforce the covenant.
If the person effected by the restrictive covenant can either show that the person trying to enforce it has abandoned enforcing covenants i.e. letting similar covenants on other buildings be ignored or that they have delayed enforcing a covenant, this will mean that the covenant may not be enforceable in the case of your friend.
If he is really bothered, a covenant can be modified (altered) or discharged (scrapped) by S84 of the Law Of Property Act, and the person affected by it must show that:
*It (the covenant) should be deemed obsolete due to changes in the character of the property or neighbourhood; OR
*It impeded some reasonable use of the land, provided money is sufficient compensation and either
(a) it provides no practical benefits of substantial value ir advantage or
(b) it is contrary to the public interest; OR
The parties agree either (to change/scrap it) expressly or impliedly by their actions or omissions; or
It will not injure anyone entitled to the benefit (i.e. in your friends case, would it effect anyone else?)
Of more practical concern will be the things munta mentioned ie business rates on part of your home, insurance, tax, power and telephone costs.
Better to be safe then sorry and get a bit of advice to put the mind at rest
>> Edited by llamekcuf on Tuesday 3rd May 13:33
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff