Restrictive covenant

[uglymug]

HI all, hoping someone could help in explaining the latter part of of the info below. I understand the first part, private dwelling as the property has outbuildings, but was is the planning acts bit...........................thanks


"We have been informed that there is a restrictive covenant on the property; “the Property shall be used only as a single private dwelling house and premises which is the authorised use thereof for the purposes of the Planning Acts."

[wolf1]

I rear that as you can't develop the outbuildings into dwellings.

[DavidY]

You can't develop the outbuildings into habitable accomodation as a seperate residence.

You may well be able to convert them into a habitable buildings for use by the main household or for family member (granny annex)

[MustangGT]

You also could not convert it to an HMO.

[uglymug]

Thanks for the replys, I did have a rough idea of the covenant, but the Planning Acts bit is what I am stuck on. If the property goes further I will obviously be getting legal advice etc. ........

[Equus]

uglymug said:

Thanks for the replys, I did have a rough idea of the covenant, but the Planning Acts bit is what I am stuck on. If the property goes further I will obviously be getting legal advice etc. ........

Why are you stuck on this bit?

'....which is the authorised use thereof for the purposes of the Planning Acts' just means: '...and that's what it has Planning Permission for'.

wolf1 said:

I rear that as you can't develop the outbuildings into dwellings.

Or, indeed, subdivide the plot to create an additional dwelling in any other way.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

Bear in mind the most important part is who can enforce the covenant or who is inclined to. The answers is frequently no one.

[ScotHill]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Bear in mind the most important part is who can enforce the covenant or who is inclined to. The answers is frequently no one.

This type of question comes up a lot, so I drew a diagram that may help others in the future:

[vikingaero]

ScotHill said:

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Bear in mind the most important part is who can enforce the covenant or who is inclined to. The answers is frequently no one.

This type of question comes up a lot, so I drew a diagram that may help others in the future:

^ This in a nutshell. It also depends on the age of the property and if properties in the area are of similar age. Let's say it's a 1950's estate and there is a Restrictive Covenant to stop plots being sold off. If say many of your other neighbours have sold off the bottom of their gardens and houses have been built, then it's likely there is no-one around to enforce the covenant.

Many properties have covenants that forbid the parking of vans, lorries, or commercial vehicles. How many self-employed people now have vans on their drives and on the streets? Gadzillions!

So who will give a st? The only time this is likely to be a problem is when the property is being sold. Solicitors and lenders will be 100% risk adverse and insist on the covenant being removed (which will be nigh on impossible because you'd have to trace the successors and/or the estate no longer exists) or they'll make you or the buyer take out a Restrictive Covenant Indemnity Policy with an Insurer which may cost you £300-£1000 depending on the level of cover being touted.

[anonymous-user]

vikingaero said:

ScotHill said:

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Bear in mind the most important part is who can enforce the covenant or who is inclined to. The answers is frequently no one.

This type of question comes up a lot, so I drew a diagram that may help others in the future:

^ This in a nutshell. It also depends on the age of the property and if properties in the area are of similar age. Let's say it's a 1950's estate and there is a Restrictive Covenant to stop plots being sold off. If say many of your other neighbours have sold off the bottom of their gardens and houses have been built, then it's likely there is no-one around to enforce the covenant.

Many properties have covenants that forbid the parking of vans, lorries, or commercial vehicles. How many self-employed people now have vans on their drives and on the streets? Gadzillions!

So who will give a st? The only time this is likely to be a problem is when the property is being sold. Solicitors and lenders will be 100% risk adverse and insist on the covenant being removed (which will be nigh on impossible because you'd have to trace the successors and/or the estate no longer exists) or they'll make you or the buyer take out a Restrictive Covenant Indemnity Policy with an Insurer which may cost you £300-£1000 depending on the level of cover being touted.

There are many covenants in the deeds of my 1970s house, which can be authorised by sending 30p to the developer
No fences in front
No caravans or campers on the drive
No extensions
No sheds
I’d say 90% have broken these rules
As above, a cheap indemnity upon sale would overcome the hurdle. Why are they cheap?, because they will never have to pay out I believe

[philrs03]

Hi, first post on here and ironically it’s not about a car!

I recently bought an old chapel (called….. the Old Chapel!) and there was a restrictive covenant placed on one specific area of the back garden. It stated “no structure, fence, shed, garden ornament or outbuildings shall be erected”, however all of the above were present at the time i bought the house. The majority of the “discretions” in the garden were probably built around 1890, and funnily enough no one had enforced the breach of Covenant between then and now. I got a clause added on for it on my house insurance for a whopping £6.75 a year, but in reality there’s more chance of me walking out the front door and being struck in the head by a falling coconut- in Herefordshire- than the covenant ever being enforced.

I think that’s pretty true of most restrictive covenants, and it certainly didn’t stop me from wanting to buy the house (despite the solicitors best efforts to extract more money out of me)!

[skwdenyer]

It is important to note that I'm not a lawyer. However, I've been advised over the years on a number of properties that covenants are generally unenforceable unless the beneficiary of the covenant maintains an interest in adjoining land, or unless various other criteria are particularly met.

This article may be of benefit: https://www.fladgate.com/insights/restrictive-cove...

A lot of purported covenants simply don't meet the test of enforceability. Specialist advice is of course important, but the idea that covenants are enforceable merely because they exist seems wholly unsupported in law.

[TVRnutcase]

philrs03 said:

Hi, first post on here and ironically it’s not about a car!

I recently bought an old chapel (called….. the Old Chapel!) and there was a restrictive covenant placed on one specific area of the back garden. It stated “no structure, fence, shed, garden ornament or outbuildings shall be erected”, however all of the above were present at the time i bought the house. The majority of the “discretions” in the garden were probably built around 1890, and funnily enough no one had enforced the breach of Covenant between then and now. I got a clause added on for it on my house insurance for a whopping £6.75 a year, but in reality there’s more chance of me walking out the front door and being struck in the head by a falling coconut- in Herefordshire- than the covenant ever being enforced.

I think that’s pretty true of most restrictive covenants, and it certainly didn’t stop me from wanting to buy the house (despite the solicitors best efforts to extract more money out of me)!

That one specific area of the back garden - I wonder if you dig six feet down you will find the answer, or the remains of the answer?