Breach of Covenant Question

YentonMinsterHomes · 11 July 2017 at 4:09PM

Mojisola wrote: »

No-one would buy a house from the company if they were made fully aware of this -

"Restrictive covenants apply to changes to your property such as, sheds or outbuildings, conservatories, structural alterations, changing of windows or doors or any additions, alterations to fencing, addition of patio or pathways, driveway alterations, alterations to the facades, or external building additions such as aerials, sky dishes as well as registering a business at the address or parking business vehicles, vans or caravans on driveways. Each of these are considered breaches."

Tenants have more power over the homes they rent than a home owner with these restrictions.

Doesn't the law have things to say about unfair clauses? Would it be considered fair to have to pay the house builder because part of the fence was damaged in a storm and you replaced it or that you needed a new aerial for the TV?

We have built over 20,000 houses in the UK and all have the same covenants on as do most housebuilding companies. Everyone has been made aware of them when buying through their solicitor if not then the purchaser should ascertain why their solicitor did not advise them.
I suggest that you also look at the other side of the coin as well which protects other properties from breaching the covenants

YentonMinsterHomes · 11 July 2017 at 4:25PM

silvercar wrote: »

YentonMinsterHomes, I'm grateful that you have come along here to explain your position. can you let us know if you wrote to home owners as a result of being aware of individual breach(es) of the covenants or whether you have written to all the homes over which you hold such a covenant?

We have been notified about breaches by a resident of the estate built or previous owner. They would have notified us usually due to disputes with neighbouring properties or when they have sold through their solicitor.

YentonMinsterHomes · 11 July 2017 at 4:30PM

Fortyfoot wrote: »

Update from my son-

"The street have all chipped in for a solicitor and they are putting one test case through to check they get correct paperwork etc
Although we have no major worries with extensions etc we do not want to be in the position of having to pay more at a later date selling house etc"

Fortyfoot

Can you now confirm that the paperwork was correct and that the test case was successful. Land Registry accepted and the covenants have been removed from your Register of Title

Guest101 · 11 July 2017 at 4:33PM

YentonMinsterHomes wrote: »

This is not phishing. We deal with 100's of letters a week from Solicitors/owners when houses are sold or mortgaged. Poor English probably but legally correct. We have advised people to gain legal advice and preferably from a lawyer not from when they bought the property if they were not told at the time about the covenants.
Please be aware this will affect any house sale as the owner will have disclose that we have informed that there is a breach of covenant.

So explain the purpose of the covenant, other than to get £399 out of each buyer.....

Ozzuk · 11 July 2017 at 4:53PM

Mojisola wrote: »

No-one would buy a house from the company if they were made fully aware of this -

"Restrictive covenants apply to changes to your property such as, sheds or outbuildings, conservatories, structural alterations, changing of windows or doors or any additions, alterations to fencing, addition of patio or pathways, driveway alterations, alterations to the facades, or external building additions such as aerials, sky dishes as well as registering a business at the address or parking business vehicles, vans or caravans on driveways. Each of these are considered breaches."

Tenants have more power over the homes they rent than a home owner with these restrictions.

Doesn't the law have things to say about unfair clauses? Would it be considered fair to have to pay the house builder because part of the fence was damaged in a storm and you replaced it or that you needed a new aerial for the TV?

Those clauses are pretty common on new estates, people do buy them and should be made aware during the process what the covenants are. The van one and satellite one is extremely common. People should just not buy if they don't agree.

BTW, I'm not condoning the Yentons approach in any way whatsoever, does seem like a revenue generation exercise. But these types of covenant are common, and the old adage of don't sign for something you don't like should apply.

NeilCr · 11 July 2017 at 5:15PM

jimbog wrote: »

Not as yet. It may be that I won't until they have done some investigations of their own. I directed them to this thread and Yenton's website.

Mojisola wrote: »

No-one would buy a house from the company if they were made fully aware of this -

"Restrictive covenants apply to changes to your property such as, sheds or outbuildings, conservatories, structural alterations, changing of windows or doors or any additions, alterations to fencing, addition of patio or pathways, driveway alterations, alterations to the facades, or external building additions such as aerials, sky dishes as well as registering a business at the address or parking business vehicles, vans or caravans on driveways. Each of these are considered breaches."

Tenants have more power over the homes they rent than a home owner with these restrictions.

Doesn't the law have things to say about unfair clauses? Would it be considered fair to have to pay the house builder because part of the fence was damaged in a storm and you replaced it or that you needed a new aerial for the TV?

I bought a house with many of these covenants attached and am very happy here.

From our estate's point of view it makes it easier to manage (we own the freehold and I am a director). Some are a pain in the butt, of course.

And, as with Ozzie, in no way am I on Yenton's side in this

Mojisola · 11 July 2017 at 5:19PM

YentonMinsterHomes wrote: »

Restrictive covenants apply to changes to your property such as, sheds or outbuildings, conservatories, structural alterations, changing of windows or doors or any additions, alterations to fencing, addition of patio or pathways, driveway alterations, alterations to the facades, or external building additions such as aerials, sky dishes as well as registering a business at the address or parking business vehicles, vans or caravans on driveways. Each of these are considered breaches.

NeilCr wrote: »

From our estate's point of view it makes it easier to manage (we own the freehold and I am a director).

I hope you haven't registered your company at your home address.

NeilCr · 11 July 2017 at 5:23PM

Mojisola wrote: »

I hope you haven't registered your company at your home address.

:D :beer::beer:

ProDave · 11 July 2017 at 5:37PM

A lot of mass house builders put covenants on their new developments. I thought it was widely accepted their purpose was to stop someone doing something outrageous that might make it hard for the developer to sell the rest of the estate, and once the estate was complete and all the houses had sold, it was rare for the builders to ever bother enforcing those covenants.

This seems to be a clear case of the builder trying to drag up old covenants with the sole purpose of extorting money from the owners, where even if they have erected an unauthorised shed, it would not be doing any harm to the builders, so there is simply no need to enforce it.

I think the builder concerned should be named and shamed in the national press, and when people stop buying their houses (assuming they are still building) then they might have a change of heart.

jimbog · 11 July 2017 at 8:57PM

Not sure that some of the items like sheds and fences need planning consent from the planning office so not sure where this fits in:

We are currently updating our records in line with planning departments and our agents are reporting back with any changes found on all properties that have covenants.

I'm dubious about this too:

We have been notified about breaches by a resident of the estate built or previous owner. They would have notified us usually due to disputes with neighbouring properties or when they have sold through their solicitor.

Indeed, in terms of motive:

I suggest that you also look at the other side of the coin as well which protects other properties from breaching the covenants

contradicts this:

the covenants will be removed officially from the register of title once payment has been released.

This has been said:

it is up to you as the owner of the property and not for us to point out what changes may have taken place after the event.

All a bit of a mess really

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Breach of Covenant Question

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free