Who enforces Restrictive covenants?

scope

Can somebody tell me who enforces Restrictive covenants if they are broken?

The estate has been complete for a few years now, so I suspect the builder doesnt care any more.. Would the council be able to help?

bobalicious

scope wrote: »

Can somebody tell me who enforces Restrictive covenants if they are broken?

It depends who the beneficiary of the RC is. The party who benefits from it is the party who can seek to enforce it.

scope wrote: »

The estate has been complete for a few years now, so I suspect the builder doesnt care any more.. Would the council be able to help?

Is this about erection of fences or parking of caravans, or something else?

Richard_Webster

Usually in practice the builder, but as the last poster says, also anyone who has the benefit. Builder will usually have some land in the vicinity which is capable of being benefited by the covenant. Also we are only talking about restrictive covenants not positive ones like to fence or pay sums of money. I explain positive covenants below - they really are fun!

Such benefits can be assigned when land is sold. Typically if a covenant is given for the remainder of the land in the E estate owned by B the builder, when B sells a plot after yours to X then he gets the benefit of the covenant and can enforce it against you (U). B sells further plot later to Y. Y can enforce covenants against U and X, and so on.

Many years down the track enforcement depends upon the random point of the order the houses were sold by the developer. This rule applies unless the original documentation recites that it is intended there should be a "building scheme", in which case the covenants are enforceable by any property owner on the estate.

Enforcement nothing to do with the local council unless it sold the land in the first place.

Positive covenants (e.g. to maintain a fence) are only enforceable against the person who originally entered into them. That's why we often have an indemnity covenant in a transfer deed - something like:

[FONT=&quot]"So as to provide a sufficient indemnity but not further the Transferee HEREBY COVENANTS with the Transferor that he or she will observe and perform the covenants in the Charges Register of the above title and indemnify the Transferor in respect of any breach or non-performance thereof[/FONT]"

So B (builder) sells to C and C covenants to maintain a particular fence. C sells to D and takes an indemnity covenant. D sells to E and does the same. E sells to U and does the same. Your neighbour N doesn't like that you are not maintaining aforesaid fence so he goes to B and asks him to enforce the covenant. B will probably tell him where to go, and stop wasting his time.... Assuming he doesn't, then his remedy is to sue C if he can find him, who can then sue D on the indemnity covenant if he can find him, who can then sue E if he can find him on a similar covenant, who again can sue U! So I am a little cynical when people get worked up about whose responsibility it is to maintain a fence...

Most solicitors insist that when acting for someone selling, that their buyer gives an indemnity covenant if their client did when they bought, presumably on the basis that it doesn't do any harm, and better to have it then not, but you can see that in most cases it is not a lot of use in practice.

woodstoke

I have also found a house which i like and after the solicitor doing all the searches it has come to light that there are several covenants on it namely:-

1 no parking of a caravan on the drive
2 front hedge no higher than 4 ft
3 no sheds or buildings in the garden

if i buy the property i intend on doing all of these things, but am abit apprehensive about the brick shed/workshop i intend to put in the garden, although i think we will bite the bullet and just do it as long as its below the planning regs...... my solicitor has told me that it is highly unlikely the convenants will be enforces as this will cost the private individual alot of dosh....i just need to get along with the immediate neighbours and make sure i let them know......

is this too risky......

Richard_Webster

Neighbours tend to strop sometimes about caravans on drives.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Neighbours tend to strop sometimes about caravans on drives.

And on roads :rotfl:

Ban them I say. Or get them all on static sites.

Hillfly

woodstoke wrote: »

I have also found a house which i like and after the solicitor doing all the searches it has come to light that there are several covenants on it namely:-

1 no parking of a caravan on the drive
2 front hedge no higher than 4 ft
3 no sheds or buildings in the garden

if i buy the property i intend on doing all of these things, but am abit apprehensive about the brick shed/workshop i intend to put in the garden, although i think we will bite the bullet and just do it as long as its below the planning regs...... my solicitor has told me that it is highly unlikely the convenants will be enforces as this will cost the private individual alot of dosh....i just need to get along with the immediate neighbours and make sure i let them know......

is this too risky......

If you moved next to me and stuck a dirty great caravan on your drive and grew a massive hedge i think i might be a tad annoyed at you!

Why do people think caravans at the front of houses look OK? They make an area look cheap IMO. They certainly would not add to the appeal of a neighbouring house and theoretically could de-value a neighbours property. Why do you think the builder put that in their covenants.

My parents and grandparents owned caravans for years but never once felt they had to keep it on the drive as they recognised they had a responsibilty to their neighbours to not impose the monolith on them. I think you should do the same.

dander

I suspect that if you move in and immediately break three of the restrictive covenants, you'd find it quite difficult to "just get along with the immediate neighbours..."

In fact if you move anywhere, with or without restrictive covenants, and immediately grow a giant hedge and plant a caravan at the front of your house, you are likely to find yourself unpopular with the locals.

vivatifosi

woodstock,

Check the exact wording of the deeds before thinking you can go breaking the covenants. While others have already stressed how unpopular this could make you with the new neighbours, I'm a director of a management company that was set up by the developer and is now run wholly by residents. One of our key functions as an organisation - and this was written up when the estate was built - is to enforce the covenants. We can and do enforce precisely the kind of restrictive covenants that you are planning to break, so be careful if you are planning to move somewhere that has such rights (which is by no means every estate with covenants). We would come after you I'm afraid!

woodstoke

I think after reading this i will put the caravan in the garage adjoining the property as its a pop top caravan and will fit....also with regard to the front beech hedge only grow it 6 ft which is what it nearly is now....with regard to the building i want to put up in the back garden can anyone advise as to whether the covenant restricts this....the wording on the deeds are

'No hut, shed caravan wooden iron zinc asbestos building hoarding or advertising station shall be erected made placed or used or be allowed to remain on the said property or any part thereof nor shall the same be used for the storage of rubbish or building material except building material required for immediate use on the said property'

I intend to build a breeze block/brick one so does this count as a hut as it does not mention bricks.....

thanks for any advise

Hillfly

woodstoke wrote: »

I think after reading this i will put the caravan in the garage adjoining the property as its a pop top caravan and will fit....

Good man!:beer: