Restrictive covenants

Cristy

I've received today the transfer documents for the house I am buying. My solicitor (whom I can't get hold of today!) has drawn my attention to some restrictive covenants set out in this document. I think these affect the conservatory but I wanted to check with the more enlightened people on this board

I quote:

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee (Beazer Homes, now Persimmon Homes):


Not within a period of five years from the date hereof (24th August 2001):

1.1 To make any material structural alterations or additions to the Dwelling or

1.2 to erect other buildings or structures whether of a permanent or temporary nature on the property save that this shall not preclude the erection of a garden shed or greenhouse located in the rear garden of the Property and so far as possible in a position so as not to be seen from the Estate Roads and not exceeding a floor space of 4.50 square metres or

Am I wrong in assuming that a conservatory would come under point 1.1 or 1.2? This was erected in 2002 by the property's second (and current) owners. I think they either disregarded or were not aware of the covenants.

The restrictions expire this August, but what happens to this conservatory? Do we need to get an indemnity policy or do we just feign ignorance? Could it come back to bite us in the !!!!!! when we sell up?

distilled

Is the house a recent new build?

teecee90

I have the same issue but from the other side of the fence, so to speak.

Our buyers solicitor has requested permission from the original builder (the house was built over 20yrs ago) for a conservatory we had fitted in 2001. It turns out there is a covenant requiring this which is not time limited and which we knew nothing about.

The builder has indicated that they would be prepared to give us retrospective approval, for a large fee! Apparently it is a nice little earner for builders/developers.

Our soilicitor has advised us to wait and see if our buyer insists on having the permission before shelling out the cash to the builder. The risk of the builder actually enforcing the covenant 25yrs after building the property is miniscule, so the buyer may decide its not worth insisting on it and delaying the exchange of contracts.

So, the answer is that you need to consider your attitude to risk. What are the chances of the builder finding out that the covenant has been breached (probably negligible) and even if they do, what are the chances of them seeking to enforce the covenant (probably even less). You also need to consider the potential delay.

Cristy

The house was built in 2001. I agree, teecee90, the chance of them finding out is negligible, but I'd be very annoyed if the builder could demand money from us at some point in the future.

My solicitor has called me and explained that in this situation, if a permission was not obtained, we will ask the vendor for indemnity insurance to cover us in case the builder finds out. Since the vendor is a relocation company, they should easily agree to this.

Bloody builders... making our lives more difficult with these little annoying clauses!

distilled

The builder may or may not find out. It's very unlikely the covenant will be enforced anyway,but these covenants are incorporated into the contract for very good reasons and that doesn't include moneymaking.

Just ignore it.

Cristy

My understanding is that these conditions are put into place to guarantee that a house is not bought, quickly extended and then sold on for a profit while the development is still being sold by the builders (therefore creating competition). Are there any other, worthier reasons for this practice?