Permission to erect a satellite dish?!

mrsw1983

Hi, I am in the process of selling and we are (hopefully) nearing exchange of contracts. This query has been raised by our buyers solicitor. It's nothing I've ever heard of and wondered if anyone has any experience:

When you fitted the dish, did you obtain the consent of George Wimpey before doing so? The reason that I ask the question is that there is a restrictive covenant contained within the transfer from when you purchased the property saying “Not without the prior written consent of the Transferor to erect any external satellite dish or aerial on the property.”

We didn't obtain written permission (as we didn't know we had to), and have advised our solicitor of this. Could this cause an issue?! We purchased the house over 4 years ago, off plan.

Thanks!

caeler

I'd just say no and see how they respond, they might want future liability for breaking the rule to be covered. If all else fails suggest to them that you'll remove it.

mrsw1983

bluefuzzybug wrote: »

I'd just say no and see how they respond, they might want future liability for breaking the rule to be covered. If all else fails suggest to them that you'll remove it.

Thanks, that's what I've done so I'll suggest removing it if it becomes an issue.

Jue_xx

We had exactly the same thing - we are selling a new-build (well it was a new-build when we bought it 8 years ago), and we found out about the restrictive covenant on erecting aerials and satellite dishes when we went in to sign our contracts on our sale a few days ago. We just told our solicitor the truth - that yes, we have do have an aerial and a satellite dish, as has every other house on the estate, and no, we didn't ask the builders' permission!

Solicitor didn't seem at all concerned by that, and it hasn't been mentioned since, so I shouldn't worry about it.

Richard_Webster

The moral is that people do need to read what their solicitors tell them when they buy because this sort of thing should have been pointed out.

From a practical point of view if it is going to be easy to remove it if there really is a complaint about it then it may be fair enough to proceed in the way suggested, but if the buyer wants to keep it and doesn't want the hassle of removing it then they may reasonably want a consent or a restrictive covenant indemnity policy.

mrsw1983

Richard_Webster wrote: »

The moral is that people do need to read what their solicitors tell them when they buy because this sort of thing should have been pointed out.

From a practical point of view if it is going to be easy to remove it if there really is a complaint about it then it may be fair enough to proceed in the way suggested, but if the buyer wants to keep it and doesn't want the hassle of removing it then they may reasonably want a consent or a restrictive covenant indemnity policy.

Thanks for the advice. I assume the buyers will want to keep the dish, as I know they have SKY in their current property. What is a consent or a restrictive covenant indemnity policy?

The GW estate we live on is huge, and most have a sky dish. I don't remember the point being made that we would need permission, as GW themselves were offering to erect ariels (more expensive than getting the sky installed!) but I'm sure it's somewhere in the small print;)

getmore4less

Common for new builds to have these types of covenants and others like not being allowed to work from home, needing permision to put up/change front boundries.

Builders like control over the "look" of the projects while still selling developments


Once the site is finished and all sold no one usualy cares, least of all the builders.

Only finding out when you come to sell, can't believe people are handing over £10,000s and don't bother to check what they are buying.

mrsw1983

getmore4less wrote: »

Common for new builds to have these types of covenants and others like not being allowed to work from home, needing permision to put up/change front boundries.

Builders like control over the "look" of the projects while still selling developments


Once the site is finished and all sold no one usualy cares, least of all the builders.

Only finding out when you come to sell, can't believe people are handing over £10,000s and don't bother to check what they are buying.

Sorry, you've lost me with your last statement?

g_attrill

mrsw1983 wrote: »

[/U][/B]
Sorry, you've lost me with your last statement?

I think they were implying that you should have known about the dish restriction, and it shows that you didn't read the covenants when you bought the place.

mrsw1983

g_attrill wrote: »

I think they were implying that you should have known about the dish restriction, and it shows that you didn't read the covenants when you bought the place.

I think you're right.

telfordwhite

mrsw1983 wrote: »

[/U][/B]

Sorry, you've lost me with your last statement?

It's a stuffy response from somebody who has obviously never made a mistake/forgotten something/taken a miniscule risk in their life and is determined to burden you with an opinion you didn't ask for.

As far as the dish is concerned it really is a minor point at this stage. I wouldn't be tempted to take out an indemnity policy unless the sale is put at risk.
It is unlikely (unless the builder is still putting up buildings there) that anyone will ask you to remove it.

If they do then just remove it. It'll be cheaper.