Restrictive covenants

archess200

I need some legal advice please.
I am negotiating on a 1935 property, whereby the Vendors were the first owners to regiser title, only 13 years ago.
That should make things all quite clear.
However, the small plot shows 2 hatched areas, one giving mining and mineral rights and the other merely states "subject to such restrictive covenants as may have been imposed thereon before (here is the date of the registration of Title in 1997)"

My solicitor has asked what these restrictive covenants are (note the plural there): Vendor's solicitors have come back saying there was a boundary alteration in agreement with neighbours to comply with the site.
1. If this were so, then the covenants would not cover half the site, as they do, and there would merely have been a transfer deed to cover the land area within the new boundary.
2. The restriction would be singular, not plural.
3. There would be no restrictive covenant, as a boundary change would not necessarily give a neighbour any rights.
4. This was only 13 years ago and the Vendor's should know what this is all about.

Vendor's solicitors say they have no further info. or documentation: this must have been provided in 1997for the Land Registry to register this interest on the first title, and somebody must have a photocopy.
They state that an insurance policy can be taken out to cover any breaches, but the policy provided by them only covers any breaches made by the existing building, and if I so much as modernise it, the policy is voided.
They also state that I can extend my household policy to cover any potential breach.
There is no knowing how serious these covenants are: whether for not behind allowed to keep chickens, not being allowed to park more than one vehicle or not being allowed to build. I can't see any insurance company taking this open-ended risk on, and why should I be paying for it every year for the rest of my life.

This would also make the property difficult for me to sell

I want to extend or knock down and rebuild on the site of this covenant, which is half of the plot, so a serious amount of land and money involved.
My solicitor has written back stating we must know all the details, but if Vendor's solicitors also acted for their original purchase and Title registration, and make errors, then they can dig their heels in and deny all knowledge.
Vendors want to exchange and complete next week!!! or lose their purchase, so pressurising and bullying me. As is the Estate Agent, who thinks I should be checking this out with Land Registry, my insurance company etc. etc.

Am I being unreasonable?
Any and all comments and suggestions, please.

Bananamana

ask to see the first registration deeds- there will probably be a note of what the covenants are or where the note has arisen from. The term is fairly common and tbh I wouldn't even ask for indemnity,

Running_Horse

archess200 wrote: »

I need some legal advice please.

This is what you pay your solicitor for.

archess200

My solicitor has asked The Vendor's solicitors for full details on all covenants, and the Vendor's solicitors say they cannot find out what they are: I would have thought they would know about asking for the registration deeds. The estate agent suggests I try and find out at the Land Registry - that is what the Vendor should be doing.

I suggested the V's solicitors ask the solicitors who dealt with the original purchase, and then registered it. It was only 1997, post computers and photocopiers,so somebody must have a copy on file.
I rather feel that the V's solicitors also did his original purchase conveyancing, so may have been at fault then.
As for paying my solicitors to do this, they seem a bit unimaginative, although they did state these should be checked out.

Any other ideas about where these could be noted?
I looked at a link sent with another thread, to a builder who bought land with a vague covenant thereon. He got Planning Permission, built 2 houses and then the water board got a court ruling forcing him to pull them down as their main went right underneath.