Neighbour in breach of restrictive covenant

lincroft1710

get_jo wrote: »

Thanks all

- just wondered if I had a case for, for example, compensation for inconvenience, sunpipes, lightbulbs, vitamin D supplements or whatever.

Compensation from whom??? Current occupier of neighbouring house didn't cause the problem and the builder died decades ago!!!

omen666

get_jo wrote: »

Thanks all

actually, have been looking into breaching / annulling / insuring against a restrictive covenant of our own and came across this one on next door's property.

Obviously I wasn't expecting to pull their house down - just wondered if I had a case for, for example, compensation for inconvenience, sunpipes, lightbulbs, vitamin D supplements or whatever.

I guess not.

Thanks all anyway

Vitamin D? Vit-a-min D?

I can't see now myself what with the tears in my eyes

get_jo

As I understand it, when someone buys a property, they inherit liability for any breach of convenants. So even if the householder did not commit the breach, they are still bound by the covenant and therefore may have to deal with the consequences, whatever they may be. Is that not correct?

But in the case I've outlined, this does not apply as covenants are not enforcable after 20 years of breach and this has been considerably longer than that.

Equally, I would have to demonstate that I am the beneficiery of the covenant. Presumably that means I would have to demonstrate I was the *original* beneficiary (or that I have inherited / acquired the original benefit). So it is not enough that I happen to benefit from the covenant, I have to prove that the covenant was specifically put in place to protect my interests (or interests that I have since inherited).

I guess the original covenant was only there for the sake of the original developer, to ensure all houses were kept in order while the development sold. So the fact that the covenant also protected my property from invasive development is irrelevant.

So it makes no difference whether I want to pull their house down, to sunbathe on their roof or to force them to install sunpipes running the entire width of their house and into my garden. I am doubly prevented from doing so.

Very useful to know, thanks all very much for the input.

JQ.

I think you should pop round to your neighbours with a bottle of wine, point out the covenants to them and ask them to demolish their house. You never know, they might agree with you and volunteer to demolish it.

If you do the above, please make sure you report back to us tomorrow.

Good luck

Hammyman

get_jo wrote: »

What can I do about this? Do I have any recourse at all? Can I force them to pull the house down (I wish J)?

Thanks for any help or guidance you can give

You're a bit of a nasty piece of work aren't you? I hope to god they read this, figure out who you are and make your life a misery as you seem bent on doing to others. Sauce, goose, gander and all of that.

get_jo

JQ. wrote: »

I think you should pop round to your neighbours with a bottle of wine, point out the covenants to them and ask them to demolish their house. You never know, they might agree with you and volunteer to demolish it.

If you do the above, please make sure you report back to us tomorrow.

Good luck

Good advice, thanks, and I tried it last night but sadly no dice. I don't think one bottle of wine got them drunk enough. May try again tonight with Vodka.

Dave101t

you should be suing the original builder then, Surely?
Its not the current occupiers problem, Alltogether.
Its not the current occupiers problem!

get_jo

Hammyman wrote: »

You're a bit of a nasty piece of work aren't you? I hope to god they read this, figure out who you are and make your life a misery as you seem bent on doing to others. Sauce, goose, gander and all of that.

Thanks, I'm sure that karma or divine justice or dramatic irony or good old fashioned fairplay will take care of that.

As it seems so close to your heart, I'll make sure I keep you posted on any comeuppance developments.

get_jo

Dave101t wrote: »

Its not the current occupiers problem

Forgetting my particular case... I thought that when someone buys a property, they inherit liability for any breach of convenants. So even if the current householder did not commit the breach, they still have to deal with the consequences of any breach, whatever they may be. Is that not correct?

Obviously as the breach is over 20 years old, it's irrelevant in my case, but I just want to be clear about that point of law.

get_jo

Actually, the other point I wanted to clear up is as follows:

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Even if that wasn't an obstacle you would have to prove that you had the benefit of the covenant, which is not straightforward.

Does that mean I would have to demonstrate I was the *original* beneficiary (or that I have inherited / acquired the original benefit), or just that I benefit from it?

I do benefit from the covenant coincidentally, but my (predecessor's) benefit was not the original purpose of the covenant.

So in order to enforece a covenant, I would have to prove that the covenant was specifically put in place to protect my interests (or interests that I have since inherited) - is that correct?