Can a Housing Association still maintain rights over a 100% owned freehold property?

tamarto

rhubarb1 wrote: »

Thanks Richard. However can you just confirm that most convenants restrict what you can do to the exterior of the property, they do not normally restrict what you can do to the interior of the property.

I have just spoken to the HA at last. Apparently their tenants who are in the Right to Buy scheme have a covenant imposed that restricts alterations or additions to the exterior but never the interior. So these tenants would enjoy more rights than we would as buyers of the freehold. How is that fair?

Also, things like knocking the fireplace through to insert a wood burner, or putting in a downstairs loo as well as adding a porch and small conservatory would all need written permission from the HA and that costs upwards of £50 a time.

Thanks for clarifying the border issue, that is a huge relief just to know that.

The HA charge £50+ to give their permission for something? Seriously walk away!

rhubarb1

I'm afraid we may have to.
The very fact that HA tenants who buy under the Right to Buy scheme have more rights than us, who are purchasing the full freehold of the property just stings.

To have the covenant altered would cost £800, just to bring it in line with the other buyers of the same HA houses.

I assumed you would just get written permission, I never thought you'd have to pay for it. Imagine paying £50 to ask someone if you can put a downstairs loo in your own property!

Heartbreaking as it is, we shall have to walk away. I dread telling the kids. I probably should just make the decision not to buy and leave it at that, but I make no apologies for expressing how much that hurts and how it will affect my family over Christmas. A little understanding on that score would not have gone amiss.

Richard_Webster

Thanks Richard. However can you just confirm that most convenants restrict what you can do to the exterior of the property, they do not normally restrict what you can do to the interior of the property.

In my experience for freehold property it is very unusual for there to be restrictions on what you can do to the interior.

rhubarb1

One more thing. Could you also confirm that if we wanted to get rid of this interior restriction, we would have to pay to get the covenant altered? Or would it fall to them? Can we barter at all on this point or would we be wasting our breath?

Nuttyneddy

It might pay you to find out (from HA?) exactly what is meant by interior alterations - i.e. do they just mean knocking walls down rather than minor things like changing the wallpaper?

rhubarb1

I'm in the process of doing so. The HA have not seen the paperwork and it is possible that this was drafted up by mistake as leasehold restrictions. However the woman I spoke to today said that in order to get it changed, even if it was their mistake, would cost US £800.
I scanned in the relevant docs which she had not seen and emailed them to her asking what alterations we would need permission for. She did state that any alteration to the outside of the property, including putting on a small porch, or a conservatory, or just having a paved patio, would need written permission.

Each party in this process seems to be laying blame with the other party and meanwhile we are none the wiser. I don't see how they can apply restrictions to interior alterations if they have never done so before and don't have a clear rule of what would need permission and what would not.

Richard_Webster

Getting the covenant altered is probably a lot about HA bureaucracy. HAs don't tend to have legally qualified staff so they will want to ask their solicitor's advice about the point. There is tendency to do things because they think they should but they don't really know why.

It could be that at some point somebody copied the wording from flat lease covenants (where they would be legitimately concerned about interior alterations) and nobody bothered to argue about it. They happily imposed these covenants on other houses on the estate without thinking why they were doing it and now they can't remember why they did it.

Probably the immediate reaction from the HA's solicitor is that they all must be the same but there la question is why they put it there in the first place - are they actually, as a matter of policy, bothered about what someone does inside a sold freehold house? Because of their internal bureaucracy it will be difficult to get anyone to make a decision on the point.

Frankly I don't see why it matters that other houses have the same restriction, particularly if they weren't actually going to enforce it anyway. The only reason i can think of for having it is that if they exercised their 21 buy back option then they would want a "standard interior" for their own internal admin purposes.

You might get somewhere if you were able to contact the board members of the HA - who tend to be local councillors and other worthies.

You are probably best to try to get it sorted now rather than buy and deal with it later. Certainly a future buyer's solicitor will probably think the clause is unreasonable and this could put other buyers off.

rhubarb1

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Getting the covenant altered is probably a lot about HA bureaucracy. HAs don't tend to have legally qualified staff so they will want to ask their solicitor's advice about the point. There is tendency to do things because they think they should but they don't really know why.

It could be that at some point somebody copied the wording from flat lease covenants (where they would be legitimately concerned about interior alterations) and nobody bothered to argue about it. They happily imposed these covenants on other houses on the estate without thinking why they were doing it and now they can't remember why they did it.

Apparently the covenant is not imposed on any other house sold by the HA to the Right to Buy tenants. I don't know if it is imposed on any privately bought houses that used to belong to the HA.

Probably the immediate reaction from the HA's solicitor is that they all must be the same but there la question is why they put it there in the first place - are they actually, as a matter of policy, bothered about what someone does inside a sold freehold house? Because of their internal bureaucracy it will be difficult to get anyone to make a decision on the point.

I have been told that we will need written permission for all alterations and if we fail to do so, should the property go up for sale we will be charged in retrospect for any changes made.

Frankly I don't see why it matters that other houses have the same restriction, particularly if they weren't actually going to enforce it anyway. The only reason i can think of for having it is that if they exercised their 21 buy back option then they would want a "standard interior" for their own internal admin purposes.

You might get somewhere if you were able to contact the board members of the HA - who tend to be local councillors and other worthies.

You are probably best to try to get it sorted now rather than buy and deal with it later. Certainly a future buyer's solicitor will probably think the clause is unreasonable and this could put other buyers off.

Yes that is my worry. Although it would have been nice for our solicitors to have raised this issue with us sooner and to stop telling us that we are the ones being unreasonable. Not sure how to get it sorted as the HA say that they will be charged for any query raised with their solicitor and they will then pass these charges onto us.

So not sure where to go from here?

Richard_Webster

HA say that they will be charged for any query raised with their solicitor and they will then pass these charges onto us.

This is the problem - HA people don't understand it so the solicitor carries on his own sweet way and they don't dare ask because they will be charged for it. Having a meeting with solicitor to ask why would cost HA hundreds. So they don't.

I have an HA near me that allows its solicitor to charge all kinds of unreasonable amounts for doing non-legal work that the HA could do itself, but the HA probably doesn't know any better.

I can see that perhaps your solicitor should possibly have pointed it out to you sooner, but to be fair to him I think as these covenants tend to be routine and get explained in a pre-contract report and wouldn't normally be flagged up sooner. It is easy to criticise after the event but I think that it would be difficult to show that they should have told you sooner.

You could try taking it up with your local councillor or MP. If the MP is any good they will have to provide a reasoned explanation of why they impose the covenant.

££sc££

I work for a HA and we often get letters from solicitors asking for consent for various things at time of a sale, to comply with convenants on freehold properties that are and nothing to do with us anymore and many haven't been for years. It's usually the ownership can't change at Land Registry without our consent, but no time limit was put on this, so they've changed hands between private buyers loads of times. It's easiest for us to write a quick letter giving consent and we don't charge a fee. No one ever questions it and it's easiest to do the quick letter rather than trying to get the covenant changed now, with the legal fees that would entail.

We've probably got loads of private houses with restrictive convenants on exterior changes but have we got records?! Nope. Do we care?! Nope. We have enough trouble getting our tenants to contact us before taking down their load-bearing walls, installing drives and removing kitchens (and not replacing) etc, to be sticking our nose in private houses.

I'd suggest giving the HA's legal team (if they have one) a ring and asking about the covenants, they probably have just copied them and don't even realise they're causing a problem