Restrictive Covenant

mittel

Another question which might also interest others in this situation and pehaps have not thought about is;

Being in knowledge of the covenants on the land, if due to an accident or any other act the property is destroyed, can a new house be built to replace it on the same land?

martindow

mittel wrote: »

Another question which might also interest others in this situation and pehaps have not thought about is;

Being in knowledge of the covenants on the land, if due to an accident or any other act the property is destroyed, can a new house be built to replace it on the same land?

If other posters are correct that Hepworth v Pickles applies and the covenant could no longer be enforced there would be no hindrance to rebuilding would there?

mittel

martindow wrote: »

If other posters are correct that Hepworth v Pickles applies and the covenant could no longer be enforced there would be no hindrance to rebuilding would there?

Thanks martindow, That is what I am trying to establish (a) can another house be built and (b) if it can be built will the 20 year clock start ticking again from the date of the new build?

G_M

I think you need to be very cautious relying on info from this forum, on this topic.

It seems to me to be an uncertain area of law - even your own quote from the ref I gave you (a 5 minute google - NOT a legal opinion!) starts:

This case has had more comebacks than Sinatra, but

is still, as far as I know, good law.

By all means refer your solicitor to the Pickles case, which may or may not still be in force (it was 1900!) and may or may not be relevant, but be guided by a lawyer, not amateurs like us - however well-intentioned we all are!

Or consult another solicitor.

How much is the indemnity insurance? It might actually be quicker and maybe even cheaper just to fork out for it (even if you have to grit your teeth!).

mittel

Many thanksG_M for your advice. It is not the cost of the indemnity that concerns me, in relation to the purchase cost it is truly negligible.

What concerns me is the effectiveness of the policy in this case. Is there a slightest chance that a claim could be made against the property being there and if so what could be the likely outcome? Is this covenant blight on the property?

I have sought advice from my solicitor and he says that the worst case scenario is that there will be court proceedings and that the indemnity policy will cover the cost of these. The way I see it is that the worst case scenario is the outcome of the court proceedings and will the indemnity policy cover these outcomes?

I am pursuing these concerns with my solicitor but thought that bringing them to this forum would perhaps solicit other opinions on how to proceed and also share my experience with others. Doing this has certainly helped me to prepare myself for tomorrow when I will discuss this matter further with him.

mittel

"Bump"....

Richard_Webster

The existing houses, if they date from the 1950s are clearly immune form enforcement under Hepworth v Pickles.

This would not necessarily be the case with a further house as this would constitute a fresh breach.

It might be argued that once more than one house had been built then the covenant had been breached and any number more could then be built after the expiry of the 20 year period - but I wouldn't want to be confident of that argument and would advise a person seeking to build a further (third) dwelling to obtain an indemnity policy.

mittel

Manythanks Richard,

My concernsis not regarding the building of another property on the land, I am concernedthat if the existing property is destroyed would I be able to build anotherhouse to replace it and will the “new build” then be subject to the covenantand I would have to wait another 20 years for immunity?

Thank youagain for your interest.

Richard_Webster

I think it is unlikely that a person claiming to be able to enforce the covenants would be able to take action for a replacement dwelling, but frankly I think you are worrying unnecessarily. You could consider obtaining an indemnity policy if and when it ever happens.

I think there are lots more things that are much more likely to be of concern that that.