Restricted covenant - use of property

billiebess

I live in a small development of 7 barn conversions, all occupied, converted 10 years ago. We all have restricted covenants stating that 'the property must not be used for any purpose other than a private dwellinghouse for a single family'

We have recently discovered a neighbour has agreed a sale with a purchaser who intends to run a B&B business at the property. The seller apparently does not intend to disclose the restrictive covenant to the buyer, relying instead on the fact that solicitors might not pick it up.

Can anyone suggest what our course of action should be?

Thanks

G_M

Restrictive covenant.

You could try to contact the buyer and warn them ie:
1) when they view
2) via the estate agent
3) via their solicitor (if you can find out who it is)
4) you could erect a large notice at the entrance to the development

You could speak to the seller.

You couldwrite to the Estate Agent

You could enforce the restrictive covenant(assuming it is in your favour) after they buy.

You could persuade whoever benefits from the RC to enforce it after they buy.

anselld

It is not clear that the intended use would breach the covenant provided the main use was still a single residence, any more than say, taking a lodger.

As G_M states, it is only the beneficiary of the RC who can enforce it. If that is not you then it is, unfortunately, none of your business.

Yorkie1

anselld wrote: »

It is not clear that the intended use would breach the covenant provided the main use was still a single residence, any more than say, taking a lodger.

As G_M states, it is only the beneficiary of the RC who can enforce it. If that is not you then it is, unfortunately, none of your business.

I tend to think that taking a lodger would probably breach the covenant as a lodger is not part of of a single family, but that point is certainly arguable.

However, running a B&B is a totally different proposition than a single lodger. It requires planning permission and is not a residential purpose e.g. for mortgage purposes. The covenant is quite clear that the only purpose for which the property can be used is the single family residence. It doesn't say 'mainly'.

As you and G_M have said, the OP needs to find out who has the benefit of the covenant and thus can enforce it. However, G_M's suggestions may head the problem off at the pass if the potential buyer is made aware of the difficulties before they get too involved.

anselld

Yorkie1 wrote: »

However, running a B&B is a totally different proposition than a single lodger. It requires planning permission

Not necessarily. Planning portal states ... "the key test is: is it still mainly a home or has it become business premises?". Thus if the B&B use is subsidiary to the main use as a family residence then change of use would not be required. Same as lodgers; have too many and you become C4/HMO, have one or two and you are OK.

vivatifosi

Do you have a resident's management co? This is the sort of issue they should be handling as they should know the deeds and who can enforce them. I am a director of an RMC and we routinely write to all EAs telling them what the RCs are. It also takes the emotional aspect out of the equation as everyone is treated equally.

Failing that, look at the deeds. Check who can enforce the RCs. Where I am, anyone can enforce them: the original developer (unlikely), the householders, future householders once the share has been passed on, the RMC. It all depends on how the deeds were written.

If the seller is doing this in full knowledge of the RCs and is still keeping it from the buyer, I also think that is quite shoddy behaviour.

ValHaller

I am thinking a threatogram from a solicitor to the Vendor, reminding them of the covenant and advising that if they should sell to a B&B operator, their purchaser would find themselves at the sharp end of legal action and advising the vendor that the letter should be disclosed to the buyer as part of the conveyancing process.

Scenarios

• Vendor ignores letter, sells to B&B operator. You then get your lawyer to write another threatogram, with a copy of the letter to the vendor attached. Buyer then turns on vendor
• Vendor realises above scenario and passes letter to buyer, who either buys or runs a mile

billiebess

vivatifosi wrote: »

Do you have a resident's management co? This is the sort of issue they should be handling as they should know the deeds and who can enforce them. I am a director of an RMC and we routinely write to all EAs telling them what the RCs are. It also takes the emotional aspect out of the equation as everyone is treated equally.

Failing that, look at the deeds. Check who can enforce the RCs. Where I am, anyone can enforce them: the original developer (unlikely), the householders, future householders once the share has been passed on, the RMC. It all depends on how the deeds were written.

If the seller is doing this in full knowledge of the RCs and is still keeping it from the buyer, I also think that is quite shoddy behaviour.

Thank you for the advice. The barns are all freehold and from the original agreement with the farmer on the original sale of his barns each successor in title over the years has been required to sign their conveyance with the clause included. We have a management company, all with equal shares.
I assume from this anyone of us could enforce the restriction?

vivatifosi

billiebess wrote: »

Thank you for the advice. The barns are all freehold and from the original agreement with the farmer on the original sale of his barns each successor in title over the years has been required to sign their conveyance with the clause included. We have a management company, all with equal shares.
I assume from this anyone of us could enforce the restriction?

I'm really sorry, but while the answer is potentially yes, the only way you will know for sure is to read the deeds.

getmore4less

the problem may lie with getting those that can enforce to take action.

G_M

billiebess wrote: »

Thank you for the advice. The barns are all freehold and from the original agreement with the farmer on the original sale of his barns each successor in title over the years has been required to sign their conveyance with the clause included. We have a management company, all with equal shares.
I assume from this anyone of us could enforce the restriction?

Quite possibly it is the farmer who has to enforce.

Read the covenant.