restrictive covenant against business use.

System

I don't think it will make much difference. Even if your solicitor says it is unenforceable you are still going to get a S21. You are in a no win situation

huggettm

Whats an S21?

huggettm

What is quite amusing/annoying is that neither the complainant or the committee members on the estate use their garages to store their vehicles..

System

huggettm wrote: »

Whats an S21?

Notice to quit

Refers to Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988

huggettm

!!!!!! wrote: »

Notice to quit

Refers to Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988

Okay - but unless you are my landlord, that is just your opinion and not fact

lincroft1710

huggettm wrote: »

The exact wording is this:

"Not to use the said dwelling for any purpose other than as a private dwelling and not to use the said garage for any purpose other than as a private garage for private motor vehicles only nor to carry on any trade business or manufacture whatsoever on the land hereby transferred or any part thereof."


This seems somewhat stupid for a start as you cannot even fit a car in any of the garages and then be able to get out of the car. If this was enforced then they would have grounds to take everyone on the estate to court?

If anyone with any legal experience can advise?

This is standard covenant wording, the phraseology originally used when builders built garages which would accommodate the cars of the time. The repetition of the word "private" points to the implied meaning that the garage should not be used for trade vehicles.

If the beneficiaries of this covenant took anyone to court for using their garage for storage of articles of private, domestic use rather than garaging a private motor vehicle, they probably wouldn't succeed if it could be proved the garage couldn't be used as a garage.

huggettm

Thank you, so assuming the garage is okay - they will now still try to pursue the

"trade business or manufacture whatsoever on the land hereby transferred or any part thereof."

does that mean trade as in customers coming back and forth?

Savvy_Sue

huggettm wrote: »

Thank you, so assuming the garage is okay - they will now still try to pursue the

"trade business or manufacture whatsoever on the land hereby transferred or any part thereof."

does that mean trade as in customers coming back and forth?

I'd say not: that 'whatsoever' covers any form of trade, business or manufacture, and you'd be hard pushed to argue that your deliveries aren't any form of trade 'whatsoever'.

Your ongoing difficulty may be 'proving' that your normal internet deliveries are private and not business.

Savvy_Sue

buglawton wrote: »

Sounds like you ought to get back to business as usual and wait for the 'other side' try to evict you. It wont happen.

I disagree: the landlord may or may not try to evict the OP, but they may equally decide not to renew the tenancy. I don't believe they'd have to give a reason, and even if they did, having been in breach of the covenant would probably be sufficient.

But since IANAL, you can't rely on my advice, any more than you can on buglawton's.

lincroft1710

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I'd say not: that 'whatsoever' covers any form of trade, business or manufacture, and you'd be hard pushed to argue that your deliveries aren't any form of trade 'whatsoever'.

Your ongoing difficulty may be 'proving' that your normal internet deliveries are private and not business.

I'd agree with the first para and sadly think the second para may also be true.