restrictive covenant against business use.

System

huggettm wrote: »

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

But you said

the landlord has informally said that he will ask us to leave if we don't stop

which means issuing a S21

huggettm

lincroft1710 wrote: »

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

It is my limited understanding from browsing other forums that as the property has been confirmed as primarily a residence and there is no increased traffic to the estate then it can't be enforced - but then that's probably because its the answer I want

huggettm

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

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.

Having been a tennat for 10 years and knowing him personally I would hope neither. He just does not want the stress of court action (or threatened court action).

Which is most likely why they have done it this way.

gb12345

huggettm wrote: »

It is my limited understanding from browsing other forums that as the property has been confirmed as primarily a residence and there is no increased traffic to the estate then it can't be enforced - but then that's probably because its the answer I want

Primarily doesn't come into it. You have already stated that the covenant says

"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."

You are breaching the parts in red and they could well decide to take your landlord to court for the breach. They may have no chance of winning, but is your landlord likely to take that risk?

If I was your landlord (and I have my own rental properties, so this is based on fact not just opinion) and I received court papers, you would be receiving an S21 straight away, so that I could tell the court the matter had been dealt with and won't occur again. I'd rather have to look for a new tenant than deal with court cases.

buglawton

The property is being used as a private dwelling, like millions of others where people conduct their remunerative businesses quietly from home. Your landlord will recognise what a good tenant you are and is not going to bother to evict you (unless they have another agenda like selling the property/raising the rent). Nor is anyone going to spend money on legal unless you are causing a general and provable nuisance.

Get back to business!

And you be the judge of whose advice on this thread you feel is the most useful.

gb12345

buglawton wrote: »

like millions of others where people conduct their remunerative businesses quietly from home.

But he's not conducting his business quietly is he? He has generated a complaint (albeit from a curtain twitcher) and highlighted the fact that the covenant is being breached. I work from home regularly, but I have no visitors and no deliveries, so my neighbours wouldn't know if I'm performing my business or just having a day off.

buglawton wrote: »

Your landlord will recognise what a good tenant you are and is not going to bother to evict you (unless they have another agenda like selling the property/raising the rent). Nor is anyone going to spend money on legal unless you are causing a general and provable nuisance.

He will cease to be a good tenant if the landlord receives court papers. Then the landlord will likely want shut as quick as possible for a quiet life.

You have no way of guaranteeing that the committee won't take him to court, just as much as I have no way of knowing for sure that they will. Only the committee know that and perhaps they might see it as a way of making an example to cut down on other breaches of covanant.

buglawton wrote: »

And you be the judge of whose advice on this thread you feel is the most useful.

There is no advice - just opinion.

The OP has already said that he will not be receiving any more deliveries, as his landlord has threatened eviction. So it is likely that even if the committee did go to court the landlord can say that he has already dealt with the problem and the breach doesn't happen any more.

lincroft1710

huggettm wrote: »

It is my limited understanding from browsing other forums that as the property has been confirmed as primarily a residence and there is no increased traffic to the estate then it can't be enforced - but then that's probably because its the answer I want

Can you give a link to one of these forums pl?

buglawton

gb12345 wrote: »

....There is no advice - just opinion.

The OP has already said that he will not be receiving any more deliveries, as his landlord has threatened eviction. So it is likely that even if the committee did go to court the landlord can say that he has already dealt with the problem and the breach doesn't happen any more.

Nope
All I can find from OP is "Sadly at no point has the neighbour in question or countrywide actually contacted us".

So landlord (Countrywide?) has not threatened anything yet.

And my advice is - get back to business.

There's always the possibility that the genuine annoyance to a neighbour is bigger than disclosed by OP - but I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now.

COOLTRIKERCHICK

In all of this no one has mentioned the parcels leaving the premises..I presume, this is another delivery/pick up van???


What I can see the main stem of the business is run from home... the internet sales... taking in stock, re-packing, and sending... the only reason you have registered the business at another premises is to try an make it look there is no business being run from there... so IMO you must have known you could not run a business from your Home...


You either need to find a small unit/premises where you can take in your deliveries, and re-package, and then post out from... OR stop your business..

gb12345

buglawton wrote: »

Nope
All I can find from OP is "Sadly at no point has the neighbour in question or countrywide actually contacted us".

So landlord (Countrywide?) has not threatened anything yet.

Some posts seem to have been edited/deleted, but

huggettm wrote: »

The owners of the covenant (countrywide lettings) have not contacted us personally - they contacted the council also after the neighbours complaints, after convincing the council we have done no wrong countrywide have then contacted the landlord claiming a breach of the covenant and threatening to take him to court unless we cease - which doesn't make sense to me.

Sadly at no point has the neighbour in question or countrywide actually contacted us.

still exists

And the OP did previously say "the landlord has informally said that he will ask us to leave if we don't stop"

buglawton wrote: »

And my advice is - get back to business.

Do you have some sort of qualification or experience to base your advice on and if the OP is evicted because he follows your advice will you be happy for him and his family to stay in your spare room for a while?

buglawton wrote: »

There's always the possibility that the genuine annoyance to a neighbour is bigger than disclosed by OP - but I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now.

As I've said a number of times, it is likely just the neighbourhood stickybeak causing trouble, but the fact remains that the covenant appears to have been breached (the OP or more accurately his landlord would have to pay for legal advice to confirm this) and Countrywide could decide to take action against that breach.