restrictive covenant against business use.

molerat

huggettm wrote: »

Hello,

I rent a property that apparently has a restrictive covenant against business use.

I run a small limited company business from home selling fancy dress online - and have deliveries usually twice a day, these vans usually also deliver to the properties on the estate so there is no increase in traffic.

The house remains primarily a residence and I have a letter from the council confirming this and that planning permission is not required. The business is also not actually registered at this address, but it is the mailing address.Not really relevant, many large industrial complexes are not registered at that address.

However one of my neighbours has been complaining daily to the council and lying about the number of deliveries per day, also lying and claiming that the garage is used as a depot for the business. (which it is not - we do not store any stock).Again not really relevant. Recently I went to collect a parcel, 2 industrial units completely empty apart from 2 small racks with half a dozen uncollected small parcels. I commented on this and he said come back in 1 hour and the place will be completely full as 2 40ft trucks disgorge their loads, 5 hours later it will be completely empty again. Those 5 hours will be chaotic with vehicles coming and going but for 19 hours of the day the place is quiet with very little stored on site.

Due to these lies from our neighbour we have been notified by the landlord that they may be prosecuted for breaching the covenant against business use.


Is this enforceable as we have it confirmed no planning permission is required?

You have not actually stated how many and what size parcels are delivered and collected each day and how long the van spends outside your property. I too am an avid internet shopper but receiving several deliveries each and every day would be a bit of a stretch. The fact is you are carrying out a business in breach of a covenant which is affecting the quiet enjoyment of at least one of the neighbours protected by that covenant. http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10144843.What_a_waste__Legal_bill_over_wheelie_bin_dispute_hits___37k/?ref=ar Your LL will not want something like this happening over a similarly trivial matter so a S21 could possibly be the simplest, safest and cheapest option whatever you now do.

leveller2911

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."

Just an opinion but I think the landlord is breaking the covenant because he is running a business from the house.

He is renting the house out to a tenant and as such is running a business from the premises........:D

cte1111

leveller2911 wrote: »

huggettm wrote: »

The exact wording is this:



Just an opinion but I think the landlord is breaking the covenant because he is running a business from the house.

He is renting the house out to a tenant and as such is running a business from the premises........:D

The landlord's business is based at his own address, not that of the tenanted property. It is let as a private residence, within the covenant. If he however allows the tenant to carry on running a business from the house, then he will be in breach of the covenant. That is why the landlord has told the OP to stop running a business from the house, which he has done.

OP - you are evidently running a business from your house. As a consequence there have been multiple daily deliveries to your house, solely related to your business. This has upset your neighbours. You will need to find another location for your business or find somewhere to live without such a restrictive covenant.

Before you protest again, this is what you have told us:

1. You received items that you have purchased to re-sell at your house

2. You repackage them to sell in smaller quantities (where does this take place? from previous posts I think you said that they were stored in your garage, presumably you are also doing the repackaging there)

3. You then ship them out to customers (where do they go from? presumably your house again)

All elements of your trading business are being carried out from a private residence. I think you will have to accept that you are in the wrong.

PasturesNew

huggettm wrote: »

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

But they aren't running a business from them. Not operating a packaging warehouse/depot from them.

They might be storing their personal belongings, garden equipment or old bikes, leaving their cars outside, or in the drive..... which is their choice as it is a residential building and typical residential lifestyle.

leveller2911

cte1111 wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

The landlord's business is based at his own address, not that of the tenanted property. It is let as a private residence, within the covenant. If he however allows the tenant to carry on running a business from the house, then he will be in breach of the covenant.

Guess you didn't see the smiley at the end of my post.It was tongue in cheek to an extent...

However the landlords let property is a business asset and as such becomes part of the business he is running.The place where the landlord runs his business from is not necessarily his home address.

I'm not suggesting this is a "get out" clause for the op, far from it.

JimmyTheWig

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

OP, I think you are right.
If your landlord gets taken to court and pays for some good legal advice, he should win.

But I think that is irrelevant.

I also agree with you that it sounds like your business doesn't cause much interference to your neighbours - no more than someone who bought a lot of personal items via the internet.

But, again, I think that is irrelevant.

What I think is relevant is that there is a chance that if you carry on your business that your landlord will be taken to court. I think it will be easier for your landlord to evict you than to win at court.

buglawton

Chance of anyone being taken to court = 0 methinks.

JimmyTheWig

buglawton wrote: »

Chance of anyone being taken to court = 0 methinks.

Reasonable.
Chance of landlord being threatened with being taken to court = non-zero.
Chance of landlord getting cold feet and evicting tennant to avoid the threats of being taken to court = non-zero.