Ex-Council House & Covenants

toohairyhusky

Good morning - we're about 6 weeks away from Exchange / Completion (I hope!) and the final bits of paperwork are dribbling in from our Solicitor.

Last night an envelope was waiting for us with the original contract dated 1989 between the Council and the first person to buy the house. She had signed a contract with a whole raft of covenants attached. These included:

Without Council permission you must not...

Put up a shed
Put up a greenhouse
Park a car to the front of the house
Extend the house
Build with X metres of the drains
Do anything other than live in the house

It went on and on and on!

The seller has already put up a garage, a shed, a conservatory and dropped the kerb at the front - all breaking the rules of the Covenants - but all with Planning Permission (except the shed!) from the same Council.

Should we worry? There is something in the contract that says the Council cannot reasonably refuse permission...

A couple of asides - we already live in the house. We are renting until 31 May when hopefully the sale will go through. Next door has sold back in September, so I'm presuming that they have (and signed) the same document.

The house is in a tiny village and next door sold for £300,000 - we were amazed!!!! So it's not put them off.

Would it put others off in the future? Is it normal for an ex-council house?

I've already rung the Council to find out more - just waiting for a call back.

Thank you for reading x

beecher2

Phone your solicitor - they should get the sellers to purchase indemnity insurance. Ours cost £13 when we sold last year and it can be drawn up in a matter of minutes.

kwmlondon

If they've got permission then they're fine. Regarding the shed, either get indemnity insurance (as beecher2 said) or be prepared to apply for backdated planning and if the worse comes to the worst, take the shed down. None of this stuff seems like it's an issue, and if your neighbors have a track record of doing this stuff to nobody's going to raise an objection if you ever apply for planning, certainly not an objection that would hold much sway.

By rights the seller should pay for the indemnity but if you want to get this done quickly I'd just stump up and be done with it, should cost relatively little.

toohairyhusky

Sorry - forgot that bit! The seller has offered to pay Indemnity Insurance for the garage, conservatory and parking! We had to do the same when we sold ours to prove we had a right of way across our neighbour's garden.

Just wondering if it's a normal contract - but having Googled a bit more, it would seem so.

Thanks guys x

Yorkie1

toohairyhusky wrote: »

Last night an envelope was waiting for us with the original contract dated 1989 between the Council and the first person to buy the house. She had signed a contract with a whole raft of covenants attached. These included:

Without Council permission you must not...

Put up a shed
Put up a greenhouse
Park a car to the front of the house
Extend the house
Build with X metres of the drains
Do anything other than live in the house

It went on and on and on!

The seller has already put up a garage, a shed, a conservatory and dropped the kerb at the front - all breaking the rules of the Covenants - but all with Planning Permission (except the shed!) from the same Council.

kwmlondon wrote: »

If they've got permission then they're fine. Regarding the shed, either get indemnity insurance (as beecher2 said) or be prepared to apply for backdated planning and if the worse comes to the worst, take the shed down. None of this stuff seems like it's an issue, and if your neighbors have a track record of doing this stuff to nobody's going to raise an objection if you ever apply for planning, certainly not an objection that would hold much sway.

By rights the seller should pay for the indemnity but if you want to get this done quickly I'd just stump up and be done with it, should cost relatively little.

Do not confuse planning permission for certain structures, with restrictive covenant permission.

Just because the council has granted PP does not equate to RCP. Two completely separate issues.