Half way through extension but covanent restricts it

eddddy

jonnyb1978 wrote: »

...
They are only aware that planning permission was asked. Not that any work has started. ...

Are you sure?

I would doubt that the trust spends time looking through past planning lists on a regular basis.

My guess is that a neighbour has complained, and the trust has phrased things this way to preserve the neighbour's anonymity.



And... it depends why the covenants were put in place. One estate trust I dealt with was very fussy about extensions. They wanted to maintain the uniformity of all the houses on the estate - so they almost never allowed extensions.

Or when they did allow an extension, they imposed very strict rules about architectural detail, finishes etc., to ensure the estate kept its character.

jonnyb1978

Thanks. I'm thinking there is more to this than first looks. Neighbours seem OK both with either an extension or conservatory. I though a neighbour may have complained.

The trust represents a will trust of someone. (Don't want to disclose the trust), but the conveyancing solicitor have said that permission must be sought from the vendors who owned the property in 1979..Completely different names to who the estate trust represent who was around in 2nd world War.

anselld

jonnyb1978 wrote: »

From research these seem to be an old landowner who nobody can get hold of, then the trust use bullying tactics to get their money. Seems quite well known by the same people.

Enforcing a legally valid restrictive covenant could not really be called bullying tactics.

jonnyb1978

How do know it is legally valid what they are doing?
I'm not disputing the covenant is legally valid.

Totally agree if it's done legally but from what I've found on Google there is more to it. I'm talking a huge landowner. I don't even think it's legal but what they are doing will take a huge some of money to fight them as has been proven and court case won in London. Hence threatening letters etc for the everyday person it's probably better and less hassle to handover the money.

Private car park fines are not legally valid to ensue someone they don't even know was driving, they still used bullying and intimidation tactics.
Bank charges etc.


I'm trying to get some background info as to who and what these people represent. The letter didn't even have a name attached to it, just someone saying the represent Joe bloggs' will trust. Yet the people who solicitor says to ask permission seems to have no connection.

anselld

jonnyb1978 wrote: »

How do know it is legally valid what they are doing?

... because until now you have implied that the people sending the letters represent the beneficiary of the Covenant. If that is not the case then certainly ignore them.

bouicca21

It might help cut the clutter if you posted the wording of the covenant.

jonnyb1978

anselld wrote: »

... because until now you have implied that the people sending the letters represent the beneficiary of the Covenant. If that is not the case then certainly ignore them.

Fair enough and that is correct, but I don't get that the solicitor has informed my friend to ask the permission of two people who lived in the house in 1979. Nothing about the trust...and from what I can find these people have nothing to do with the trust. The trust was set up late 1940's.

Out of my league but was just trying to help a bit.

anselld

jonnyb1978 wrote: »

Fair enough and that is correct, but I don't get that the solicitor has informed my friend to ask the permission of two people who lived in the house in 1979. Nothing about the trust...and from what I can find these people have nothing to do with the trust. The trust was set up late 1940's.

Out of my league but was just trying to help a bit.

I agree, that is odd. I would think the solicitor should be checking exactly who has inherited the benefit of the Covenant and exactly who is entitled to represent that person's interests.

silvercar

I thought that covenants can only be enforced if the covenantor would lose out in some way if it were not.

G_M

silvercar wrote: »

I thought that covenants can only be enforced if the covenantor would lose out in some way if it were not.

the covenantor or his successors in title (usually).

The implication is that these 2 people have some right under the covenant, which is perfectly feasible but of course needs confirming.

As bouicca21 says, the wording of the covenant might also throw light on both what can/can't be built, and for whose interests the covenant exists.