self-build scuppered by restrictive covenants?

benebene

Hi all, wondered if anyone could advise on this tricky situation.

We bought our house in 2007. There is a bit of land next to our house which came with the sale (both house and land are freehold). This bit of land was bought from the Yorkshire Electricity Group in 1995 by the former owners of our house. (Indeed I believe it originally belonged to the house but was sold to YEB some years prior to 1995, then sold back). The land has a separate Land Registry Title and it has a restrictive covenant on it which says

(26.10.1995) A Transfer of the land in this title dated 12 October 1995
made between (1) Yorkshire Electricity Group PLC (Vendor) and (2)
I][COLOR="Black"]owners previous to us[/COLOR][/I (Purchasers) contains the
following covenants:-

"The Purchasers hereby further jointly and severally covenant with the
Vendor that they the Purchasers and the persons deriving title under
them (with the intent and so as to bind the land hereby transferred
into whosesoever hands the same may come) not to erect or place any
dwellinghouses or buildings on the land hereby transferred or on any
part thereof"


We have just got full planning permission for a house to be built partly on this land adjoining our house which was bought from YEB. My questions are:

1. It isn't clear to me what land has the benefit of this covenant. Is it the land on which my house is built? If so, it is not mentioned in my title deed, nor is the covenant mentioned on the deed of the properties on either side of us. If I do own the benefited and burdened land in this scenario, can I ignore the covenant?

2. YEG no longer exists as it was broken up and sold to buyers here and abroad (see history below, from wikipedia). Does this mean the covenant is 'dead', ie. is it only YEG who could raise a legal issue over the breach of covenant?

3. Would it be possible to get an indemnity policy to cover us if we go ahead and build?

Thanks in advance for your help, sorry it is such a long post.



Yorkshire Electricity Group plc was formed in 1990 as the result of privatisation of the Yorkshire Electricity Board, formed in 1948 as part of the nationalisation of the electricity industry. In 1997 Yorkshire Electricity Group plc was acquired by American Electric Power (AEP) and Public Service Company of Colorado (part of Xcel Energy). In 2001 Innogy bought 94.75% of the company. The company was subsequently split into two entities, one a supply company, the other a distribution utility. The distribution company (Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Limited) was disposed of to CE Electric UK in 2001 in exchange for the supply business of Northern Electric. Northern Powergrid is now the licensed Distribution Network Operator for the Yorkshire region. Innogy was itself taken over by RWE and the supply company now trades as npower.

molerat

Looks like you need the help of both the Land Registry rep on here and a specialist land / conveyancing solicitor. Just going ahead and building could end in tears.

http://www.restrictivecovenants.co.uk/legalindemnityinsurance.shtml

G_M

benebene wrote: »

The land has a separate Land Registry Title and it has a restrictive covenant on it which says

....

"The Purchasers hereby further jointly and severally covenant with the
Vendor that they the Purchasers and the persons deriving title under
them (with the intent and so as to bind the land hereby transferred
into whosesoever hands the same may come) not to erect or place any
dwellinghouses or buildings on the land hereby transferred or on any
part thereof"


.....My questions are:

1. It isn't clear to me what land has the benefit of this covenant. Is it the land on which my house is built? If so, it is not mentioned in my title deed, nor is the covenant mentioned on the deed of the properties on either side of us. If I do own the benefited and burdened land in this scenario, can I ignore the covenant?

2. YEG no longer exists as it was broken up and sold to buyers here and abroad (see history below, from wikipedia). Does this mean the covenant is 'dead', ie. is it only YEG who could raise a legal issue over the breach of covenant?

3. Would it be possible to get an indemnity policy to cover us if we go ahead and build?

.

1) No. The Beneficiary is the vendor (ie YEG)
2) No. Whoever purchased or inherited the relevant part of YEG is now the Beneficiary.
3) Yes. Indemnity insurance should pay out to compemsate you for the costs should YEG (or it's successors) force you to remove the building. It will not protect the building from enforcement action though.

Land_Registry

benebene - it is really legal advice you need here as we provide the information, namely the existence of the restrictive covenants, but we are not their enforcers or legal advisers on the subject.

Key things to be aware of though from a registration perspective are that
a) the benefit of restrictive covenants is not registered as the benefit is an equitable and not a legal right. The difference between legal and equitable rights is covered by the Law of Property Act 1925 so is one aspect a legal adviser would consider and advise on for you.

b) Once imposed, restrictive covenants continue to bind the land indefinitely. For a covenant to be extinguished in the way you suggest, it must be clear that the whole of the land which has the benefit can be precisely identified and that all the persons having an interest in the benefiting land have joined in. This is a rare occurrence.

The starting point for identifying the benefiting land is invariably the Transfer which imposed the covenants. Sometimes, if it was a Transfer of part out of a larger title you can then identify the benefiting land, namely that remaining land owned by the seller at that time.

If you are unable to clearly identify the extent of the benefiting land then the next option is likely to be to consider what risk is involved and whether you can get insurance to indemnify you against that risk. It would after all be only the owner of the benefiting land who could seek to impose it

So as far as 1) is concerned it is often difficult to identify the benefiting land.
2) No as YEG presumably owned the benefiting land at the time but the benefit stays with the land so does not 'die' with YEG and
3) That is one for the insurance companies ot decide on - I would suggest getting some advice first with regards this as I have read on MSE that if you 'dig too deep' around the risks re such things you are in some ways increasing the risk and making it harder to get insurance as a result. I assume the idea is that by digging you are increasing the risk that the benfiting land owner(s) will become aware of the breach

G_M

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

....... I have read on MSE that if you 'dig too deep' around the risks re such things you are in some ways increasing the risk and making it harder to get insurance as a result. I assume the idea is that by digging you are increasing the risk that the benfiting land owner(s) will become aware of the breach

It's a bit like taking out critical health insurance, to pay out if you get, for example, cancer.

If you first go to your GP, who refers you to a cancer specialist, who diagnoses cancer, well the fact that you, and both GP and specialist, are aware you have cancer is going to invalidate any subsequent policy you take out.

You can insure something in case it becomes a problem in the future. You can't dig around, make everyone aware of a current problem, and then insure against it.

Wi88le

Do you know what the electric company used the land for?

Something buried under the plot?

davidmcn

Wi88le wrote: »

Do you know what the electric company used the land for?

Something buried under the plot?

Yes, it seems an odd restriction unless there's a practical reason behind it, I doubt the electricity company would have added it simply to hold a future developer to ransom.

silvercar

One of those cases where if the house was built and someone sold it 20 years later, the insurers would be happy that no one had objected in 20 years and so the chances of someone demanding the property be demolished would be slim, but dig around now and you may get objectors.

The most likely reason for the covenant is that the electricity board thought it a likely site for a pilon or sub station and wanted to preserve the site for it to do so if needed.

Dan-Dan

silvercar wrote: »

The most likely reason for the covenant is that the electricity board thought it a likely site for a pilon or sub station and wanted to preserve the site for it to do so if needed.

That would be making the assumption they could buy the plot back whenever they fancied , no ?

teddysmum

Near where I live is a large area of land , maintained by the council as a green area (paths, stream, grassland, copses and playground) and ,close to the main pathway, there used to be a substation .


There were protests when it was demolished, as it was deemed dangerous because a very deep hole was left. This hole, lined with brick, was eventually filled and the spot grassed over, so there is now no trace of the building, but I don't it would be suitable for building on, due to what is underground.


This could be the case with the op's plot of land.