Restrictive covenants affecting the title

jenster

can anyone help on theses pls

Our buyers solicitors have posed 2 questions to us

1) please confirm you have observed and performed the restrictive covenants affecting the title

2) please confirm you have not experienced any difficulty in respect of rights granted which are referred to in the title

the title shows is that its a title absolute , and mine and my husbands full names , full address of the property and date

Does anyone know where the restrictive covenants come into it ?

G_M

look at section C the Charges Regsiter. This will refer to the covenants which are probably specified in full detail an a Conveyance or Deed (also referenced in the Charges register.)

MJ12

When I bought my last house my solicitor asked the vendor the same questions. They confirmed both.

If there is a covenant, surely you would have seen it when you bought it. There would be wording on your title register in section C "Charges Register" like "A Transfer of the land in this title dated <some date> made between (1) <previous owner> and (2) <You and your husband> contains restrictive covenants."

It probably says something about right to light and air, rights to use shared garden paths and obligations to pay for fixing them, rights to water services, prohibition of funfairs in your garden, etc etc.

jenster

ahh yes i see that now

1) that says we cannot change the number of the house to a name ?

2) we must allow reasonable access to to the land for water, sewerage and power companys for the purpose of maintaining such existing amenities

3 except and reversed unto the vendor the right to erect or suffer to be erected and to alter any building on any part of the adjoining lands for building


1 the number is the same
2) we would allow then to enter
3) this is bit i dont understand ? does this mean fencing ?

G_M

3 means you cannot object to the vendor erecting a builing on the neighbouring land etc (I think). Have you quoted the full text? From the original? Or a shortened version in the Charges Register?

jenster

sorry for the questions

3 ) i have quoted the shortened version form the charges register

who would be the vendor in this case pls - would it be the council? and it was bought from them in 1990 as a right to buy property by my now late mother and passed to me when she died

G_M

jenster wrote: »

sorry for the questions

3 ) i have quoted the shortened version form the charges register

who would be the vendor in this case pls - would it be the council? and it was bought from them in 1990 as a right to buy property by my now late mother and passed to me when she died

As I can't see either the Charges Register, or the conveyance/Deed/whatever from which the covenant is drawn, I cannot tell you who the vendor is can I?

You need to read it.

jenster

im so sorry no you cant see it sorry it mentions the council and mentions 3 other names as the vendors

G_M

If you want full and detailed advice you'll need to give full and detailed information.

Quote the entire relevant section.

Land_Registry

jenster wrote: »

3 except and reversed unto the vendor the right to erect or suffer to be erected and to alter any building on any part of the adjoining lands for building

3) this is bit i dont understand ? does this mean fencing ?

3) does not read as a covenant but as G_M mentions the full wording is important. The deed or register entry has to be read in full to appreciate it's meaning

It won't relate to fencing but simply the vendors ability to build or alter any building on adjoining land.
The 'vendor' will be defined in the deed or entry and that will give you an idea as to what land they then owned.

However the questions posed are whether you have observed and performed the covenants and not had any issues re the rights/easements - presumably you can answer those two questions as you know that the covenants and rights are registered.
They are I imagine simply trying to identify any 'risks' that the covenants and easements have posed an issue for you since you have owned the property

DaftyDuck

Can you really not think of three alternative names to supplant those therein?

May I suggest Cameron, Corbyn and.... um, ... nope.... Smith!