Restrictive Covenant

cannyberry

The peace and entire nature of the Close of 22 bungalows where I live, all except one occupied by retired people, either couples or singletons like me, is being ruined by the neighbour to which my home is attached. The property is a rental property, bought in a fairly run-down condition 4 years ago by a local woman, specifically for rent. I believe, but do not know for certain, that she has a buy-to-let mortgage, meaning that the Lender has a definite interest in the use and condition of the property. She has been approached a number of times, in person and by letter, by me and several neighbours, asking her to deal with her tenant's behaviour. He is in effect running a business from the small property, incidentally the only one in the Close with no dropped kerb and no dedicated parking. He and his associates, both known to the police for a variety of infringements of the Law, are running a house and garden clearance business and there is regular attendance at the property by two 4 x 4s plus large trailers, coming and going, depositing rubbish for transport to the local tip in the garden, then removing it when the heap becomes unsustainable. An enormous shed has been erected in the back garden, out of view, for storage of the tools of the trade - mowers, strimmers, fuel for motorised equipment, etc. Neighbours are treated to old fridges, washing machines, decrepit beds and wardrobes, plus hedge and tree debris, all in full view in the front garden. A couple coming to view one of the bungalows last week, with a view to purchase, asked me if I lived next door to gypsies. The local Planners say that planning permission isn't required because actual clients do not come to the house, Roads & Highways refuse to act because they say there is so little other traffic in the Close that the vehicles do not significantly impede other traffic, ditto the Police with regard to these vehicles parking on the pavement and the grass verge and using my dropped kerb, and the Environment Protection department of the local Council are doing what they can but admit all they can do is make him clean up the garden, which we all know will be only temporary. (The man lives with his teenage son who already has a criminal record and in the past has stolen from my car and thrown rubbish over the fence into my garden, but this is not connected with the business aspect, merely antisocial.)
I have now realised there is a Restrictive Covenant, going back originally to 1912, but still definitely in force in 1972 (I suddenly remembered it being pointed out to me when I bought in 2006) which specifically prohibits use of the property or permitting the use of the property for a trade or business and also has a clause against behaviour likely to upset others in the Close.
Has anyone any idea of how likely this is still to be enforceable? It seems to me that the business clause and the behaviour likely to upset clause are likely to be relevant. I have obtained from Land Registry a copy of the deeds for the property and the Covenant was certainly part of the transaction 4 years ago when the owner purchased it. I now know the Lending bank as well.
I am prepared to seek legal advice and intervention over this if necessary, but it will cost significantly and I would appreciate any objective views from knowledgeable people. One bungalow is currently proving unsaleable and mine is at the moment in effect unsaleable.
Thank you. (I am new to this Forum, so forgive me if I haven't done things correctly.)

G_M

cannyberry wrote: »

....there is a Restrictive Covenant, going back originally to 1912, but still definitely in force in 1972 (I suddenly remembered it being pointed out to me when I bought in 2006) which specifically prohibits use of the property or permitting the use of the property for a trade or business and also has a clause against behaviour likely to upset others in the Close.

...... I have obtained from Land Registry a copy of the deeds for the property and the Covenant was certainly part of the transaction 4 years ago when the owner purchased it. I now know the Lending bank as well.

The lending bank will not be interested, and probobly has no legal ability to enforce the covenant. In theory they could demand the mortgage is repaid - but they won't.

You need to examine the original document that created the covenant. This may be a conveyance dated from when the close was originally built, or may be some other document. The Land Registry Title should refer to this document.

This will show who is/are the Beneficiary/ies of the covenant - only the beneficiary can enforce it (or their successors depending on the wording).

However, it is likely from what you say that "others in the Close" are beneficiaries so could enforce.

Enforcement would start with warning letters and move on to court action. You will almost certainly need a solicitor to assist.

But if there are 20 other properties all suffering to some extent or another, surely a joint action is the answer? With legal costs split between 21 (or even half that if some peope don't wish to get involved) it should not be too expensive.

libf

One suggestion: break the text up into more paragraphs and separate the paragraphs with line breaks if you want people to read all that.

G_M

libf wrote: »

One suggestion: break the text up into more paragraphs and separate the paragraphs with line breaks if you want people to read all that.

Yeah I nearly quoted it and did it for you - but it was too much hard work to plough through so I just skimmed to the 2 or 3 relevant sentences!

moneyistooshorttomention

cannyberry wrote: »

The peace and entire nature of the Close of 22 bungalows where I live, all except one occupied by retired people, either couples or singletons like me, is being ruined by the neighbour to which my home is attached. The property is a rental property, bought in a fairly run-down condition 4 years ago by a local woman, specifically for rent.

I believe, but do not know for certain, that she has a buy-to-let mortgage, meaning that the Lender has a definite interest in the use and condition of the property.

She has been approached a number of times, in person and by letter, by me and several neighbours, asking her to deal with her tenant's behaviour.

He is in effect running a business from the small property, incidentally the only one in the Close with no dropped kerb and no dedicated parking. He and his associates, both known to the police for a variety of infringements of the Law, are running a house and garden clearance business and there is regular attendance at the property by two 4 x 4s plus large trailers, coming and going, depositing rubbish for transport to the local tip in the garden, then removing it when the heap becomes unsustainable.

An enormous shed has been erected in the back garden, out of view, for storage of the tools of the trade - mowers, strimmers, fuel for motorised equipment, etc. Neighbours are treated to old fridges, washing machines, decrepit beds and wardrobes, plus hedge and tree debris, all in full view in the front garden.

A couple coming to view one of the bungalows last week, with a view to purchase, asked me if I lived next door to gypsies.

The local Planners say that planning permission isn't required because actual clients do not come to the house, Roads & Highways refuse to act because they say there is so little other traffic in the Close that the vehicles do not significantly impede other traffic, ditto the Police with regard to these vehicles parking on the pavement and the grass verge and using my dropped kerb, and the Environment Protection department of the local Council are doing what they can but admit all they can do is make him clean up the garden, which we all know will be only temporary. (The man lives with his teenage son who already has a criminal record and in the past has stolen from my car and thrown rubbish over the fence into my garden, but this is not connected with the business aspect, merely antisocial.)

I have now realised there is a Restrictive Covenant, going back originally to 1912, but still definitely in force in 1972 (I suddenly remembered it being pointed out to me when I bought in 2006) which specifically prohibits use of the property or permitting the use of the property for a trade or business and also has a clause against behaviour likely to upset others in the Close.


Has anyone any idea of how likely this is still to be enforceable? It seems to me that the business clause and the behaviour likely to upset clause are likely to be relevant. I have obtained from Land Registry a copy of the deeds for the property and the Covenant was certainly part of the transaction 4 years ago when the owner purchased it. I now know the Lending bank as well.

I am prepared to seek legal advice and intervention over this if necessary, but it will cost significantly and I would appreciate any objective views from knowledgeable people. One bungalow is currently proving unsaleable and mine is at the moment in effect unsaleable.

Thank you. (I am new to this Forum, so forgive me if I haven't done things correctly.)

Quoted - with paragraph breaks.

cannyberry

Very many thanks for all those helpful responses so far.


You are quite right about the length and absence of para breaks. I'll bear this in mind in future.


I know I shall have to splash out on a solicitor, but the more I know beforehand the better prepared |I shall be with questions I shall ask and be asked.

moneyistooshorttomention

It would be a good idea to keep a diary of events. In that - you list times/dates of the "activity" on the premises (ie the rubbish coming and going).

Write everything down very clearly and concisely - so its easy to understand. Bear in mind many people have very short attention spans these days and virtually have to have things said to them in "soundbites" for them to take them in.

System

I have now realised there is a Restrictive Covenant, going back originally to 1912, but still definitely in force in 1972 (I suddenly remembered it being pointed out to me when I bought in 2006) which specifically prohibits use of the property or permitting the use of the property for a trade or business and also has a clause against behaviour likely to upset others in the Close.

The devil is in the detail.
What is the actual wording of the covenant, and, even more importantly is it also in the deeds of the target house?

AnnieO1234

Just going to say this, and I'm sorry OP but this is just where my thoughts lie about it. I don't obviously live in this situation so I'm purely looking at this as someone who runs a business from home (office based) living next to someone who also runs a business from home (sales based) and 3 doors down from someone who runs a car sales type operation again from home.

If I was the landlord of the property and I kept getting complaints from what amounted to an element of snobbery I would move hell and high water to get that house sold to the current tenants to wash my hands of it, and to ensure that the tenants stayed there.

I'm willing to bet that residents of "the close" took umbridge first with these people, because they're gypsies, because they're not "the same" as everyone else. And I'm also willing to bet that they'll now be doing anything they can to disrupt your lives due to that.

Good luck in your quest, restrictive covenants are extraordinarily difficult and extremely expensive to enforce and take time. As soon as you push that button you devalue your homes because of the dispute and begin to engage a neighbour in a domestic war. How do you think this will end, really? I sincerely hope you have good insurances.

Xxx

G_M

Good point about insurance.

Some house insurance policies include legal cover - does yours?

moneyistooshorttomention

There is rather a (huge) difference between normal working from home and turning the gardens into huge tips of rubbish clearly visible by all neighbours/visitors.

One would-be buyer of one of these properties has been put off by it already as well and most people would be (I know I would for one...).

Its useful to have the devils advocate type viewpoint on this - but these particular neighbours do seem to have very abnormal ways of living in a house and are living in a neighbourhood where everyone else (20 odd houses) are living in a much more conventional way.

I think its necessary for OP to make it very clear at all points that it is everyone's viewpoint that these neighbours are not living in a normal/acceptable fashion in the house and not just OP personally thinking that way.

That reminds me - OP = photos need to be taken of the state of the gardens at intervals - just in case everything gets mysteriously cleared-up at some point (ie just before they think there might be An Official Visit), but then gradually starts trickling back in again afterwards.