Title Deed Covenanat breach but neighbour breaches one too

Nobbie1967

These covenants seem quite common on new estates and seem designed to keep the place looking pristine until all the houses are sold. Once they are, the developer probably doesn't give a monkey's and won't try to enforce.

Land_Registry

bearcat16 has probably covered it best here but as G_M posts you need to read and understand the covenant(s) including the covenanting clause which sets them up on the registered title.

If the property is in England or Wales than although the covenants will have been imposed by the original developer the strong odds are that they do now benefit each of your neighbours as they now own the land which formed part of the original development. Such covenants invariably 'run with the land' and not the original owner so suggesting that it is the developer who has the benefit is invariably a red herring.
Note - if the developer still owns some land on the development then they can still have the benefit as well as your neighbours

So let's work on the basis that your property, along with all the others, are bound by a generic set of restrictive covenants. If so the developer normally puts these in place so as to protect the look and feel of their development during the sale period, which can be quite long. However those covenants do not then slip away when the sales are all done but the risk of someone actually being aware that they have the benefit and then seeking to enforce them is in my experience rare.

You appear though to have encountered that rare neighbour who is aware and wants to enforce the covenant(s). As others have posted to take it to it's logical conclusion, namely through a legal action, would be costly, but if the assumptions above are correct they would in all probability win. And that's the legal advice you would get so trying to defend it might be foolhardy although calling someone's bluff as others have suggested remains an option albeit not one I would recommend.

And I suspect a defence that you have not sought to enforce other covenants yourself is also likely to fail on legal grounds although morally you may have a point.

How the property owner/tenant relationship breaks down and impacts may be something to investigate along with the post re the details of the covenant and whether simply parking a works van breaches it.

But please don't think that because the developer has long gone and has no interest then the covenant(s) have no bearing. It is never that simple in my experience I'm afraid.

NB - there are a number of other threads on MSE around restrictive covenants as well although I am not too sure many return to post on final outcomes. If you do take a specific route on this it would be good to read about any outcomes if happy to post of course

wwl

So a neighbour tries to enforce a covenant (what would this cost them?), and you decide to just ignore it.
What then?

What if it's a tenant breaching it, you tell tenant to desist and they continue anyway ?
What if it's another family member breaching it and you claim to not be able to get them to stop?

notbritishgas

Could a defence to this be that it is an unfair covenant.
I am pretty certain that our title deeds from 1991 have one preventing a satellite dish, widely ignored of course . Now that surely would be classed as unfair in a court of law preventing people from watching Sky and Freesat.

G_M

the covenant binds the land (as LR rep said) so the land owner is liable. He must ensure that occupants of his property (whether his own family, or his tenants) comply. Which is why ay back I referred the OP to his tenancy agreement which should have a clause reflecting the covenant.

In the same way that tenancy agreements should have clauses reflecting the terms of his house insurance (eg not to be left unoccupid for more than 30 days).

If the tenants ignore polite requests to desist (whether accompanied by cake or not), then the LL would have to

* enforce the tenancy clause breach (assuming it exists)
* end the tenancy as soon as the possible (dependant on tenancy type)
* attemp to get a court order instructing the tenant to desist based on the covenant - possibly hard as the court will look at the tenancy agreement

Ultimately, if the neighbour gets a court to enforce the breach, and the OP ignores the court, or fails to comply (even if it is someone else like family/tenant), the OP would be in contempt of court............

Richard_Webster

AsLand Registry Representative has said, if the matter gets to court OP would probably lose.

However, the question is more whether the neighbours will actaully go to court. People often think that there is some official body (often the Council) who will enforce these convenants for nothing - there isn't.

So they have to spend a lot of money going to court. A solicitor will be wary of getting involved in what is essentially a neighbour dispute and will probably ask for a large sum (at least £500, if not more) on account of costs before he starts.

If the tenant has only been parking a commercial vehicule for perhaps a few months then the neighbour might get an injunction to stop the practice. If it has been going on for some time then he may only get damages for loss of value to his property etc - difficult (and expensive - what will an expert surveyor charge to spend a day or two in court?) to quantify, particularly if others are doing the same further down the road.

marksoton

I'd wager...

a) It'll never get as far as court

b) Any such covenant would be top trumped by other legislation

!!!!!! it's a transit van not an articulated lorry. The blokes earning a living not decimating the estate.

Tell the neighbour to Foxtrot Oscar. In the politest way possible of course...

wwl

<quote> if it has been going on for some time then he may only get damages for loss of value to his property etc. </quote>
It could be argued that a house on an estate that doesn't allow van parking could be worth less as it might reduce the potential market.

bearcat16

wwl wrote: »

It could be argued that a house on an estate that doesn't allow van parking could be worth less as it might reduce the potential market.

I personally don't think this argument would hold up, because the house has already sold with this restriction for originally. It is not a change.

moneyistooshorttomention

notbritishgas wrote: »

Could a defence to this be that it is an unfair covenant.
I am pretty certain that our title deeds from 1991 have one preventing a satellite dish, widely ignored of course . Now that surely would be classed as unfair in a court of law preventing people from watching Sky and Freesat.

I doubt it - the court could answer "There's always Freeview".