Restrictive covenants clause being used to remove cctv cameras

11052016_user

I would look into the wording of the covenant - are burglar alarm bellboxes or hanging flower baskets not allowed either. To suggest that a CCTV camera is "altering the look of the property" is a stretch in terms of the intention of the covenant (which is really in place to make sure you don't decide to paint your house luminous pink etc)[/QUOTE]

Wording is on a previous post,

Derboy

11052016 wrote:

Wording is on a previous post,

Sorry missed that. Now I've seen it. This is the problem:

Not to permit to be done any act or thing in or upon the property or any part thereof or any part of the development which may or grow to be a damage nuisance or annoyance to the management company to any occupiers of the dwellings or to the neighbourhood.

It's not been clear to me earlier but I gather you are videoing the street (which has a designated parking space for your vehicle) rather than your drive way. If that's the case you need signage for your CCTV cameras. In addition if someone has complained about this then it breaches the covenant as per above. If you replace with smaller cameras you're still in breach without signage which defeats the purpose of covert cameras.

11052016_user

Yeah true, I guess any kind of installation could grow to become a nuisence to occupiers of other properties. My thought with the covert option is that what they dont know about cannot be complained about, although if it was found out i could be in trouble again.

Property is surrounded by private parking spaces & a walk through which leads to a carpark behind. Its a coach house type property, or flat over garages.

smjxm09

I have an HD dash cam fitted in my car. I wonder if any of your neighbours would object to me driving up your road and filming them?

Thrugelmir

Once the entire development is complete you'll have no issues. Simply bide your time.

jaydeeuk1

rtho782 wrote: »

This is why I'd never buy a new build

The house we've purchased has very similar covenant except we can't alter appearance, add a shed, alter front garden for 99 years and it was built in 1993.

It has a conservatory along with all other neighbours but none have planning permission so the sellers had to take out indemnity insurance. Also means for future work we need to get permission from the solicitors to get permission to speak to the developers about getting permission to get planning permission from the council...

Derboy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Once the entire development is complete you'll have no issues. Simply bide your time.

+1. Once the builder is off site you'll usually have no problems.

wwl

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

The house we've purchased has very similar covenant except we can't alter appearance, add a shed, alter front garden for 99 years and it was built in 1993.

It has a conservatory along with all other neighbours but none have planning permission so the sellers had to take out indemnity insurance. Also means for future work we need to get permission from the solicitors to get permission to speak to the developers about getting permission to get planning permission from the council...

Anyone can apply for planning permission, whether or not they own the property.

sniggings

11052016_user wrote: »

Thanks for your replys, yes i agree that a covert approach may attract some serious unwanted trouble. I'm considering fitting smaller camers but in more discreet locations.

Outside my front door is a step then a 2x1meter strip of tarmac which is my land although anyone can walk over it. So if i conseal a new camera by my porch shelter roof looking at the door and small strip of my land this should be ok as its only viewing my property & in theory no one should cross my land although this does not bother me as its a patheticly small area.

The rear camera was only viewing my designated parking space which may also be my land but unsure at present. This parking space is right next to my propertys external wall so once again it should not really view anyone but myself.


Thoughts???

as long s the camera is not pointed into someones garden etc then you are fine...I don't know why you don't challenge them on this and don't remove the camera, the judge will decide what is changing the appearance of the building using common sense, as there are a whole host of things that people attach to their home, that a judge would not enforce removing, such a post boxes, flower baskets, door numbers, seasonal decorations, lights, etc

Start with asking what clause you have broke and they may come to see it's a stretch to claim you have broken any, and if they quote the "not upsetting the agent" clause then any reasonable judge would laugh that out of court.

getmore4less

eddddy wrote: »

The owner of the land benefiting from the covenant could potentially take you to court and try to get an injunction - that would require you to remove the cameras.

Does the builder still own land (including unsold properties) near you? If so, they may be the beneficiaries of the covenant. If not, it would be your neighbours.

TBH - I can understand why the builder/neighbours might not like your cameras. They might give the impression that there is a crime problem in the area (so much so that a home owner has had to install cctv).

(That was certainly my assumption when I viewed a property with cctv cameras on it.)

That's likely to make people wary of buying nearby properties, and so reduce property prices.

That's the point of the cameras THERE IS CRIME in the area.

...................................

Our estate had similar but also included wording the meant NO WORKS VANS.

around us most people ignored even while they(developers) were building the next phase down the road, vans, sheds even outside the fronts of the cluster homes with no back gardens.