restrictive covenant - no alteration

kvhatkar80

Hi All,

We are about to finalize the purchase of a property , this is currently privately owned.

The current owner has partitioned the land i.e sold of a part of the garden - we are ok with that.

Now in the TP1(transfer of part) document there is a restrictive covenant that's got us worried.

"Restrictive covenants by the transferee :

No to alter , develop or extend the property without the transferor's prior written consent ."

Our solicitor is trying to add a clause like it should not be unreasonable withheld and there should be some time limit.

I have been told by the solicitor it is a common addition when a new Lease is created ( but this is a freehold property! - confuses me?

If we have to get this removed what should be our arguments? , as they are saying it is a standard clause?

i feel this clause will cause an issue in the future when modifying or selling the house.

Any advice welcome.

Thanks in advance

Kvhatkar80

Thrugelmir

kvhatkar80 wrote: »

The current owner has partitioned the land i.e sold of a part of the garden - we are ok with that.

Is the plan to develop the plot? May explain the clause. I'd want to know what they are planning to build.

marksoton

So this person wishes to sell you a freehold property and then afterwards dictate what you can and can't do with it?

I'd be running a mile.....

Cakeguts

I wouldn't buy this property. You don't know what they are going to do with the bit of garden that they have sold and you aren't going to be able to alter the house that you are buying. Why is this an attractive purchase?

Hoploz

Is this an old covenant, from when the house was built originally (which is very common, and commonly breached) or is it a new covenant which the current owner is trying to impose? If the latter tell them to do one!

kvhatkar80

The current owner has leased out( or sold ) the retained part of the garden to a new build apartment for parking . There is a boundary wall between them .

The only attraction on this property is that its a period end of terrace , in a good area , the cost is reasonable considering the nearby property prices.

I did some search , this covenant is normally put in ex-council houses , but this is a private house.

I am trying to tell my solicitor( i am not sure if they are legally trained,they talk like call center agents) my concerns and their take is that this is very common clause and it cannot be removed.

Is it really that common? , and why cannot it be removed?

Any hints or directions of search will help ..... just wanated to have some more info before we pullout of the transaction.

Thanks in advance

kvhatkar80

One more thing it does not look like a historical covenant...thats what the solicitor told as new document for this property will be created ( due to the partitioning)... i don't know whatever it means.

it looks like the seller is trying to sneak a new one

marksoton

No it's not common. And if i had no confidence in my legal representation i'd simply be walking away.

Cheeky_Monkey

kvhatkar80 wrote: »

The current owner has leased out( or sold ) the retained part of the garden to a new build apartment for parking . There is a boundary wall between them .

The only attraction on this property is that its a period end of terrace , in a good area , the cost is reasonable considering the nearby property prices.

I did some search , this covenant is normally put in ex-council houses , but this is a private house.

I am trying to tell my solicitor( i am not sure if they are legally trained,they talk like call center agents) my concerns and their take is that this is very common clause and it cannot be removed.

Is it really that common? , and why cannot it be removed?

Any hints or directions of search will help ..... just wanated to have some more info before we pullout of the transaction.

Thanks in advance

Maybe it is now but it might have been a Council house originally and bought under the RTB scheme.

Edit: Sorry, just noticed you said ex-Council house so ignore my comment, if you haven't already :-)

AnotherJoe

Have the entire clause removed, or walk. Whats it to do with them what do you with the house after its sold?

moneyistooshorttomention

"Not to alter, develop or extend the property" - and I'm focusing on wondering what exactly would be deemed to be "alter"?

That's a very vague woolly word indeed - and could be taken to mean absolutely anything you do (even painting internal walls).

"Develop or extend" the property and I would be thinking that we could probably agree on what is meant in some respects (ie build an extension). But - what about if you decide to add a conservatory? Would even a garden shed be deemed to constitute "developing or extending"?