Restrictive covenants in title deed with out an actual copy of what they are. Pls adv

Land_Registry

Boler1985 wrote: »

How would that work in a court of law if somebody out of nowhere tried to enforce covenants whipped out of nowhere on a pice of paper hat nobody has seen in decades?

Surely if the restrictive covenants applied on the land are not 'registered' somewhere or not even reasonably accessible/available than how could they be enforced?

I can't comment on how a court would view such things but it may help to give you some background from a registration perspective.

In the OP's case it reads as if when the property was first registered the supporting evidence included reference to the 1928 deed and it's covenants. But crucially no copy was produced. In such cases were are required to note the details of the deed and explain how no copy was produced.

As such we know there was a deed and we know who it was between. As such if someone tried to enforce the covenants they would have to produce sufficient evidence to the court to prove what they were and then also prove that they owned land that had the benefit of those covenants as well.

If that should arise it is rare that such matters would find their way to court. Where they do it would probably be because there was a genuine doubt on the evidence they were producing re the deed/covenants and/or their ownership of the benefiting land.

However the risk of enforcement will always be there and the modern way of dealing with such matters tends to be an indemnity policy aimed at insuring against the risk of successful enforcement.

As the thread implies enforcement may not always occur even where such matters are registered in more detail but again the risk is still there.

Bandia

Thanks very much for everyone who commented. My vendors have agreed to give us the indemnity insurance policy. We are going ahead with the hope that this won't be a problem when we sell the property.

Richard_Webster

If this is one of a number of houses sold by the same people in the same period years ago then if you look at ther Land Registry entries for nearby properties you may get a clue as to the content of your covenants. Obvoiously is not at all conclusive because each property could be different - but usually a landowner/develoiper would use the same covnenats for all of a particular area. So if next door's entries do show the covenants and the person who imposed them is the same as the person who imposed your covenants then usually the wording will be the same.

If the covenants go back to 1928 that was a time when many properties were built to be let so a builder could sell several adjacent houses to a potential landlord using one conveyance. So it is even possible that the conveyance that you can't find is one shown on the LR entries for a nearby house between the same people on the same date. Even that isn't conclusive unless you can prove it applies to your land.

Please understand this only a comfort point - it isn't definite at all because the covenants you may fibd do not apply to your property - but at least it should give you an idea of the likely wording. The legal way forward is to take out an indemnity policy. This point really shouldn't have any effect at all on the vlaue of the property.

G_M

Though presumably an indemnity insurance policy will only pay out for any proven financial loss the new owner suffers through enforement of the covenant?

Not much help if, for example, he has a love of pigs and wishes to keep them. If the covenant turns out to prohibit pig-keeping, the insurance will not over-rule the covenant and allow him to keep pigs. He will still have to sell his pigs, and then claim for his financial loss (if any).