Breach of Covenant Question

silvercar

YentonMinsterHomes wrote: »

We have been notified about breaches by a resident of the estate built or previous owner. They would have notified us usually due to disputes with neighbouring properties or when they have sold through their solicitor.

So you are notified of a dispute arising as someone therefore wants the covenant enforced; your answer is to accept payment to remove the covenant. How does that help the neighbour?

Slinky

silvercar wrote: »

So you are notified of a dispute arising as someone therefore wants the covenant enforced; your answer is to accept payment to remove the covenant. How does that help the neighbour?

Bingo!!!!!

Keep_pedalling

silvercar wrote: »

So you are notified of a dispute arising as someone therefore wants the covenant enforced; your answer is to accept payment to remove the covenant. How does that help the neighbour?

I look forward to seeing what answer they supply to this, although I expect there will be none.

I would also like to know why if they have had complaints they have not specified to each home owner which covenant has been broken, why the owner is not given the option to do what the "complainer" wants and undo the break? and what are the odds on every single owner of one of their houses breaking at least one covenant, and everyone of those breaks reported by someone else?

helplessone

Could Yenton be in breach of the original contract by allowing one neighbour to be able to get out of their restrictive covenant and cause trouble for their other neighbours by not having to be tied to covenants?

Guest101

helplessone wrote: »

Could Yenton be in breach of the original contract by allowing one neighbour to be able to get out of their restrictive covenant and cause trouble for their other neighbours by not having to be tied to covenants?

No, covenants are only enforceable by the person who registers them, typically either the freeholder or, most usually, the developer.

silvercar

helplessone wrote: »

Could Yenton be in breach of the original contract by allowing one neighbour to be able to get out of their restrictive covenant and cause trouble for their other neighbours by not having to be tied to covenants?

I found an answer to this on another forum, it appears to be written in the style that the Land Registry rep on here uses, so may have a similar source:

"As others have mentioned such covenants are often put in place to 'protect' the developer's estate whilst they sell off the house plots so you often see ones restricting what you can add to the property, parking a caravan on the drive, putitng a For Sale sign up etc - they want new buyers to buy a plot as the developer envisaged it.

The developer then sels the plots and moves on so has no or little interest in what happens next.

However such covenants are usually imposed to restrict successors in title, as in this case. That means that when Plot 1 is sold the developer's remaining part of the estate has the benefit and as each Plot is sold that benefit passes to them also - restrictive covenants run with and bind the land. So in an estate of say 40 Plots you now have poitentially 40 landowners who are bound by the same covenants but who also have the benefit of them over the other 39 plots.

As others have posted most, but not all, owners are probably unaware of the covenants and you soon find that extensions are built, caravans parked and so on. Whether that lessens the risk of someone seeking to impose the covenant when breached is debateable but the risk is there and this is where your solicitor's advice comes in.

Attitudes have changed over the decades so for example in Victorian times you would often see covenants restricting you from the sale of alcohol, running the house as an asylum or keeping chickens (considered to carry disease). Nowadays it tends to be the working from home and keeping a caravan on the drive and the not keeping of livestock is a modern way of avoiding the 'Good Life' couple moving in and running a small holding which then puts of potential buyers. Limiting the number of cats and dogs is a rare one though but you can see the logic perhaps from the developer's perspective.

So, the covenants restrict your use of the land as the landowner. They are likely to benefit each of the plots on the estate and in return they are very likely to be bound by the same covenants. As such it is a question of weighing up the risks involved bearing in mind your solicitor's experience, what others may have or are doing on the development and then considering whether other factors about the house outweigh those considerations.

In my experience, from reading a variety of online forums around such things, the attitude tends to be not to worry. Where these covenants tend to come home to bite is where you have two parcels of land involved only as the covenants in those situations are likely to have been imposed for other and very specific reasons. It is your legal advice though that you should rely on.

Finally, such covenants can be removed if all the benefitting land owners agree to release them - never likely to happen on a large development. There is also a legal process whereby application can be made to the The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) https://www.gov.uk/appeal-upper-tribunal-lands but this can be complex and therefore expensive and again unlikely to be something you would consider in this example"

IMHO and IANAL if Yenton pursued this as far as the Upper Tribunal, they could well lose, but your costs in getting that far would likely be higher than paying Yenton now to remove the covenants.

HughRote7

Covenants have been used to impose restrictions and requirements on land for centuries, long before modern developers came on the scene and most importantly are attached to the land however long the covenant has existed irrespective of how many times it is sold on. Some covenants can become largely irrelevant and a judge can strike them out. For example a small parcel of land was sold 90 years ago with covenants stipulating only a single storey building can be constructed, limitations as to size of fence etc. in order to maintain the aspect and open views of the remaining land to the benefit of the original land owner. Over the intervening years other land has been sold off and a new village has sprung up in the immediate vicinity with 2 and 3 storey houses etc. now overlooking the original bungalow. The current owner of the covenant would thus now find it impossible to invoke it because the restrictions can no longer be justified.

helplessone

“ YentonMinsterHomes you only answered part of the question on post#83, have you written to all your home owners or just a select section as in our street only one side of the street has received letters and you only seem to have written to those who are elderly or have already paid off their mortgage.

helenanncooper

A small estate Breeden Drive in Curdworth, Warwicksire has now received these letters. Has anyone obtained legal advice? If so, would you mind sharing it in a private email? Thanks very much.

glasgowdan

Yenton cropping up again! Not sure "any press is better than none" is actually true.