Neighbour claims I have broken the Covenant

Browntoa

There's a remote chance the shrubbery area is managed by the builders or their agent , there is an estate near me where all the roadside shrubbery is maintained by and is the responsibility of the estate and not the house owner

EachPenny

Chris-TT wrote: »

The fence being moved wouldn’t make any difference as the shrubbery had grown taller than 6ft and was a lot more intrusive than a fence would be.

If a set back was required by the highway authority then the planning condition would normally also require the area of land to be maintained (i.e. plants trimmed to no higher than say 50cm).

In the past the highway authority would adopt the areas required for sight lines and manage it as part of the highway, but with council budget cuts it is now more efficient to leave landscaped areas in private ownership and just require the landowner to arrange and pay for the maintenance.

Needless to say, the councils don't have the resources to ensure the conditions are complied with, so it is not uncommon to see sightlines obstructed by tall plants.

agarnett

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The covenant was most likely put into place by the builder when the development was built. As they didn't want the appearance to be ruined by fences, sky dishes, caravans etc. While there was still further property to be sold. Now no one cares. Your neighbour cannot force you not to.

That's not the whole story, Thrugelmir. I am quite surprised by the number of different responses tried by so many different posters so far. I don't think any have got close to a good answer yet, save perhaps the Land Registry Rep, so let me try :P

I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen the effects of breaches of covenants that were originally designed to protect the look and feel of a development, not just for the period the original developer was trying to sell the plots, but of course during the life of the development. These are not unusual and they ought not to be dismissed lightly by anyone, unless they are the sort who regularly breaks rules that don't suit them, and don't give a toss for what neighbours think. I find the behaviour of such neighbours is not conducive to the creation of any sort of community which works.

Plenty of those in the UK.

Thrugelmir is partially right in that I have seen a small subset of a full set of covenants which expire a short period after the developer has sold the last plot, and quite often those include:

• caravans banned
• satellite dishes banned
• alterations to original buildings banned and no outbuildings save for a small shed and small greenhouse
• for sale boards banned

However, covenants which do not expire other than by erosion and apathy and downright carelessness by the local planning authority in approving future plans which might breach covenants (sadly typical thesedays), might typically include

• no fences at the front that are closer to the road than the original building line
• no washing to be hung out front
• no breach of any original planning condition for the development
• no long term storage of broken down vehicles or major repairs carried out on vehicles
• no business activities to be conducted from the premises i.e. only to use it as a private dwelling e.g. not a pizza delivery base, nor or even perhaps as an AirBnB!
• and you may even have signed up to ... not to do anything which annoys owners of adjoining land!

The original planning condition one is interesting and may be common, and may be the one your neighbour is referring to. The shrubs may have appeared in the original plans which formed the base for planning consent given to the developer, and been planted by the developer. You may be able to find the original development plans online at your local council website. Or, as it so often the case over the recent couple of decades, if the development permission was ultimately granted on appeal,
the Planning {and Appeals} Inspectorate

As for paying someone to get a restrictive covenant removed after you breached it, especially if the covenant isn't even 10 years old and you agreed to it by signing the transfer when you bought the place - never heard of that one! Who do you pay? Your neighbour?
More than one neighbour?

What I have heard of is at the point of sale of an existing property, the seller can enquire of an insurance company whether they think an existing breach (which could jeopardise the sale) is sufficiently old/unlikely to be unenforceable such as to make it an insurable risk which they will take on for a premium, indemnifying future owners, thus facilitating the sale of the property.

I have never heard of insurers indemnifying the person that breached the covenant, but maybe the market has developed somewhat in the decades since I last sold one of these policies called a "Restrictive Covenant Indemnity Policy".

I have a feeling that the Land Registry is only a curates egg of regulation of these things for the public good. I worry that the efficacy of some covenants are terminally damaged purely because the wordings of transfers from one owner to the next can be so variable as to break the chain of covenants which are intended to bind neighbours common sense duties to one another, and sadly, they may not have been accepted by Land Registry as restrictions which they need to be sure to mirror in new registrations in such a way that there is no loophole created. I also worry (as mentioned) that Planning Departments at councils are scarcely interested, and worse than that, frequently blunder into aiding and abetting breach of covenants by the sorts of recent 'anything goes' planning permissions many dish out.

As I say, covenants like the thus far unidentified ones are not just created to benefit developers. They are to protect investors in the development and create rules that are respected between neighbours for the good of the community, whether it's just ten little houses in a close, or a hundred or more on a single estate.

I am a great believer in trying to get on with your neighbour - there are often on the surface more reasons not to do so than to make an effort, but it is great when neighbours in relatively recent developments like this do start to behave as a community and respect each other.

So a further discussion with your neighbour about which covenant(s) the neighbour believes are breached might enlighten you quickest. Granted you might not like it if the neighbour is technically correct unless you are prepared to do something about rectifying what you've done!

Believe it or not, most freeholders do usually take time to get to know their own land, and where the boundaries are (both physical and "rule-based" boundaries). I think that might often be before they buy! But unless you've prior experience, it is unlikely that conveyancy solicitors will ever bring your attention to anything they consider standard, but where they know that the process of educating you will cause them extra work!

But put your question this way - say it wasn't shrubs you'd permanently removed, but silencers off your car and the missus' car. Would you expect neighbours to say nothing? There are rules about such, as with many things in life in UK

G_M

Chris-TT wrote: »

Thank you for all the advice. I’m going to call Lovell Partnerships Limited when the working week begins and see if they can shed light on this. .

Before calling them, why not find out what the covenants actually are? So far, everyone has just been guessing!

Obtain the document as advised, and read it- it will cost you £7!

A Transfer of the land in this title dated 11 December
2008 made between (1) Lovell Partnerships Limited and (2) XXX
NOTE: Copy filed.

agarnett

Land Registry Rep and G_M are right, and it may even be more successful to find the covenants quickly online by perhaps downloading your neighbours title register if you know that neighbour has been there since buying direct from Lovell. You didn't buy from the developer, so your title register cross refers to another direct transfer from Lovell to the original owner of your house. That'll be the one with the actual covenants in it. You haven't found a copy of it yet, although you could get one by post if you explain exactly which document you want.

All houses in this small Lovell development are likely to have the same covenants binding you to rules benefitting each to each others' adjoining property as well as covenants known sometimes as a "buildings scheme" of covenants applying to all houses within a development of several and presumably enforceable against you by any of the other nine (but frankly, I think we hear about such enforcements very rarely).

A further lawyer commentary I have found by Googling may offer some more background.

I know Lovells have developed up near Scotland and maybe in Scotland. I expect the law there is different.

NeilCr

Yes Land Registry Rep and G_M are right. Get the document

Just to add a few comments about covenants, freeholders and neighbours.

We own our freehold and I am a director of our estate. In general we take a pretty relaxed view about covenants but it is quite surprising how much some covenants mean to some property owners. In your case it sounds like quite a close community (you said one or two were "snobby") and you might find some may regard you as an incomer. I know when I moved in there were a couple of people who had been here from the start and felt there was/is a way of running things

You may well need to tread delicately. You say your neighbour was friendly - that's good -but if you decide to go ahead against the views/wishes of some it may create an unpleasant air that you will have to live with. I'd hope it doesn't but I know, from experience, as I said earlier these things can raise strong feelings

I'd agree with agarnett that there aren't many enforcements of covenants, We did consider it once - we were going to start the ball rolling with a letter. It was a case of someone running a business from home (childminding) and the parents were parking in residents spaces etc.

I think, in general, that folks get upset by breaking of covenants if it is physically obvious and affects them. In the childminding case no-one was bothered about her running a business from home - it was the parking problem

Land_Registry

Later posts appear to be moving you closer to the right conclusions I suspect.
Lovells are unlikely to be interested - developed, imposed covenants, sold all and moved on.
The covenants in the plot Transfer run with the land normally as imposed on buyer and successors in title
Your fellow plot owners are very likely to now have the benefit of those covenants and if so are the ones placed to enforce
Very very rare to have covenants imposed for a period of time. Yes that's the intention perhaps to keep all 10 plots in line until sold but in effect there for ever more.
Release extinguishment can occur but you would need to prove who has the benefit and get all of them to agree through a legal deed

Dropped kerbs - solely planning I believe. Certainly not us and rare for covenants to refer. A helpful Lovells may explain but odds are, if 9 years on, they may not be interested now in the development or helping?

Let us know how it plays out please

EachPenny

NeilCr wrote: »

You may well need to tread delicately. You say your neighbour was friendly - that's good -but if you decide to go ahead against the views/wishes of some it may create an unpleasant air that you will have to live with. I'd hope it doesn't but I know, from experience, as I said earlier these things can raise strong feelings

I'd agree with agarnett that there aren't many enforcements of covenants, We did consider it once - we were going to start the ball rolling with a letter. It was a case of someone running a business from home (childminding) and the parents were parking in residents spaces etc.

I think, in general, that folks get upset by breaking of covenants if it is physically obvious and affects them. In the childminding case no-one was bothered about her running a business from home - it was the parking problem

I agree with this. I've not been involved in a covenant dispute with my own property, but have dealt with countless disputes of this type in my working life. It is often the case that the disupte started with something completely different which the 'offened' party could do nothing about directly, but could find a way of causing trouble by proxy. The childminding/parking dispute is typical of the way things develop if a polite conversation between neighbours about parking problems doesn't achieve resolution.

The best thing in life is to get on with your neighbours - even if you don't have to, it is worth mentioning to them that you intend to cut down some trees or shrubs for example. If you don't want to do this then make sure you know exactly what covenants and planning conditions apply to your property before you start hissing them off.

agarnett

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Very very rare to have covenants imposed for a period of time. Yes that's the intention perhaps to keep all 10 plots in line until sold but in effect there for ever more.

I digress a little, but maybe not if it turns out that the covenant the neighbour points at is one such, but I'm particularly interested in your comment here, Land Reg Rep.

Are you suggesting that restrictive covenants which contain a time period e.g. restrictive covenants prefixed by such words as "Until the expiry of 12 months beyond the sale of the last plot on the development ... {wording of specific restrictive covenants e.g. no for sale boards} may be just as enforceable later as any other restrictive covenants not so prefixed with a time period?

The restrictive covenants binding the plot owners I have seen are usually listed and numbered e.g. 1. to 9. in one Schedule of the original Transfer Deed (developer to first owner of plot), and the specific ones which are for the developer's benefit whilst trying to finish selling the whole development are usually under a sub-list e.g. (a) to (f), prefixed by the time period proviso within just one major numbered item e.g. perhaps number 2. in the Schedule.

Are those apparently time-barred restrictive covenants actually not time-barred then?

Land_Registry

agarnett wrote: »

I digress a little, but maybe not if it turns out that the covenant the neighbour points at is one such, but I'm particularly interested in your comment here, Land Reg Rep.

Are you suggesting that restrictive covenants which contain a time period e.g. restrictive covenants prefixed by such words as "Until the expiry of 12 months beyond the sale of the last plot on the development ... {wording of specific restrictive covenants e.g. no for sale boards} may be just as enforceable later as any other restrictive covenants not so prefixed with a time period?

The restrictive covenants binding the plot owners I have seen are usually listed and numbered e.g. 1. to 9. in one Schedule of the original Transfer Deed (developer to first owner of plot), and the specific ones which are for the developer's benefit whilst trying to finish selling the whole development are usually under a sub-list e.g. (a) to (f), prefixed by the time period proviso within just one major numbered item e.g. perhaps number 2. in the Schedule.

Are those apparently time-barred restrictive covenants actually not time-barred then?

The comment was aimed at the generality i.e. Very rare to see a time-barred restrictive covenant. If they are imposed in the way you suggest then they apply as stated so no issue there.

In my experience such time-barred covenants are very rare and whist the developer's intention is as such suggested if there is no time-bar then they run on through the 'successors in title' aspect of the covenanting clause.

We deal with England and Wales, and I note your earlier comment re this developer having a link to Scotland - is that relevant?

Or is it the 'building scheme' reference perhaps? They were prevalent a few decades back but I doubt if that would apply here as OP refers to 10 plots so perhaps more likely a small development

Or is the time-bar separation of covenants you mention perhaps based on more recent developments where a builder is trying to manage such things in a more specific way? I'm not too sure they would unless trying to avoid later contact from homeowners of the sort some have mentioned. In the past they might hang onto some land and by default still be involved re the benefit but nowadays they look to sell everything and retain no lasting ties

The OP will advise re their specifics. But is the time-bar a common occurrence in your experience?