Another irritating restrictive covenant!!

anders170

After my last attempt to buy an additional "self contained holiday let" property went pear-shaped I've chosen another property; this time I've bought a copy of the title deeds before beginning the purchase process and found a restriction: "Cannot be used as a hotel". Now I'm really annoyed!! It's a 2 bedroomed bungalow for goodness sake. I've researched the definition of "hotel" and "self contained holiday-let" but it's still too ambiguous for me to start proceedings conveyancing without finding out at the last minute I can't use the property for what I want. Anyone had a similar experience?

davidmcn

I can't see that a self-catering holiday let is a "hotel" (if they had also wanted to prohibit holiday lets they'd have said so, and I think a court would agree). A hotel is a different beast more liable to cause disturbance, with lots of guests and staff coming and going all day, typically a licensed bar, noisy functions, etc.

Anyway, if you really think you'd be breaching it then the solution is just to get insurance.

Davesnave

Especially irritating to grammar pedants too, athough it probably isn't "an hotel," if following today's accepted usage.

G_M

I assume you bought, and are looking at, the LR title?

It's likely this restriction is a reference to a covenant more fully defined in a separate document. If so, it will (probably) name the document.

You might need to find/read that to see exactly what the covenant says.

Context may also be relevant. It seems strange for such a covenant to be applied to a 2 bed bungalow. Is the bunglow in the grounds of a former larger property (which could reasonably have been used as a hotel)? Is there some other historic or geographic reason why the covenant could have been added? Might that provide context, which could also help with definition of what the covenant was intended to achieve?

anders170

This is the actual covenant which I have copied / pasted from the Title deeds I bought online from Land Registry. It's just a detached bungalow with fields behind it and not even a pub/hotel in the village so it cant be to stop competition. (a) Not to use or permit or suffer the property hereby conveyed or any
part thereof or any erection erected or to be erected thereon to be
used for carrying on of the trade or business of a licensed or other
hotel keeper licensed victualler public house keeper beer house or
beershop keeper tavern keeper or seller of ale beer porter stout wine
spirits or any intoxicating liquors whatsoever for consumption on or
off the premises or for the purpose of a private or other Club in or
from which any ale beer porter stout wine spirits or other intoxicating
liquors shall be sold or supplied."

steampowered

Try to work out who has the benefit of the covenant?

You can then work out whether it is likely to be enforced, or not. It may be just a historic thing.

davidmcn

anders170 wrote: »

(a) Not to use or permit or suffer the property hereby conveyed or any part thereof or any erection erected or to be erected thereon to be used for carrying on of the trade or business of a licensed or other hotel keeper licensed victualler public house keeper beer house or beershop keeper tavern keeper or seller of ale beer porter stout wine spirits or any intoxicating liquors whatsoever for consumption on or off the premises or for the purpose of a private or other Club in or from which any ale beer porter stout wine spirits or other intoxicating liquors shall be sold or supplied."

It's pretty clear that it's booze they had a problem with, rather than sleeping accommodation.

But as I said, I can't see a holiday let coming under any definition of "hotel".

G_M

anders170 wrote: »

This is the actual covenant which I have copied / pasted from the Title deeds I bought online from Land Registry. It's just a detached bungalow with fields behind it and not even a pub/hotel in the village so it cant be to stop competition. (a) Not to use or permit or suffer the property hereby conveyed or any
part thereof or any erection erected or to be erected thereon to be
used for carrying on of the trade or business of a licensed or other
hotel keeper licensed victualler public house keeper beer house or
beershop keeper tavern keeper or seller of ale beer porter stout wine
spirits or any intoxicating liquors whatsoever for consumption on or
off the premises or for the purpose of a private or other Club in or
from which any ale beer porter stout wine spirits or other intoxicating
liquors shall be sold or supplied."

1) I doubt if that is the 'actual covenant'. That is a probably a quote of the wording of the covenant, which, as I explained earlier, will likely be in a separate document. Does the Title not refer to 'a conveyance dated aa/aa/18xx?

2) that is very different to your original statement that the covenant says "Cannot be used as a hotel". It is clear that it is alcohol that is the issue. Is this an old bangalow? Or built in the grounds of an ancient estate? My guess is that whoever built it, or sold of parcels of land one of which is the location of the bungalow, was a Methodist. They don't believe in alcohol. It was common for them to ban the sale/consumption of alcohol on land they owned or sold off.

3) if I'm right, it is also likely that the original beneficiary of the covenant has long-since died, and his/their successors will really not care in this modern day and age.

4) but you might be unlucky - there may be a tea-totaller living next door who would object to your holiday-makers having a glass of wine with their dinner.