Getting a restrictive covenant removed. Any experi

loveka

I was in the process of buying a house with an attached holiday let. Just before exchange, our solicitor found the original deed, which states that the house must be used as a single dwelling house only, meaning no holiday letting allowed.

Our mortgage company won't lend because of this- we were getting a holiday let mortgage.

The 'owner' (grandson of the original owner)of the covenant was approached by the vendor. He has refused to remove the covenant, despite the fact that the property has operated as a holiday let for 3 years.

Our solicitor said the covenant would not stand up in court, mainly due to the fact that the owner of it has no material benefit from it, as He lives 20 miles away.

However, the vendor can't afford to take him to court to get it removed. So we have lost the property and a lot of money.

I am considering offering to pay for her legal costs in doing this. But I don't want to throw good money after bad.

I just wondered if anyone had had a similar experience before I start to rack up solicitors fees again. Thanks.

Doozergirl

It’s your vendor’s problem, not yours. There’s no logic in offering to pay legal fees for someone when you can’t get a guarantee that you can buy the house.

You’d have to exchange contracts to be able to guarantee the house and you can’t exchange because you can’t mortgage the house with a holiday let mortgage and covenant.

If she wants to sell it as a holiday let, she will have to sort it herself. Presumably there is a potential buyer out there who doesn’t want or need a holiday let mortgage?

stator

You need to let this one go I'm afraid.
You can't buy the house until it's removed.
No point wasting your money trying to do something that might fail. And even if it does get removed, the vendor could pull out before you buy it

Trentenders

Can you look at an insurance solution, if the mortgage company will allow?

loveka

Thanks all. Yes, I know I should just let it go. I'm sure a buyer will come along who won't want to use it as a holiday let.

We were in the process of getting indemnity insurance when the vendor traced the owner of the covenant. She had been told not to approach him as it would invalidate the insurance, but she believed he would agree to take the covenant off.

Margot123

loveka wrote: »

Thanks all. Yes, I know I should just let it go. I'm sure a buyer will come along who won't want to use it as a holiday let.

We were in the process of getting indemnity insurance when the vendor traced the owner of the covenant. She had been told not to approach him as it would invalidate the insurance, but she believed he would agree to take the covenant off.

This is very odd indeed. Why would the vendor even think of going down the 'expensive/no guarantee of removal' route when indemnity insurance would have been quick and cheap?

Even if the beneficiary had agreed to remove the covenant this could have cost them thousands.

I'd walk right away from it and cut your losses.