Covenant on house....can we extend??

Cazza5

I am looking to purchase a house and build a two story extension. However, the house has a covenant from the original builder saying we need to gain permission from them before any alterations are made to the existing property. The house was built in the 1920s!! Should we try and gain some sort of permission (which could risk them saying no to the extension) or just take out indemnity insurance?

newatc

Are the builder or company still around? If not I can't see there is much problem but nevertheless I'd be attempted to check with solicitor to see if the covenant can be removed which would give you complete freedom and presumably add value for any future sale.

buggy_boy

Is it in an estate? ie more than just one house built by said builder, if so easiest thing to do is have a look round the estate, have others done what you want, if so then a president has been set and you should be fine...

Covenants of that age would be very difficult to actually enforce, my estate built by wimpy had all sorts of covenants, cant have any sort of boundary at the front of the house, cannot extend to the side etc etc, People have done all these things, it is important to get the neighbours onside as if they are ok with it, the only time a covenant would be considered is if someone complains, this would hold more weight if it were a neighbour so worth getting them onside.

DCFC79

From the 19w0's, they would be nearly 100 years old so unlikely to be still alive.

elsien

Parent had a covenant on a house saying she couldn't run a business from it. Only discovered several years after said business was up and running. Older house, sorted with indemnity insurance paid for by solicitor who'd overlooked it prior to purchase.

Is anyone likely to object, and if so what's the likelihood of the covenant holders being around, traceable and willing to act?

RedFraggle

Bare in mind theses indemnity policies cover your court costs in the event of an objection but doesn't guarantee your right to breach the covenants. Agree the builder is probably long gone but some of the previous wording implies the indemnity is some sort of guarantee.

davidmcn

RedFraggle wrote: »

Bare in mind theses indemnity policies cover your court costs in the event of an objection but doesn't guarantee your right to breach the covenants. Agree the builder is probably long gone but some of the previous wording implies the indemnity is some sort of guarantee.

For all practical purposes though, anybody objecting will agree if they're offered enough cash - that's the more likely solution which the insurers will pay for, rather than anybody going to court.

Doozergirl

Even if the original owner of the covenant is still around, they're not likely to refuse to allow an extension. They're asking to give consent for it.

I suspect it would be obvious if they were. Organisations that stand the test of time like that tend to result in the area being a Conservation Areas because of their control on development - which is allowable, just needs to be sympathetic to the building; common sense, in my opinion. I can think of two such areas in Birmingham, for example.

For the majority of us, most of the owners of those covenants have long since disappeared and an indemnity policy will do.