Solicitors conflicting on TP1.

elsien

Would it be worth speaking to a decent solicitor who has experience in conveyancing and who you can have a proper discussion with, rather than an on-line bod.
Have you been to the planning department of your council to look at the plans and find out what they have recorded for your property?
The developer may have more information but now they've sold the house they have little incentive to start changing things now.

GP29

Thanks for the replies, I was thinking last night I should seek advice from a local solicitor.

I’ve seen the plans that my mum has from buying the house and there is nothing hatched yellow. The developers solicitors would more than likely charge for any amendment.

It seems that this has been blown completely out of proportion because of the way our solicitor has taken the statement.

I’ll be on the phone again this afternoon.

davidmcn

GP29 wrote: »

What do you think my next move should be?

Send your solicitor a link to this thread?

Tom99

davidmcn wrote: »

Send your solicitor a link to this thread?

I agree but I bet it's not a solicitor.

GP29

Just spoken to the head of conveyancing at the firm, her argument is something as simple as a porch could be built which doesn’t need permission which in turn if the house ever needed to be repossessed then it wouldn’t be able to be sold.

Said that in some ways it would be better if the covenant had been broken because at least then the indemnity insurers would have something to go by cost wise.

I will say, naively we used a solicitor recommended by the lender, hindsight is a wonderful thing and we thought this would be a very straight forward simple purchase and as first time buyers you live and you learn.

Tempted to walk away and find some new solicitors but I’m sure I would still have to pay and what’s to say new solicitors wouldn’t agree with them?

bris

Solicitor is actually right, there is no way he can sign off on this as the wording is legally binding. It leaves him open for future problems if the developer or someone else comes up with a copy with the yellow box on it. It might never happen but the solicitors can only go with what's written on a legal document.


The only thing you can do is go back to the developer to get them to amend it, a few quid will probably sort the problem.

chalky_white_2

GP29 wrote: »

‘Not to allow any building, structure or erection of any kind (including caravans, walls and fences) to be erected or placed on the land cross hatched yellow on the plan attached without prior written consent of the local planning authority.’

The plans that we have contain no yellow hatched area, anywhere on the plan at all. Which reads to me and my mums solicitors that simply there isn’t a yellow cross hatched area and no restriction to build on.

There is no existing extension on the house, which is probably why no indemnity insurer will give us a policy.

This does appear odd.

To be clear, the 'consent' required is "in addition to" Planning Permission and your usual consents and requirements for any work.

It is clear that the Title is defective, that a restriction cannot be ascertained (and the Solicitor is right that the lack of the phrase 'of any' suggests it should be there). Where there is a potential of a breach to a restrictive covenant you could get indemnity insurance.

However, you advise there have been no alterations or extensions, so this shows there cannot have been a breach of this restrictive covenant as yet, based on the fact this is contained within the Transfer Deed (TP1) that your mother signed to purchase the Property?

It can be useful to ask your Solicitor to clearly set out what the issue is, because you are having difficulty understanding the problem (milk the First Time Buyer status). There may be something you are missing that clears up why there is a problem!

GP29

chalky_white wrote: »

This does appear odd.

To be clear, the 'consent' required is "in addition to" Planning Permission and your usual consents and requirements for any work.

It is clear that the Title is defective, that a restriction cannot be ascertained (and the Solicitor is right that the lack of the phrase 'of any' suggests it should be there). Where there is a potential of a breach to a restrictive covenant you could get indemnity insurance.

However, you advise there have been no alterations or extensions, so this shows there cannot have been a breach of this restrictive covenant as yet, based on the fact this is contained within the Transfer Deed (TP1) that your mother signed to purchase the Property?

It can be useful to ask your Solicitor to clearly set out what the issue is, because you are having difficulty understanding the problem (milk the First Time Buyer status). There may be something you are missing that clears up why there is a problem!

You are correct it is in the deed that she signed.

I am struggling to understand it but she explained that I could have something as simple as a porch built that doesn’t require planning permission but if the house was ever repossessed then the lender would have the problem and possibly not be able to sell without altering it so even us agreeing to taking it with the defect isn’t good enough.

Indemnity insurance isn’t an option for insurers because it is an unknown risk that they are taking.

Next door have had the restrictive covenant removed completely so that looks to be our only option. I spoke to the developer and albeit I only spoke to one person she says she doesn’t think they would alter it as every house they sell has that written into it. I imagine a solicitor may have another view. She also mentioned that houses not on the plan we have may have a yellow hatched area or it may not be there at all but wouldn’t let me have any other plan.

Not sure this will end well but I’m not sleeping very easy at the moment 😂

stator

I don't see why having the plan with a hatched area would make a difference.


If the hatched area was 50% of the garden, but not the house, you could still build something on it, stop paying your mortgage, the bank respossesses the property and gets an indemnity to cover the structure.


So my attitude would be to assume that the hatched area covers 100% of the buildings and garden and proceed from there. If the house matches the planning permission designs then there is clearly no violation and the house should be saleable.


If the home owner builds anything, an extension, a large shed or porch, stops paying mortgage and the house gets respossed they can then purchase an indemnity for that structure assuming it is violating the covenant.



If the bank resposseses and there has been no building, they can prove nothing is required because the building matches the planning permission.



The solicitor is being silly and clearly isn't a logical thinker

GP29

stator wrote: »

I don't see why having the plan with a hatched area would make a difference.


If the hatched area was 50% of the garden, but not the house, you could still build something on it, stop paying your mortgage, the bank respossesses the property and gets an indemnity to cover the structure.


So my attitude would be to assume that the hatched area covers 100% of the buildings and garden and proceed from there. If the house matches the planning permission designs then there is clearly no violation and the house should be saleable.


If the home owner builds anything, an extension, a large shed or porch, stops paying mortgage and the house gets respossed they can then purchase an indemnity for that structure assuming it is violating the covenant.



If the bank resposseses and there has been no building, they can prove nothing is required because the building matches the planning permission.



The solicitor is being silly and clearly isn't a logical thinker

There is no way I can make our solicitor look at it this way. What happens if I tell the solicitor i no longer want to use them and instruct new solicitors? What if they see the issue as the same way? What are my own options?