Restrictive Covenants

davidmcn

Tom99 wrote: »

Do the two cottages actually share and land?
If not the a restriction on planting in your own garden would seem OTT.

If the OP just means the front garden, it's pretty standard for it to be restricted to use as a lawn and to be kept unfenced - at least, in normal residential streets, I don't know what the layout is here.

NeilCr

Is the second cottage sold? If it is it is possible that the purchasers like the covenants - quite a few people do as it regulates their environment.

If the developer is going to change the covenants on one property then I assume he will have to do so on the other one.

PasturesNew

My take on it is: who cares?

I bought a 2nd hand new build that has several covenants etc, including the planting at the front. These were actually set by the Council as part of the planning permission - the Council wants developers to "pretty up" places and keep them looking nice. Councils require an actual printed "Planting Plan" when planning is applied for.

In the main, once some time has passed, you can pretty much "do what you like", so long as that isn't completely mad! But, always do any work on the basis of "can I easily undo this work if I do ever get a knock at the door?" For some work, it's easy ... e.g. no fences, if you put up a cheap fence that COULD be dismantled it's a different ballgame to digging out foundations and employing a proper bricklayer to lay down a brick wall.

Mine says about the plants at the front.... nobody would care, so long as it's not left to go wild/mad nobody would ever know/notice what plants had been planted. So long as it "looks nice".... I've also erected a few strips of "push it in" 1' high picket fencing.... if I needed to remove that, it'd take me 2 minutes and I could reuse the £12 I've spent by placing those as ornamental pieces in the back garden... or flog them for £5 locally

Some covenants can be broken "if you think it through - and aren't actually annoying somebody who is affected by it". e.g. where I live you can't park a caravan/campervan; one neighbour did have a campervan in their spot.... they didn't know the rule as they rented. It only affected one neighbour (owner/occupier) as it was reversed up to 18" from his bay window .... so it was really only for him to complain - and he probably never did. I didn't complain about the camper as it was nowhere near my house; if it had've been, I'd have complained.

Where they say "no sheds" .... you watch, everybody gets a shed... it's only an issue if your shed is overbearing and annoys a neighbour.

So think about what you might wish to do - and if it'd really affect you.

Alan2020

Restrictive covenants are not placed for fun.

Nor are they generally for the developer, many are placed as the planners request them. Don’t for one moment think you can break a restrictive covenant and walk away when caught by the benefactor. Any solicitor will tell you this, you WILL loose and be liable for costs.

Front garden to be kept could be council planning restrictions to keep Street scene and fauna, try changing it and you will be caught very quickly.
Pets is to benefit neighbours, living on borrowed time.


A lot of people will tell you it’s ok, get legal advice. These people will also tell you it’s ok to drive an uninsured car or get on a bus without paying the fare. Would you be willing to.

Once had a new neighbor hassling us, we had a civil chat but to wouldn’t listen. Got our deeds together with our other neighbour, gave him a choice, sort or we legally enforce. He ran to several Solicitors who told him he WILL loose and would loose over £20K. Guess what next day all sorted.

middleclassbutpoor

Alan2020 wrote: »

Once had a new neighbor hassling us, we had a civil chat but to wouldn’t listen. Got our deeds together with our other neighbour, gave him a choice, sort or we legally enforce. He ran to several Solicitors who told him he WILL loose and would loose over £20K. Guess what next day all sorted.

This is the exact reason why you need to understand that if you cannot adhere to the restrictive covenants then you need to engage before you legally buy to see whether there is any allowance to be flexible but legally to change a covenant is expensive.

Just walk away from the property would be my advice if you think you are going to struggle. to adhere and/or re-sell at a later date.

The house I was buying had 3 sales fall through because of the covenants.

Alan2020

Davesnave wrote: »

You were doing quite well, till you got to here.....


I can't think why it would be reckless to get legal advice before buying, or that any solicitor would tell someone to drive uninsured.


By all means challenge others' advice, but don't do it via emotive claptrap.

Don’t know what you are on about, was telling OP to get legal advice from Solicitors than people who tell random things. Not sure why it offends you. Do you really think restrictive covenants don’t apply? I think it is prudent for OP to not risk it. Anyway that’s my opinion, I have no time to be dissecting your posts or others.

bouicca21

Are we seriously to understand that no plant can be removed - even if dead? And if dead can't be replaced?


What is the exact wording?

Davesnave

Alan2020 wrote: »

Don’t know what you are on about, was telling OP to get legal advice from Solicitors than people who tell random things.....

Sorry, somehow I misunderstood.:o


I've removed my post.


Maybe I was still trying to work out why someone "on borrowed time" might need protecting from others' pets, or now I'm quite old, whether I might fall into that category. Somewhat worrying, since I have 28 sheep out the back....!

davidmcn

bouicca21 wrote: »

Are we seriously to understand that no plant can be removed - even if dead? And if dead can't be replaced?

What is the exact wording?

And when you say you've been "sent some documents which outlined a number of restrictive covenants"- I presume you mean sent by your solicitor, so what do they say about the covenants? i.e. are these merely proposed or are they already in place?

Alan2020

Davesnave wrote: »

Sorry, somehow I misunderstood.:o


I've removed my post.


Maybe I was still trying to work out why someone "on borrowed time" might need protecting from others' pets, or now I'm quite old, whether I might fall into that category. Somewhat worrying, since I have 28 sheep out the back....!

No worries, I could have written it a bit clearer.

On borrowed time as you may be breaking covenant and be ok till you have a new neighbor move in, who might decide to enforce their rights. There are so many cat/dog owners complaining, but in reality most of them don’t realise that if you are breaking covenants it’s borrowed time till someone objects. Nothing sinister.