Restrictive covenant advice as tenants

lincroft1710

If they do not get planning permission, then I would presume the owners would want more for the house because it would retain the double garage and the huge garden.

A word to the wise. Do not become emotionally attached to a rental property, a tenancy can be ended by a landlord.

jobianne77

Hi Avacado yes the deed states original files at the bottom, so basically what your saying is the covenant wont stop them from building another house next to the existing one?

SmashedAvacado

jobianne77 wrote: »

Hi Avacado yes the deed states original files at the bottom, so basically what your saying is the covenant wont stop him from building another house next to the existing one?

No, what i am saying is that only the beneficiary of the covenant can stop him building it (assuming planning is not an issue). I am saying also that you can find the beneficiary by looking at the original deed and working out which land was left when the plot for the 10 properties was sold. I am also saying that it is possible that none of the 9 other properties have the right to object under the covenant (but this depends on who the covenant benefits).

jobianne77

I know we shouldn't become emotionally involved but we have been there 7 years with our intentions to buy it, the owners have always said we would have first refusal.

davidmcn

Also bear in mind that it's very unlikely your landlord (and/or their solicitor) won't otherwise be aware of the covenant.

G_M

jobianne77 wrote: »

The charges for the covenant reads as follows......

The purchaser hereby covenants with the vendor. (to the intent that the burden of this covenant may not only bind the purchaser but also the property conveyed and each every part thereof into what so ever hands the same may come and so that the benefit thereof may so far as possible be annexed to and run with each and every part of the vendors estate for the time being remaining unsold) that the purchaser will no erect or cause or permit to be erected on the property hereby conveyed any building or erection other than the 10 private dwelling houses with the usual appurtences and then only in accordance with plans elevations and specifications which shall have been previously approved in writing to the vendors surveyor.
This is then transferred to the owners stating the restrictive covenant is in place with a date back in the late 90s.

Does the above mean no more houses can be built? 10 houses have been built already.

First off, forget Planning. The Planning process is separate and will not take into account the covenant.

Sure you can object on valid planning grounds if you wish, and if there are any (not just "I object" or "I don't like it"!) but that is a separate action (and will not endear you to your landlord!). If objecting to the Planners, research valid grounds first.


OK - the covenant. As said, nothing to do with planning who will not care and have no authority. The only person/organisation(s) who can object are the beneficiaries of the covenant. In this case the highlighted in red section above.

Whilst it binds the original purchaser, and all subsequent purchasers, it only seems to benefit the original vendor, not their ineriters, so the first issue is whether that person/company is still around. From the context, it seems likely the 'vendor' (beneficiary) was the company that built the 10 houses. They are likely completely uninterested now that they've sold all the properties and moved on(if indeed they are even still in busines).


The 2nd highlightes section seems to extend the covenant to benefit "each and every part of the vendors estate for the time being remaining unsold". That means that if, say, your propety was the 6th to be sold, a similar covenant would be included in the remaining 4 Titles (and presumably already existed for the initial 5 sold) giving them benefit.

If you looked the Titles of other properties, I imagine you'd find similar covenants. The 1st 4 properties sold would have covenants granting you (as an as-yet unsold property at that time) the benefit.

Unless I'm wrong, then, the original Developer, and/or any of the other 9 property owners, could take you/your landlord to court to obtain an injunction to prevent this project based on the covenant, even if the council planners had approved it.

Whether they would or not is another matter.....


edit: I'm guessing your quote comes from the Charges Register of the property Title? This is just a resume of th full covenant which will be in a separate document (conveyance, deed, whatever) which will be referenced. If it says 'copy filed' you can get a paper copy from the LR to read it in full (£8)


https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land/copies-of-deeds

jobianne77

Hi Avacodo right I understand now, it's all confusing. we just assumed that because it stated no more than 10 dwelling, which there is 10, we thought no more could be built. Thanks anyway much appreciated. We will still but the house less garage and part of the garden.

lincroft1710

jobianne77 wrote: »

I know we shouldn't become emotionally involved but we have been there 7 years with our intentions to buy it, the owners have always said we would have first refusal.

I have been in my current house 21 years and I have little if any emotional attachment to it.

SmashedAvacado

Whilst it binds the original purchaser, and all subsequent purchasers, it only seems to benefit the original vendor, not their ineriters, so the first issue is whether that person/company is still around. From the context, it seems likely the 'vendor' (beneficiary) was the company that built the 10 houses.

I don't think that is likely. I think its more likely that the plot on which 10 houses could be built was sold out from a larger plot ie was part of a parcel of land not comprising any of the 10 houses.

jobianne77

Thanks GM really appreciate your comment.