Covenant for house builder that no longer exists

Lstuff

Hello. We're in the process of buying a house, and there is a covenant in place on the property that states any alterations to the property need to have permission from the original builder.

Our solicitor advises there is no such company on Companies House and after some extensive Googling, I can find no mention of the company or any successor.

Does this mean we can safely assume we'd likely not need to seek permission if we wanted to extend etc.?

Other properties in the same street have extended, added conservatories etc., so assume they'd be in the same situation, so we can ask them, but thought it was worth asking.

ethank

You might need to purchase an indemnity

AdrianC

"The original builder" wasn't necessarily a limited company. If they were, then they'd be on CoHo, even if they were long-since dissolved.

The chances of any successor to the builder coming after you are approximately zero. Your call.

Reed_Richards

ethank wrote: »

You might need to purchase an indemnity

Or get the vendor to purchase an indemnity for you as a condition of sale. It usually works that way round.

AnotherJoe

Just as a bit of a rant, why on earth do people purchase with such one-sided conditions?

Nebulous2

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Just as a bit of a rant, why on earth do people purchase with such one-sided conditions?

New ....... Shiny .....house......must have.......gimme, gimme, gimme.....




Conditions you say, paah, gimme..........

NeilCr

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Just as a bit of a rant, why on earth do people purchase with such one-sided conditions?

In my case.

By far the most suitable for me, best situated house in the town I wanted to live in, We have a number of covenants - none of which bother me - and the vast majority of folks who live here feel the same.

I get why people don't like them. I know my partner, for instance, loves the house but wouldn't live here - mainly because of the restrictions (she rails against anything like that) and the lighting is a bit iffy late at night. But they suit some of us and - personally - I wish a few on here (not you AnotherJoe) wouldn't be so derogatory of those who have made an informed choice.

Now those people who buy the houses with covenants and then rail against them and/or try to break them - that's different!

AnotherJoe

In the OPs case, as he's worded it he'd have to pay money to change the colour of his front door, add a conservatory, change the windows, put a velux in the loft, etc. And thats if the builder graciously allows it. Its almost worse than owning a grade 1 listed :mad:

davidmcn

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Just as a bit of a rant, why on earth do people purchase with such one-sided conditions?

Because you'd be pointlessly eliminating a huge proportion of the housing stock if you followed a policy of avoiding all such conditions - the vast majority of which are either actually unenforceable or for all practical purposes unenforceable (and can be insured against).

Tiexen

To stop you doing this:

NeilCr

AnotherJoe wrote: »

In the OPs case, as he's worded it he'd have to pay money to change the colour of his front door, add a conservatory, change the windows, put a velux in the loft, etc. And thats if the builder graciously allows it. Its almost worse than owning a grade 1 listed :mad:

Well, yes, but.

Some of us don't want to do any of those things. And most of those are in my covenants. I am more than happy with my house as it is

As I say I, completely, get that others feel different.

Perhaps :mad: is more than a bit sad. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others.