Restrictive Covenant 'Breach'

PasturesNew

What's the actual issue with the neighbour?

Is it unsightly?

Does it make it difficult for them as they can't cut across your garden any more?

What could they have against your wall to make them bother to get a letter in the first place?

sillyhilly

I'm well up for stalling and increasing costs - if the neighbour had come to my front door, I would be more receptive, but going straight to legal is unbelievable.

The whole estate has no walls at the front of the properties, so I believe the motivation is purely for 'aesthetic' reasons (even though the walls look better than before).

The walls are dwarf walls and come up to just above knee height. They are not oppressive, or unsightly, or indeed out of the ordinary for the property(ies) with colour / construction etc. I understand that this is subjective, however looking at it from a third-persons point of view, I really can't see how they would be deemed excessive.

The neighbour in question is 18 doors away! This is nearly 170ft. The wall causes no issue for them what-so-ever.

The only motivation that I can see is that I have extended, and received several complaints/objections which were over-ruled.

SallyDucati

Could it just be a bit of perceived 'sour grapes'? 'We can't have one (without realising they could ask like you did) so they can't'

PasturesNew

sillyhilly wrote: »

...

Personally, I think walls add value to a house and/or make it more sellable. So many people dislike open plan landscaping as it can lead to annoying bad neighbour behaviours.

Given two identical houses I'd pick the one with a wall!

Although walls can generate their own poor behaviour issues, so each wall needs to be viewed within the streetscape to see if it's preventing or creating nuisance behaviours.

18 doors away is clearly in the camp of: Mind your own business.

System

People can be funny. When they buy into a neighbourhood, they believe they buy 'as is', and nothing should ever change. It is often down to their control freakery.

sillyhilly

SallyDucati wrote: »

Could it just be a bit of perceived 'sour grapes'? 'We can't have one (without realising they could ask like you did) so they can't'

This was my initial thoughts - however I like to see the best in people, and couldn't imagine that someone would go to such extremes as a result of something so petty!

SallyDucati

sillyhilly wrote: »

This was my initial thoughts - however I like to see the best in people, and couldn't imagine that someone would go to such extremes as a result of something so petty!

People can be funny, my Grandad and his adjoining semi neighbour didn't get on. When he put a fence up in the front garden he got a letter from the neighbours solicitor complaining it had made their fence at the back fall down! Solicitors made a lot of money out of various disputes between those 2.

sillyhilly

Many thanks for all of your assistance. You've confirmed what I thought and I've done it all 'by the book'.

I appreciate your help.

G_M

It is possible that the beneficiary of the covenant was originally the owner of the land under development ie the 'Developer'.


But as parcels of land were sold off house-by-house, each house-owner may have inheritted the Benefit of the covenant through their ownership of a segment of the original land to which the covenant applied.


In that case, yes, the complainant might have a legal case.


Having said that, I may be wrong, plus of course it would depend on the precise wording. You've quoted the part of the covenant defining the what is/is not permitted, but not the full context.

sillyhilly

G_M wrote: »

Having said that, I may be wrong, plus of course it would depend on the precise wording. You've quoted the part of the covenant defining the what is/is not permitted, but not the full context.

Is there any particular section that I could provide here?

The relevant section is part of the Schedule of the deeds. It also includes:
- No building of other buildings on the land
- No trade / business
- To maintain fences in the rear garden
- Not to cut trees down

The only parties mentioned are the Developer, a Purchaser (a company) and Sub-Purchaser (the first owners).

There is another section worded as follows:

The Sub-Purchaser for the benefit and protection of the adjoining and neighbouring land now or formerly of the Vendor and Purchaser or any parts thereof and so as to bind so far as may be the property hereby conveyed into whatsoever hands the same may come...
[the Sub-Purchaser covenents] with the Vendor and Purchaser and the persons deriving title under him will at all times hereafter observe and perform the restrictions as set out in the Schedule

But again, this appears to relate directly to neighbouring/adjoining land.