Restrictive Covenant 'Breach'

G_M

sillyhilly wrote: »

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.

No. It relates to:
"the benefit and protection of the adjoining and neighbouring land now or formerly of the Vendor and Purchaser or any parts thereof "

'adjoining' means immediate neighbour.
'neighbouring' does not necessarily mean the immediate neighbour.
And in this case it is defined as land 'formally of the vendor'. ie any land which the original vendor (the developer) owned (and then may have subsequently sold - see my post above).

sillyhilly

So you're saying it may be enforceable then? Apologies if I am misunderstanding.

However, they are 18 doors (170ft) away, and consent has been obtained from the Developer. Would this therefore not be sufficient to consider them to not be 'neighbouring' or indeed have any argument at all?

Davesnave

FreeBear wrote: »

But then writing back to the solicitor would incur a fee for reading the letter. That would add a few quid to the neighbour's bill. A simple "we acknowledge receipt of your letter dated <date> and will give due consideration to its contents" - Probably cost £100 for them to read it, and then another £100 to forward it on.

You may well be right, but I believe in the power of inertia. Acknowledging the letter would = engagement, and I don't do that, except on my terms.

As it happens, I have a work party coming to repair and paint my front wall soon, thanks to this strategy. The management committee of a neighbouring development wrongly assumed it was their wall, and as it needed attention, they put it into their schedule of works. This weekend they came to tell me about it. They've made representations before that I've politely ignored.

I have the relevant title plans which show it's my wall, not theirs. Presumably, they must at least have a copy of their own, which shows clearly that their land stops before the wall, but just to be fair, I did mention that fact .

It didn't compute. I might as well have recited the 12x table to the guy. In his mind I'd raised an irrelevance. The wall will be painted on (date) and no, they didn't want a contribution; it's all budgeted-for.

The other wall across the lane is also outwith the development's boundary and in much worse repair. Its lady owner was, I think, the one who started all this off. She was under the impression they own it too!:rotfl:

As someone said, people can be 'funny' about boundaries and walls.

G_M

sillyhilly wrote: »

So you're saying it may be enforceable then? Apologies if I am misunderstanding.

However, they are 18 doors (170ft) away, and consent has been obtained from the Developer. Would this therefore not be sufficient to consider them to not be 'neighbouring' or indeed have any argument at all?

next door, 8 doors away, 18 doors away, 28 doors away. They are all 'neighbouring land now or formerly of the Vendor '.

Granted, I'm not a solicitor, nor am I an expert in covenants - just a random bloke on the www. But I certainly believe it may be enforceable by any home owner on the original estate.

But the advice you've had from others to just ignore it, at least initially, seems sound. If /when it gets serious, check your home insurance (and union, employer etc) to see if you get free legal advice, and then let me know if I'm right or way off track!

System

Would they really go as far as enforcing it in court (very expensive) just for a tiny wall? It probably gets more expensive for them if you just ignore. I somehow doubt they will take it to court, unless they are massive control freaks, with empty lives.

sillyhilly

Diocletian_II wrote: »

unless they are massive control freaks, with empty lives.

Therein lies the problem... If they are willing to go to lawyers straight away, that's my concern!

I will be sending a brief letter to the solicitors confirming that I have received their letter and note its contents, outlining that required consent has been obtained. The wall will remain after their 'deadline' that they gave me to remove it. It's then up to them to make the next move.

System

sillyhilly wrote: »

Therein lies the problem... If they are willing to go to lawyers straight away, that's my concern!

I will be sending a brief letter to the solicitors confirming that I have received their letter and note its contents, outlining that required consent has been obtained. The wall will remain after their 'deadline' that they gave me to remove it. It's then up to them to make the next move.

Probably the best thing to do. If they could potentially lose a court case, I doubt they will take it further, since it could be an expensive waste of money. If they are not sure about their chances, I doubt they will go down that route. The problem is that you would need to get your own legal opinion to see where they and you stand. And that means starting to spend money on it. I would just leave the ball in their court as you are planning, and see what they do next. If push comes to shove, you could let them rack up huge legal bills on a case before it gets to court, and then at the last moment you take down the wall yourself?