Everyone ignores covenants?

peterhjohnson

I got the Charges Register for a property on a small estate and found that they're apparently not allowed to have TV aerials. Also they can't have hedges/fences in the front garden. Most of the houses (including one I'd like to buy) are in contravention of the "rules"

Is this a ticking bomb? Is there probably some other document that I can't see that makes it OK. Or are the rules theoretical and unenforceable?

Thanks

G_M

Very often the covenants are put in place by the developer to ensure that while they are still selling the new properties, the estate looks tidy and homogeneous.

The covenants remain, but the developer loses all interest,sonolonger enforced.

But that's a generalisation. And it may be that the other property owners, as well as the originaldeveloper, are able to enforce (if they choose).

And that applies only, of course, to covenants on more modern estates - other covenants are put in place for different reasons, by different parties, and again, may be historic and effectively irrelevant, or may still have relevance and be capable of enforcement.

AdrianC

peterhjohnson wrote: »

I got the Charges Register for a property on a small estate and found that they're apparently not allowed to have TV aerials. Also they can't have hedges/fences in the front garden. Most of the houses (including one I'd like to buy) are in contravention of the "rules"

Is this a ticking bomb? Is there probably some other document that I can't see that makes it OK. Or are the rules theoretical and unenforceable?

Who's the beneficiary of the covenant?
How old is it?

Davesnave

peterhjohnson wrote: »

Most of the houses (including one I'd like to buy) are in contravention of the "rules"

Is this a ticking bomb?

On established estates, itwould only be a ticking bomb if someone could make money from enforcement, or if non-compliance was costing a third party significant money.

As these scenarios are unlikely, it's hard to see who'd wish to challenge a majority of the residents.

NeilCr

Davesnave wrote: »

As these scenarios are unlikely, it's hard to see who'd wish to challenge a majority of the residents.

Yep

And, practically, from a director of a ManCos point of view you wouldn't even try. Too many aerials and hedges. What are you going to do if they all say no. Go down the legal route for the majority of the residents?. Really, if you are going to do something about covenant breaking you have more chance of success if it's only one "miscreant"

It may also be that the estate is owned/managed by the residents and they have agreed amongst themselves that aerials and hedges are okay.

OP

Are your current threads all about one house? If so, it might be better to have one thread only. There may be a crossover (I saw one about who owns the pavement outside your house) and anyone responding will have the full picture

WeAreGhosts

The ones regarding TV aerials, or hedges etc are usually disregarded on established estates. On ours it says we can't have hedges at the front, but many people have established hedges or shrubs that form a hedge and no one's been taken to court yet - despite my own neighbour saying he'll take legal action against my shrubs as he doesn't like them and they're against the covenants. He's probably found out it'll cost him thousands and would be a very silly idea when people at the other side of him have a giant conifer hedge at the front (there's always one, isn't there?)

The covenants I would be careful of are the ones that say you can't build in your garden, for example, the ones that would have more impact in the immediate area.

NeilCr

WeAreGhosts wrote: »

The ones regarding TV aerials, or hedges etc are usually disregarded on established estates. On ours it says we can't have hedges at the front, but many people have established hedges or shrubs that form a hedge and no one's been taken to court yet - despite my own neighbour saying he'll take legal action against my shrubs as he doesn't like them and they're against the covenants. He's probably found out it'll cost him thousands and would be a very silly idea when people at the other side of him have a giant conifer hedge at the front (there's always one, isn't there?)

The covenants I would be careful of are the ones that say you can't build in your garden, for example, the ones that would have more impact in the immediate area.

I think getting the balance is the problem. As well as the people you are describing there are also those who, blatantly, ignore covenants and then get shirty when they are drawn to their attention. We have just had to deal with someone who, recently, moved in and decided to park their huge van on our roadway which is against one of the covenants and one that our residents as a whole like to see enforced. One of the couple got very abusive when politely approached. Fortunately, her husband was more amenable and moved the van off site

The ones that get me more than any, though, are those who complain bitterly about folks breaking covenants while doing the same themselves!

G_M

I have a covenant prohibiting me from selling alcohol from my property. Fortunately it does not mention consumption....

davidmcn

Amongst other things, I'm not allowed "to carry on any manufactory of soot or blood". Not entirely sure how one manufactures either of those, but I expect I can avoid accidentally doing them.

YBR

G_M wrote: »

I have a covenant prohibiting me from selling alcohol from my property. Fortunately it does not mention consumption....

I know a couple with a similar covenant, then their case the land previously belonged to a Methodist Chapel, who not only consume but also brew their own beer (quite strong, I'm told). Perfectly within the Deed, but not at all in the Methodist spirit!

peterhjohnson

AdrianC wrote: »

Who's the beneficiary of the covenant?
How old is it?

A builder by the look of it. 1988