Restrictive covenants on the BBC

robatwork

The other thread on covenants prompted me about a recent BBC Moneybox show I heard. The whole story was a shocking revelation about how this poor lady's house isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Only it seemed to be a non-story to me. I found the associated article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49935283

The journalist failed to list these "unreasonable" restrictive covenants. I do recall one being the reasonable one of no satellite dishes being allowed on the front of the houses. But they were allowed on the back.

The article is deliberately conflating her understandable concern about the management charges with the covenants. Shonky journalism.

G_M

and exactly what is it you've now learned about journalists..........?

wymondham

Its the BBC, were you expecting unbiased journalism?

robatwork

It's not the bias of the journalists I was frustrated at - I'm used to a growing leftie BBC bias. It's the quality. I in a somewhat old-fashioned way expect BBC journos to be more thorough and investigative than say the Daily Fail...but this is more Sunday Sport.

patman99

Isn't it funny. When the Tories are in power, the BBC are all lefties, but when Labour are in power, they are a bunch of right-wingers.

NeilCr

patman99 wrote: »

Isn't it funny. When the Tories are in power, the BBC are all lefties, but when Labour are in power, they are a bunch of right-wingers.

Indeed

Interesting poll and analysis here

https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/is-the-bbc-biased-bmg-reveals-public-perceptions-of-broadcaster-impartiality-in-the-uk/

buggy_boy

covenants are nothing new. The are rarely enforced once the developer has finished the development, unless its somewhere like port sunlight. I have a late 70's early 80's house and there are covenants about restrictions on extensions being built and no fences at the front of the garden.

The thing is all it takes is for one person to get planning permission that is not contested and then a precedent is set making the covenants null and void. Give it 10yrs and they will mean nothing.

nyermen

(from the article)Despite using a solicitor at the time, who came recommended by the developer Persimmon

:eek: (in absence of a facepalm smiley)

Enterprise_1701C

robatwork wrote: »

The other thread on covenants prompted me about a recent BBC Moneybox show I heard. The whole story was a shocking revelation about how this poor lady's house isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Only it seemed to be a non-story to me. I found the associated article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49935283

The journalist failed to list these "unreasonable" restrictive covenants. I do recall one being the reasonable one of no satellite dishes being allowed on the front of the houses. But they were allowed on the back.

The article is deliberately conflating her understandable concern about the management charges with the covenants. Shonky journalism.

I haven't read it, neither do I intend to.

Just wanted to say that putting a satellite dish on the front or the back is not a choice, it has to be in line of sight to the satellite so, depending on the direction the house faces, that could be a VERY restrictive covenant to someone that is, for whatever reason, desperate to have a satellite dish.

daveyjp

The liability for management and other charges relating to obtaining permission for works, to sell etc may well be in the covenants, so there is no conflation.

AdrianC

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Just wanted to say that putting a satellite dish on the front or the back is not a choice

Yes, it is.
Nobody HAS to have a satellite dish. It is a choice to have one.

And even then, there may be an option to place one remotely in the back garden facing over the roof of the property.

And, of course, if you absolutely insist on having one, don't buy a house that won't let you install one.

it has to be in line of sight to the satellite so, depending on the direction the house faces, that could be a VERY restrictive covenant to someone that is, for whatever reason, desperate to have a satellite dish.

They can be as "desperate" as they like, but it doesn't make any different to whether they can obtain TV channels or not.
https://www.cable.co.uk/tv/guides/sky-without-dish/

Nobody NEEDS a satellite dish, even if they think they "need" to watch TV channels provided by Sky.