We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Restrictive covenant in freehold house
Comments
-
Does the fact that it stats "to use the same as a private dwellinghouse in a single family occupation only" not "to use as a private dwellinghouse in a single family occupation only" makes it less likely to be enforceable?
Originally posted by andyfa
Not at all. It removes any ambiguity as to what it's talking about.
The expression "to use as" and use and to "use the same as" are not the same. If there are unrelated people living in the property, but for anyone outside they behave the same way as a family, then you could argue that the covenant has not been breached, as the property is used the same as a family home.0 -
If you lived in my road and you breached a covenent like that one of my neighbours would be onto you straight away.0
-
The expression "to use as" and use and to "use the same as" are not the same. If there are unrelated people living in the property, but for anyone outside they behave the same way as a family, then you could argue that the covenant has not been breached, as the property is used the same as a family home.
No, as G_M has explained, it's being used as a pronoun to refer to "the Property", it's not qualifying "family home".
From the OED definition:the same, that (or this) same: the aforesaid person or thing. Often merely the equivalent of a personal pronoun; he, she, it, they. Now rare in literary use; still common in legal documents; also (with reference to things) in commercial language (where the is sometimes omitted).
1966 G. W. Turner Eng. Lang. in Austral. & N.Z. vi. 135 A different influence of written language is seen in the use of same as a pronoun equivalent to it, as in ‘put the tailboard up and secure same with a length of wire’ from New Zealand (Wally Crump, 1964), a facetious borrowing of lawyer's English which is quite common.0 -
-
If you lived in my road and you breached a covenent like that one of my neighbours would be onto you straight away.
Where we have moved seems more laid back.
There is a long list of covenants attached to our property and the others on the estate yet many of the houses breach at least one. The most common being the commercial vehicles in the driveways and changing the landscaping to the property frontages.
The developers who are still on site don't seem concerned.0 -
No, as G_M has explained, it's being used as a pronoun to refer to "the Property", it's not qualifying "family home".
From the OED definition:
the same, that (or this) same: the aforesaid person or thing. Often merely the equivalent of a personal pronoun; he, she, it, they. Now rare in literary use; still common in legal documents; also (with reference to things) in commercial language (where the is sometimes omitted).
1966 G. W. Turner Eng. Lang. in Austral. & N.Z. vi. 135 A different influence of written language is seen in the use of same as a pronoun equivalent to it, as in ‘put the tailboard up and secure same with a length of wire’ from New Zealand (Wally Crump, 1964), a facetious borrowing of lawyer's English which is quite common.
Thank you, that does clarify it unfortunately.0 -
and they would have zero grounds to do so unless they were a beneficiary of the covenant as a matter of law (not just what the document said).
Can you explain that? What would have to happen for the to be the beneficiary of the covenant in law?0 -
-
To be clear - they would not need to have owned the benefiting land at the time that the covenant was made.SmashedAvacado wrote: »They would need to own land that formed part of the benefiting land at the time that the covenant was made.
They would need to now own land which was benefiting land at the time that the covenant was made.
:think:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards