BELLWAY - commercial van prohibited ?

NeilCr

Petriix said:

For a covenant to be enforceable the benefiting party would have to be able to prove a tangible loss. Mostly the other property owners on an estate are not actually beneficiaries of any covenants. People can complain all they like but are unlikely to have any legal grounds to enforce any such covenant.

 Can you provide some citations for this please.

Genuinely interested.

NeilCr

bob_the_dinosaur said:

If it was me, I would make a point of trying to become a director and then table a motion
allowing commercial vehicles as long as they are in line with the definition of a car derived van under Schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (maximum laden weight 2 tonnes)
or in plain English- little post office type van good, transit and bigger- bad

That's the way madness lies!

In that situation you'd do better to ignore the covenant entirely (not that I, necessarily, recommend that course of action). You can't just amend a covenant 

What would happen is person with commercial vehicle larger than your definition would come along  and say why is x allowed to park with their commercial vehicle and I am not. Well, because we've decided that it's okay for this size but not that size. Yes but the covenant says no commercial vehicles. ...

Bit like pets really. You allow a goldfish - then someone comes along with a hamster - etc etc 

My sense is that you either go all out on a covenant. Or ignore it entirely and hope that a lessee doesn't come after you..

AdrianC

NeilCr said:

bob_the_dinosaur said:

If it was me, I would make a point of trying to become a director and then table a motion
allowing commercial vehicles as long as they are in line with the definition of a car derived van under Schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (maximum laden weight 2 tonnes)
or in plain English- little post office type van good, transit and bigger- bad

That's the way madness lies!

Indeed. "Car-derived van" is a confusing mess when it comes to speed limits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/car-derived-vans-and-dual-purpose-vehicles/car-derived-vans-and-dual-purpose-vehicles#how-to-identify-a-car-derived-van
"...or the vehicle is built from a platform which has been designed and developed to be built as a car or a van by the same manufacturer" is very, VERY grey wording these days.

Few people would say this was a "car-derived van".

And, of course, it's over the weight limit. But it's also available with windows and seats, and M1 type approval rather than N1, so legally a car.

How about the next size down?

Same platform. Some are over the weight limit, some within - and many aren't registered as CDVs - but all externally identical. And, of course, available with windows and seats, too, as a car.

And then, of course, there's the actual cars on the same platform...

Still the same platform...
But in other EU countries, you can buy that car as a 2-seat van version...
https://professionnel.peugeot.fr/gamme-societe/decouvrez-la-gamme/vehicules-affaire-2-places/peugeot-308-affaire.html
Isn't that what a "car-derived van" should mean...? Getting very close to that 2t GVW cap, too.

Or how about the van versions of big 4x4s?
https://www.landrover.co.uk/vehicles/discovery/commercial/index.html
https://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/land-cruiser/commercial

Way over the 2t GVW, of course. Way over the GVW of most "proper vans". But exactly the same GVW as the car versions...

Then there's been umpteen prosecutions that have gone one way, or the other way, or back again...
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=100772

AdrianC

...and if the issue is the signwriting, then...