Restrictive covenant on property we are about to buy. Advice please!

sten_super

We are in the middle of buying a 1970s build with the same covenant - and an extension (without permission) that was completed in 2002. The vendors have purchased an indemnity insurance covering this and the lack of building regs for the same extension; the policy has no end date (it is "in perpetuity"), and it's cost them the grand total of £140.

Hopefully this gives you an indication of the likelihood of enforcement (i.e. it's essentially zero).

Davesnave

And you can keep chickens. Allotments Act trumps* all.

(*sorry to use that word on a family-friendly  web site!)

newsgroupmonkey_

Davesnave said:

And you can keep chickens. Allotments Act trumps* all.

(*sorry to use that word on a family-friendly  web site!)

Now I'm intrigued.

What trumps what? (Sorry)

I mean, I have a convenant that says I can't do anything to my house, or even apply for PP without first consulting the Parish Council. In fact, I can't remember the exact wording, but my conveyancers suggested that I couldn't even do anything that would normally be under permitted development. Our house is bonkers, the way it's setup (basically back to front - the back is on the road, the front faces trees). Arguably, neither I, nor my neighbours, should have sheds even!

And as you say, who enforces any of this anyway? My deeds say we are not allowed commercial vehicles, but someone from the next street parks his council highways truck outside our houses and we have no idea who we would go to, even if we wanted to!

Mandragora

Thanks so much everyone. Our solicitor has been really good, and set out the exact position which is essentia;lly 'this is what the covenant means, it's up to you to decide what you'd like to do about it; if the purcahse of the property depends on you being able to do an extension & reorganisation you need to think about it carefully. After so long it is unlikely that the covenant would be enforced, but be aware that it might be, in the event that the covenant was sold on.  In time (and after you've made the changes, you could buy indemnity insurance to be on the safe side, but you could be exposed to some risk in the meantime'.  Her view is that the risk is negligable but, of course, that it does exist. Asking here has given us a helpful second perspective, and all your ideas and experiences have been helpful, so thanks for that. 

Mandragora

Sorry for typos!

Davesnave

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Davesnave said:

And you can keep chickens. Allotments Act trumps* all.

(*sorry to use that word on a family-friendly  web site!)

Now I'm intrigued.

What trumps what? (Sorry)

The Allotments Act is stronger than any other legislation and allows people to keep chickens (but not necessarily cockerels)  if they wish. Full discussion here, if you  can be bothered:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2962208/chickens-s-12-allotments-act-1950/p1

[Deleted User]

Always worth checking these things properly, you will find places that are much more proactive in enforcing covenants, Bournville Village Trust areas for example. A couple wasted £10k on a summer house that doesn't meet the BVT rules (1m too high) and now they have to tear it down all because they didn't follow the rules and assumed they could build without getting permission

xylophone

'7. No alterations in or additions to any building now or at any time standing on the propertyhereby conveyed shall be made or permitted to be made neither shall any new or additional buildings be erected or permitted to be erected on the property hereby conveyed or any part thereof except such as are in accordance with plans and elevations to be previously submitted to and approved of in writing by the Vendor or its surveyor for which a fee of three guineas for each such approval shall be paid to the Vendor or its surveyor upon demand'

 I'd have thought that the question is , "Who has the benefit of the covenant?"  because the beneficiary of the covenant has the right to enforce it.

We are told that the beneficiary (presumably the company that built the estate) is no more - it is extinct- it is a dead company.

Therefore nobody and no body can enforce the covenant?

AdrianC

xylophone said:

'7. No alterations in or additions to any building now or at any time standing on the propertyhereby conveyed shall be made or permitted to be made neither shall any new or additional buildings be erected or permitted to be erected on the property hereby conveyed or any part thereof except such as are in accordance with plans and elevations to be previously submitted to and approved of in writing by the Vendor or its surveyor for which a fee of three guineas for each such approval shall be paid to the Vendor or its surveyor upon demand'

 I'd have thought that the question is , "Who has the benefit of the covenant?"  because the beneficiary of the covenant has the right to enforce it.

We are told that the beneficiary (presumably the company that built the estate) is no more - it is extinct- it is a dead company.

Therefore nobody and no body can enforce the covenant?

Not quite.

We know that the original beneficiary of the covenant is no longer. We do not know if they sold off the benefit of it before they ceased to trade. Or if it was transferred as an asset of the company on their dissolution.

It is very unlikely anybody will enforce it. It is not impossible. They would have to prove they now had the benefit of it.

And, for a fixed fee of £3.15 for processing the request, the chances of anybody giving the first toss are... slender...