Additional enquiries help!

jdsimmons3

Can some please translate this so that I understand what on earth they're talking about! 😂
Im assuming they're talking about a shed and a small children play house in the garden..but I don't understand what the issue is or if there even is an issue! The work breach rings alarms bells so please help. 

My Solicitor-

Please provide a copy of the covenants affecting the property to your client and 

request confirmation that none of these have been breached. We note however the

outbuildings in the garden would be a breach of covenant. Please therefore provide 

Indemnity Insurance to cover the position at your clients’ cost. Please confirm there are no 

other breaches.

Sellers answer-
    The Seller advises that the outbuildings in the garden were already in situ when he purchased.  In view of the temporary nature of the constructions, we will not be offering an Indemnity Insurance Policy.  The Seller confirms that he is not aware of any further breach.  No Notice alleging breach has been in received.

What my solicitor said to me-

   With regard to their request for Indemnity Insurance as the outbuildings are technically a breach of the covenants against the property, I do appreciate their stance that as they are of a temporary nature, they will not be offering Indemnity Insurance.  Should you be asked this question in the future, I would take the same stance.

Just to add it's a freehold property!

user1977

The whole point of paying a solicitor is so that you don't need to ask somebody else to translate...so talk to your solicitor if you don't understand their advice, and carry on talking to them until you do.

But it seems there's a title condition saying you need permission to build outbuildings (or something along those lines). There are outbuildings. In theory, whoever has the benefit of that title condition could demand that the outbuildings are removed. The vendors think that's not something you ought to be worried about. Your solicitor doesn't seem to think it's something you should be worried about. I wouldn't either.

canaldumidi

How does your solicitor know there are outbuildings? He's never visited the property, so either you told him (in which case what exactly did you say) or he's looked at the EA's marketing material (what does that say?), or it was mentioned in the survey you may have forwarded to him (what does that say?)

Whether the structures breach the covenant depends on

a) the exact wording of the covenant (which we can't read) and

b) the exact nature of the structures (for which he is dependant on you, the EA or perhaps the surveyor)

Then,of course, there is the question as to who has the benefit of the covenant, whether they are still around, whether they will ever find out about the structures, and ultimately whether they'll care enough to enforce.

jdsimmons3

Thanks everyone! I have asked my solicitor to explain what this means but she messaged at 6pm so wouldn't get a reply that evening! I'm just impatient lol.

I assume she knows about the shed from the fixtures and fitting form which says there are outbuildings. I will re read the title so what I can find but hopefully she will explain it to me today

saajan_12

jdsimmons3 said:

Thanks everyone! I have asked my solicitor to explain what this means but she messaged at 6pm so wouldn't get a reply that evening! I'm just impatient lol.

I assume she knows about the shed from the fixtures and fitting form which says there are outbuildings. I will re read the title so what I can find but hopefully she will explain it to me today

Aha so the seller noted a shed / kids play house as an outbuilding in the F&F and then saying they're too temporary to really count as outbuildings for the covenant? 

Would clarify with the seller exactly what they mean in the F&F form. Also look at the construction of the shed.. if its sufficiently solid, then could be considered an outbuilding. Are you buying on the basis of there being storage available in the shed and would you be okay if someone came and demanded you tear it down under the covenant in the future? Then you have to think about how likely that is - largely based on who benefits from the covenant. eg if its a developer who is still selling plots then more likely vs if they've long gone.