HELP PLEASE: the new build I am buying is in breach of covenant. Should I pull out?

p00hsticks

lincroft1710 said:

Doozergirl said:

The 1950s isn't exactly recent.  

Oi. DG, some of us can remember the 1950s quite vividly!!

As a recent meme that was pointed out to me said - it;s as far back from today to 1970 as it is from 1970 to 1918 - which is true but scary if you are of a certain age like me.

GDB2222

Doozergirl said:

There's no reason for them to go back over old paperwork that they almost certainly don't have, though.  

Imagine going over 70 years of paperwork to see if anyone has built anything else on the land.   It would cost more in wages just looking before they ever found anything they might be able to benefit from.  

Knocking a house down is of no benefit to anyone.  Never going to happen.  

It's not a risk that I'd consider to be a risk at all.  An indemnity policy will suffice for that kind of risk.  

There's more details of the sort of insurance available here:
https://legal-contingency.co.uk/products_bespoke-products_restrictive-covenant-insurance.html

If I were the OP, I would be poring over the fine details of the policy offered by the developers, just to make sure it covers as much as possible. If the policy is truly comprehensive, I would relax, as the risk is the insurer's. Let them have the sleepless nights.

I'd want to check that the insurers were made aware that the company is still trading when they quoted, as failure to disclose could invalidate the policy.


 "Imagine going over 70 years of paperwork to see if anyone has built anything else on the land.   It would cost more in wages just looking before they ever found anything they might be able to benefit from.  "

Actually, it would be quite easy in this case, as the OP says the company is still trading. Assuming it's a family firm, they just get together and try to remember the sites that grandfather developed in the 1950's. Then they look up a few title details on the Land Register (cost £3 a title), and they can quickly find which properties have restrictive covenants in favour of the company.



 

jimbog

lincroft1710 said:

Doozergirl said:

The 1950s isn't exactly recent.  

Oi. DG, some of us can remember the 1950s quite vividly!!

in black & white?

Doozergirl

GDB2222 said:

Doozergirl said:

There's no reason for them to go back over old paperwork that they almost certainly don't have, though.  

Imagine going over 70 years of paperwork to see if anyone has built anything else on the land.   It would cost more in wages just looking before they ever found anything they might be able to benefit from.  

Knocking a house down is of no benefit to anyone.  Never going to happen.  

It's not a risk that I'd consider to be a risk at all.  An indemnity policy will suffice for that kind of risk.  

There's more details of the sort of insurance available here:
https://legal-contingency.co.uk/products_bespoke-products_restrictive-covenant-insurance.html

If I were the OP, I would be poring over the fine details of the policy offered by the developers, just to make sure it covers as much as possible. If the policy is truly comprehensive, I would relax, as the risk is the insurer's. Let them have the sleepless nights.

I'd want to check that the insurers were made aware that the company is still trading when they quoted, as failure to disclose could invalidate the policy.


 "Imagine going over 70 years of paperwork to see if anyone has built anything else on the land.   It would cost more in wages just looking before they ever found anything they might be able to benefit from.  "

Actually, it would be quite easy in this case, as the OP says the company is still trading. Assuming it's a family firm, they just get together and try to remember the sites that grandfather developed in the 1950's. Then they look up a few title details on the Land Register (cost £3 a title), and they can quickly find which properties have restrictive covenants in favour of the company.



 

I was imagining that they were a much larger company, but yes, it's conceivable that someone in their 70s now would decide at a very specific point in time to go looking up stuff they clearly remember their grandad had built to see if people had breached any covenants so that they could go and enforce them...    

Barely conceivable, but conceivable.  

lincroft1710

jimbog said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doozergirl said:

The 1950s isn't exactly recent.  

Oi. DG, some of us can remember the 1950s quite vividly!!

in black & white?

No, real life was actually in colour

lincroft1710

p00hsticks said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doozergirl said:

The 1950s isn't exactly recent.  

Oi. DG, some of us can remember the 1950s quite vividly!!

As a recent meme that was pointed out to me said - it;s as far back from today to 1970 as it is from 1970 to 1918 - which is true but scary if you are of a certain age like me.

Yes I saw that, quite frightening! 1970 was the year I bought my first car.

user1977

p00hsticks said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doozergirl said:

The 1950s isn't exactly recent.  

Oi. DG, some of us can remember the 1950s quite vividly!!

As a recent meme that was pointed out to me said - it;s as far back from today to 1970 as it is from 1970 to 1918 - which is true but scary if you are of a certain age like me.

Or another mind-blowing one - the tv series 'Allo 'Allo started in 1982 - 40 years ago, but only 38 years after the end of Nazi occupation of France.

GDB2222

Doozergirl said:

GDB2222 said:

Doozergirl said:

There's no reason for them to go back over old paperwork that they almost certainly don't have, though.  

Imagine going over 70 years of paperwork to see if anyone has built anything else on the land.   It would cost more in wages just looking before they ever found anything they might be able to benefit from.  

Knocking a house down is of no benefit to anyone.  Never going to happen.  

It's not a risk that I'd consider to be a risk at all.  An indemnity policy will suffice for that kind of risk.  

There's more details of the sort of insurance available here:
https://legal-contingency.co.uk/products_bespoke-products_restrictive-covenant-insurance.html

If I were the OP, I would be poring over the fine details of the policy offered by the developers, just to make sure it covers as much as possible. If the policy is truly comprehensive, I would relax, as the risk is the insurer's. Let them have the sleepless nights.

I'd want to check that the insurers were made aware that the company is still trading when they quoted, as failure to disclose could invalidate the policy.


 "Imagine going over 70 years of paperwork to see if anyone has built anything else on the land.   It would cost more in wages just looking before they ever found anything they might be able to benefit from.  "

Actually, it would be quite easy in this case, as the OP says the company is still trading. Assuming it's a family firm, they just get together and try to remember the sites that grandfather developed in the 1950's. Then they look up a few title details on the Land Register (cost £3 a title), and they can quickly find which properties have restrictive covenants in favour of the company.



 

I was imagining that they were a much larger company, but yes, it's conceivable that someone in their 70s now would decide at a very specific point in time to go looking up stuff they clearly remember their grandad had built to see if people had breached any covenants so that they could go and enforce them...    

Barely conceivable, but conceivable.  

It does not happen at all often, as you say, which is why the insurance is cheap. One reason is that companies come and go. It’s pretty unusual for the same company to be trading 70 years later. 

I’d check the insurance carefully.

lincroft1710

user1977 said:

p00hsticks said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doozergirl said:

The 1950s isn't exactly recent.  

Oi. DG, some of us can remember the 1950s quite vividly!!

As a recent meme that was pointed out to me said - it;s as far back from today to 1970 as it is from 1970 to 1918 - which is true but scary if you are of a certain age like me.

Or another mind-blowing one - the tv series 'Allo 'Allo started in 1982 - 40 years ago, but only 38 years after the end of Nazi occupation of France.

Even worse, Dad's Army started in 1968 - 54 years ago, but only 28 years after the formation of the Home Guard. 

GDB2222

lincroft1710 said:

user1977 said:

p00hsticks said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doozergirl said:

The 1950s isn't exactly recent.  

Oi. DG, some of us can remember the 1950s quite vividly!!

As a recent meme that was pointed out to me said - it;s as far back from today to 1970 as it is from 1970 to 1918 - which is true but scary if you are of a certain age like me.

Or another mind-blowing one - the tv series 'Allo 'Allo started in 1982 - 40 years ago, but only 38 years after the end of Nazi occupation of France.

Even worse, Dad's Army started in 1968 - 54 years ago, but only 28 years after the formation of the Home Guard. 

I remember watching that when it first aired. And, I remember listening to HHGTTG when it first aired on the radio.