Covenants in property deed

AskAsk

I am selling a property, which is ex-local authority, and there is a covenant in the property deed that states, "Not to use the property other than as a private dwelling house for occupation by a single family".

I have rented the property to friends or sharers in the past, on one AST contract since 2007 and there has never been an issue.

I have been asked by the buyer solicitors if I have "complied with the covenants".  What would you advise I should say to this question?

user1977

Is it currently occupied by anybody? If not then I can't see that any past breach matters.

What does your solicitor advise you to say?

AskAsk

user1977 said:

Is it currently occupied by anybody? If not then I can't see that any past breach matters.

What does your solicitor advise you to say?

thanks for the response.  the property is empty as my tenants gave notice and moved out in early December.  i haven't asked my solicitors.  should i ask them?  i was thinking may be i should say i have complied with the covenants?  if they challenge, then it is something that had happened in the past and i had interpreted "one single family" to mean no room let and only one "unit" on one AST.

EssexHebridean

AskAsk said:

user1977 said:

Is it currently occupied by anybody? If not then I can't see that any past breach matters.

What does your solicitor advise you to say?

thanks for the response.  the property is empty as my tenants gave notice and moved out in early December.  i haven't asked my solicitors.  should i ask them?  i was thinking may be i should say i have complied with the covenants?  if they challenge, then it is something that had happened in the past and i had interpreted "one single family" to mean no room let and only one "unit" on one AST.

Ask your solicitor hypothetically what the answer should be "if this had happened" - be very clear that you are of course speaking hypothetically. That should earn you a hypothetical answer that will inform your answer. 

diystarter7

AskAsk said:

I am selling a property, which is ex-local authority, and there is a covenant in the property deed that states, "Not to use the property other than as a private dwelling house for occupation by a single family".

I have rented the property to friends or sharers in the past, on one AST contract since 2007 and there has never been an issue.

I have been asked by the buyer solicitors if I have "complied with the covenants".  What would you advise I should say to this question?

Hi OP

That is very usual, we've sold several houses and never been asked that.
What did the solicitor say?

Thanks

user1977

AskAsk said:

user1977 said:

Is it currently occupied by anybody? If not then I can't see that any past breach matters.

What does your solicitor advise you to say?

thanks for the response.  the property is empty as my tenants gave notice and moved out in early December.  i haven't asked my solicitors.  should i ask them?  i was thinking may be i should say i have complied with the covenants?  if they challenge, then it is something that had happened in the past and i had interpreted "one single family" to mean no room let and only one "unit" on one AST.

Presumably the questions and answers are going via your solicitor anyway - yes you should ask them for advice, since that's what you're paying them for!

But it should only matter if there were a continuing breach e.g. there's an extension for which you should have sought consent. If the council didn't like a multiple-occupancy scenario, their initial remedy would be to get you to stop it. They can't penalise you (or your buyer) for a breach which has already ended.

AskAsk

diystarter7 said:

AskAsk said:

I am selling a property, which is ex-local authority, and there is a covenant in the property deed that states, "Not to use the property other than as a private dwelling house for occupation by a single family".

I have rented the property to friends or sharers in the past, on one AST contract since 2007 and there has never been an issue.

I have been asked by the buyer solicitors if I have "complied with the covenants".  What would you advise I should say to this question?

Hi OP

That is very usual, we've sold several houses and never been asked that.
What did the solicitor say?

Thanks

it's not unusual actually.  we have been asked whether we have contravened any covenants in a property deed before when we sold a flat.  at that time, there was a covenant in the deed to state that carpet flooring must be used and wooden flooring can not be installed unless it was sound proofed.

EssexHebridean

AskAsk said:

diystarter7 said:

AskAsk said:

I am selling a property, which is ex-local authority, and there is a covenant in the property deed that states, "Not to use the property other than as a private dwelling house for occupation by a single family".

I have rented the property to friends or sharers in the past, on one AST contract since 2007 and there has never been an issue.

I have been asked by the buyer solicitors if I have "complied with the covenants".  What would you advise I should say to this question?

Hi OP

That is very usual, we've sold several houses and never been asked that.
What did the solicitor say?

Thanks

it's not unusual actually.  we have been asked whether we have contravened any covenants in a property deed before when we sold a flat.  at that time, there was a covenant in the deed to state that carpet flooring must be used and wooden flooring can not be installed unless it was sound proofed.

Indeed - if there are covenants, any decent solicitor would be asking about compliance with them! 

propertyrental

Surely in this case it makes little difference to the buyer whether the seller has complied or not. It's not like non-compliance with a covenant prohibiting the building of an extension which is still in situ.

Now if there were still 'sharers' in occupation that would be different. But then that would raise a far bigger issue than non-compliance with the covenant.

[Deleted User]

Ask you solicitor - this is their job.

It could just be a catch-all type question or they could be thinking of making it into HMO. I've been in properties where they've not been enforced and others where they've been enforced fairly robustly. 

AskAsk

propertyrental said:

Surely in this case it makes little difference to the buyer whether the seller has complied or not. It's not like non-compliance with a covenant prohibiting the building of an extension which is still in situ.

Now if there were still 'sharers' in occupation that would be different. But then that would raise a far bigger issue than non-compliance with the covenant.

it was a genenral enquiry to ask if i have complied with the covenants in the deed.  there are 3 in there.  the single family one is the problem one.  technically speaking, it doesn't really matter as far as the council is concerned if the property is occupied by one single family or a group of sharers as there are extra wording about over crowding after my quote, so i have always interpreted the single family clause to mean not to have too many people in the property or to have sharers as one unit so you don't end up with HMO situation.

if the council had ever decided to enforce the covenant, i could always give notice to my tenants and as it is a house, it is suitable for a family occupation, and so i didn't have any concern that i would be able to rent the property out to families only if the council were to kick up a fuss, which i can't really see why they would do as in fact i only ever had 3 tenants in the property, which is a 4 bedroom house, so over crowding was never going to be a problem, as in fact, i have less occupants in the property than would normally compise a family normally occuping a 4 bedroom house.