Covenants in property deed

diystarter7

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.

Goog evening

It is in my experience as we've never been asked and had a covenant on the property ie, could not build a separate property on the side of the land.  So, I'm standing by my experience and knowledge.

I recall a sureyor at work telling me that only a very small minority of properties in London had a restrictive covenant like the one we had or similar

It is unusal for sol to say that but it clearly happens.

Thanks again,

diystarter7

Deleted_User said:

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. 

Exactly that - as time goes on the survor at work asked me who will enforce it/covenant - that i was not sure about as it depends who put the restriction on and are they still around or will someone challenge it - but you can get them overturned.

Thanks

Jumblebumble

AskAsk said:

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.

You are drip feeding and are clearly not complying with the covenant
You think that lying about the solicitors question because you think the council wont care is a good idea ?
Are you also going to neglect to tell the new purchaser that the property does not have vacant posession?

newsgroupmonkey_

Jumblebumble said:

AskAsk said:

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.

You are drip feeding and are clearly not complying with the covenant
You think that lying about the solicitors question because you think the council wont care is a good idea ?
Are you also going to neglect to tell the new purchaser that the property does not have vacant posession?

Off that high horse with you.

Their tenants left in December/

AskAsk

Jumblebumble said:

AskAsk said:

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.

You are drip feeding and are clearly not complying with the covenant
You think that lying about the solicitors question because you think the council wont care is a good idea ?
Are you also going to neglect to tell the new purchaser that the property does not have vacant posession?

and how many people break covenants?  some covenants are simply unfair or unenforceable, or just totally ridiculous.  i am sure i could claim the covenant is unfair as it discrimates housing single people in a house share situation, like 3 friends.  why can't they be housed just like a family?  why does the house have to be kept especially for a family and not allow single people to live there?  i can understand over crowding, but i don't understand about the family point.  they may as well say a family with 2.4 children and one cat!!

and you clearly haven't read the posts correctly.  the property has been empty since early December last year!

my solicitor has advised that I say the property had been rented to 3 sharers and that the property has been empty since early December last year.