Restrictive covenants to buy or not to buy

sheramber

Do you want to to do something that the covenants prohibit?

Will a future buyer be concerned about the restrictions?

Who knows. They may or they may not.

How much do you want the house? 

Are you prepared to lose the house if the seller does not agree to a reduction in price?

Philomena78

@sheramber

I just don’t want to ask my neighbour for their consent to put a washing line, a trampoline, a shed, or a tree. However,
my main concern is really about resale value. The house is in a bad state and requires rewiring, heating system, roof repairs and general upgrades.  I suppose i am worried that with the covenants  I will be putting money down the drains 

CSI_Yorkshire

Philomena78 said:

@sheramber

I just don’t want to ask my neighbour for their consent to put a washing line, a trampoline, a shed, or a tree. However,
my main concern is really about resale value. The house is in a bad state and requires rewiring, heating system, roof repairs and general upgrades.  I suppose i am worried that with the covenants  I will be putting money down the drains 

Why is resale your main concern?  Are you planning to live there, or are you planning to flip the house or sell to a developer?

Yorkie1

I'd be concerned about the vague definition of the word "other erection" in this context. Exactly what would they insist upon granting or refusing permission for - and how can you know this in advance of running into any problems once you own it? (Rhetorical question)

Philomena78

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Philomena78 said:

@sheramber

I just don’t want to ask my neighbour for their consent to put a washing line, a trampoline, a shed, or a tree. However,
my main concern is really about resale value. The house is in a bad state and requires rewiring, heating system, roof repairs and general upgrades.  I suppose i am worried that with the covenants  I will be putting money down the drains 

Why is resale your main concern?  Are you planning to live there, or are you planning to flip the house or sell to a developer?

Not really. But there is the possibility of relocation due to work and family. While I don’t envisage that in the near future it is always a possibility. 

CSI_Yorkshire

Philomena78 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Philomena78 said:

@sheramber

I just don’t want to ask my neighbour for their consent to put a washing line, a trampoline, a shed, or a tree. However,
my main concern is really about resale value. The house is in a bad state and requires rewiring, heating system, roof repairs and general upgrades.  I suppose i am worried that with the covenants  I will be putting money down the drains 

Why is resale your main concern?  Are you planning to live there, or are you planning to flip the house or sell to a developer?

Not really. But there is the possibility of relocation due to work and family. While I don’t envisage that in the near future it is always a possibility. 

A slight possibility that you don't envisage occurring is a strange driver of the "main concern" about buying a home in my opinion.

ThisIsWeird

Hi Philo.

This strikes me as seriously weird and potentially very repressive. 

Restrictive covenants are very common in deeds, and the examples given by others above are very typical - no caravans parked outside, no HGVs, no hanging yer knicks out to dry, that sort of stuff.

These often apply to houses on new estates and are imposed by the developer/builder, usually for pretty understandable reasons such as they don't want 'their' estate to look untidy before they've sold all the properties. As such, it would be up to the developer to enforce such covenants. In practice, they rarely do - at least not after they've moved on.

My in-laws lived on a new build estate 20 years ago, and one covenant forbade the parking of caravans at the front of the properties.  A new neighbour - after enquiring about this before purchase and being told 'Non' - still went ahead and bought, and then parked the mother of all 'vans on their drive. Inlaws called their LP - 'sorry, you/we cannot enforce this covenant, and we won't take it on'. Why not? Because it's for the person who included the covenant to decide whether to act on it - ie the developer. And, having moved on, they weren't bovvered either. So, in practice, many covenants will not be enforced simply because its author has passed on (in every sense), or simply no longer cares.

Your situation appears to be very different. This covenant was put in by a previous neighbour - the original landowner? - and there it remains, to be passed on to subsequent owners/neighbours. The person who has the right to enforce this very restrictive covenant remains your new neighbour.

A question for you: consider for a moment that this covenant didn't exist, and you wanted to build a shed, greenhouse, garage, summer house, or perhaps a garden office for working from home. You'd likely do what everyone else (should) do and go on to your LA's Planning Portal and check the 'permitted development' rules. You'd be able to work out the limitations - distance from boundaries, maximum height, etc. - but would otherwise almost certainly be able to go ahead with your build. If you wanted something a touch more substantial than allowed under 'permitted development', then you'd need to apply for planning permission, and this too would follow the usual process and outcome, just as it does for everyone else.

Now compare that with what you actually have. PermDev might say 'yes', the Planning Dept might say 'yes', but your neighbour says 'no'. You are stuffed. More galling, the neighbour can presumably go ahead and plonk whatever they like on their land (within Planning guidelines) - only you cannot, if they say so. And if you fall out with them, or if they are 'oles - a decent 50:50 chance - you pretty much know what they will say.

Cold sweat time? I thought so.

Covenant 2 seems to me to be pretty comprehensive: "No dwelling house office outbuilding or other erection shall be placed on the property hereby conveyed without the plans therefore having been first been approved by the vendor or the owners for the time being of xxx(address of neighbour) aforesaid." No outbuilding?! Not even a bludy bike shed without their approval?! You have got to be kidding.

If my interpretation of this situation is correct, I would simply not proceed with this purchase unless (a) I felt very confident that whatever I did want on the land - a wee shed, for example - would be acceptable to my neighb (perhaps a written agreement before purchase), and (b) the property was priced so keenly it would be rude not to buy.

Neither would appear to be the case, not by a long chalk. I wouldn't touch this place.

Philomena78

Very good comments and thanks everyone who took the time to contribute as this helped us in how we are thinking about this. It is certainly a contentious issue but not necessarily a problem for everyone - judging by the comments. 

To clarify on why I may need to sell in the future: My husband and I work in different cities 200 miles apart and the plan was always for him to try and find something closer to us. However, if this does not happen, I do not exclude the possibility of moving south if I find a job for me there -as parenting alone with a full time job is not easy. Hence, I do need to be able to sell quickly if I needed to at any time. 

Just a bit of updates on the situation, I have now heard back from our mortgage advisor that the lender after seeing the title document has now questioned whether the issues raised “pose any risk to the lender’s security” and wrote to our solicitor about this. I am not sure whether this potentially means that the mortgage offer could be withdrawn but we will not know until our solicitor is back from annual leave by the end of next week.

user1977

Philomena78 said:

@sheramber

I just don’t want to ask my neighbour for their consent to put a washing line, a trampoline, a shed, or a tree.

You don't have to, from what you've quoted to us. Other than possibly a shed, depending if it's substantial enough to constitute "an outbuilding or other erection".

And no, it doesn't pose a risk to your lender's security.

CSI_Yorkshire

user1977 said:

Philomena78 said:

@sheramber

I just don’t want to ask my neighbour for their consent to put a washing line, a trampoline, a shed, or a tree.

You don't have to, from what you've quoted to us. Other than possibly a shed, depending if it's substantial enough to constitute "an outbuilding or other erection".

And no, it doesn't pose a risk to your lender's security.

I wouldn't be so sure.  There's not really a good, clear definition or either "outbuilding" or "other erection".

Planning suggests "outbuilding" includes sheds, greenhouses, playhouses, kennels, ponds(???), tennis courts, beehives...

If all of that could be covered by "outbuilding", I have no idea what would be included in "other erection".