PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Breach of restrictive covenant - cannot park in front of the house

13»

Comments

  • Section62
    Section62 Posts: 8,691 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    [iD] said:


    I might be wrong, but don't the white zig-zag lines make it illegal to cross the pavement...?
    No.  The Zig-zags indicate the 'controlled area' in accordance with "The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997"

    In this area there is a prohibition on stopping and overtaking, but nothing in terms of prohibition on accessing property adjoining the highway.

    Where I'd differ slightly from user1977 is that I don't think the risk here is negligible.  If the beneficiary of the covenant was a long vanished developer I'd be more relaxed, but a covenant that the local authority have the benefit of gives them a lever in applying statutory policies (e.g. road traffic reduction) in cases where they have no other control.  I don't think the risk is massive, but (as an example) if the council decided it wished to reduce the number of cars being used in the area it could start enforcing the covenant.  That may sound far-fetched, but 20 years ago I would have said it was far-fetched to think highway authorities would start closing significant through-roads in order to implement LTNs.... yet this is happening now.

    The presence of the pedestrian crossing notches things up a bit.  If the council decided to upgrade the crossing (currently only a Zebra) which they are being encouraged to do, it may be that the redesigned crossing is incompatible with retaining the dropped kerb and off-street parking.  Logic may suggest it is the crossing that should go (or be relocated) rather than the OP's parking... but if the OP shouldn't be parking there in the first place their objection to losing their parking may not carry much weight.

    I'd emphasise I don't think the overall risk is that high, but there is some risk.  If having off-street parking is a lifestyle necessity (and which a payout from an indemnity policy wouldn't help with) then I would think twice about buying this property because the risk - however small - isn't one I'd willingly take.
  • Section62
    Section62 Posts: 8,691 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    [iD] said:
    I couldn't find the planning application outcome as its not available on the council's website.

    There was a mention of "Construction of vehicular crossover" application with its reference number on the rear extension application approval.

    The property had at least two modifications that I'm aware of
    1990 - 
    Construction of vehicular crossover
    2008 - Single story rear extension

    ....
    1990 is too early for most councils to have full planning information online.  Some just have a record online showing an application was made at the time, others have nothing at all.  So I wouldn't read too much into the absence of information.

    Bear in mind the title of the application is chosen by the applicant, and would be accepted unchanged by the planning authority unless grossly misleading (or offensive).

    The title implies this was an application for a dropped kerb, however that is unlikely to be the case.  The work in the highway (dropping the kerb and strengthening the footway) does not require a planning application - in the case of a classified road the application is for the work on the property to create the access (and in some cases for the hardstanding).  I.e. strictly speaking the title was (probably) incorrect and should instead have been "Creation of new access to a classified road".  This only matters in terms of not spending time checking the planning application to confirm the dropped kerb is 'official', as the planning consent doesn't cover that part of the work.
  • [iD]
    [iD] Posts: 70 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    user1977 said:
    [iD] said:
    user1977 said:
    As you say, the indemnity policy covers the risk of a reduction in property value - so what would be the justification for reducing your price? That's having your cake and eating it. The same argument is going to apply to any future buyer from you.

    And why do you have a "real concern" of enforcement?
    Indemnity covers the risk of reduction in property value only if council acts on the covenant. Not the resell value of the property in case I have a difficult buyer. In fact, it does reduce the pool of buyer as not everyone would be comfortable with legal restriction on using the front garden for parking.

    I have a real concern because nevertheless the risk of council enforcing the covenant is there no matter how low.
    But like I said above, you can have a "difficult" buyer trying to chip away at the price for all sorts of daft reasons. The answer is that you tell them politely to go away, not that you try to anticipate it in your current negotiations.

    You'd have a "real concern" about any sort of risk, even if really tiny?

    Seriously, this is nothing. The whole street is like it is and obviously has been for decades. Find something else to worry about. We can give you a list of 1001 more likely problems...
    Thank you.

    I understand where you're coming from. Just wanted to make sure I'm not knowingly paying more than I should giving the concerns.

    At this point, lets not give me more things to worry about :)
  • [iD]
    [iD] Posts: 70 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Just been around the property and spoke a few neighbours regarding this.
    None of them had any idea what I was talking about and were surprised to hear that, most been living there for 20 odd years.

    Having said that, they all mentioned how council itself is the one allowing people to park on their driveway by lowering the curb and they never had any issue with that.

    I guess indemnity would do just fine and it seems like a non-issue issue.
  • Eldi_Dos
    Eldi_Dos Posts: 2,049 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    OP  There must be a reason the covenent was put in place orginally, could there be utilities running through which could be damaged with heavy vehicles on them.
    Get your solicitor to check this bearing in mind not all gas lines where adopted when nationalisation  took place. It was not unusal for Corporation to supply local gas.
  • Section62
    Section62 Posts: 8,691 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    Eldi_Dos said:
    OP  There must be a reason the covenent was put in place orginally, could there be utilities running through which could be damaged with heavy vehicles on them.
    Get your solicitor to check this bearing in mind not all gas lines where adopted when nationalisation  took place. It was not unusal for Corporation to supply local gas.
    One of the reasons is where the council provided parking at the rear of the property, or provided communal parking.  They wanted that used, rather than people making the front gardens untidy with parked vehicles.

    In the OP's case that could be quite likely, as the covenant is quite specific about parking on the front garden.  The second half of the covenant seems to imply that parking in the rear garden (i.e. "any part of the property") is Ok, provided the vehicle isn't being lived in.

    If the property has rear vehicular access that would be my best guess at explaining the front garden prohibition.

    Not without the previous written consent of the Corporation (which may be subjected to the conditions) to use or permit the use of the front garden of the property or the access thereto for parking of a vehicle of any kind nor to use or permit to be used for residential purpose any vehicle at any time parked on any part of the property

  • Eldi_Dos
    Eldi_Dos Posts: 2,049 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    One instance that springs to mind was quite a large pipe, 8" diameter which was capped a both ends of the street and did not appear on anyones PU prints. The consensus of opinion was it was from when two neighbouring councils or gas companies joined together and this was part of the rationalisation of the networks and then been forgotten about over time. There was a gas main running down other side of road that did appear on everyones PU prints.
  • Round here the council don’t permit anyone to install drop kerbs unless done via their official contractors and with them organising it (at cost to the householder) so they have oversight of the work and effectively any warranty against the contractors.
  • [iD]
    [iD] Posts: 70 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 21 November 2023 pm30 5:46PM
    Thank you all for taking your time out to respond.

    The only thing mentioned in the plan is a stopcock, which is at the right hand side (in the corner) of the driveway within a shared path between two properties. Although there's a side access to the back garden, it's not wide enough for a car to go through.

    Gas could be in the similar location but I'll try to see if I find any reference to it, btw gas meter is on the side of the property, if they ran a straight pipe to it, it'd have to be within the shared path on the side of the driveway.

    Dropped curb in this particular property and others look similar and seems to be done by council or their approved contractors but I don't have any experience or documents to prove that so take it with a pinch of salt.

    A chap I spoke to in the neighbouring property, though unaware of this covenant mentioned that the council after approving his dropped curb application tried to put the zebra crossing right in front of it, to which he protested and they moved it further away from his prospective dropped curb.


Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.