Plagued by restrictive covenants.

Statex2_2

I am attempting to move  and had to pull out a few times because of structural or  legal problems and restrictive covenants on various houses.. I find the whole situation of restrictive covenants archaic and overdue for modern laws to abolish them. For instance why should someone dictate what can be built on a piece of land over 100 years later. One property I intended to purchase had a covenant of no fences, although it was in the countryside and another had the stipulation that the beneficiary is entitled to smash down any fence to enter the property to enforce the covenants.

Does anyone know what happens if the original person who sold the property is dead and no one of the same name in the area. I am considering the purchase of a property that is made up of 3 pieces of land (purchased years apart), two with covenants. First sale 1919,1924, second 1939 1941. and third unknown.  The problem is that one strip has a bungalow , the second has a garage  and the third a few sheds  The covenants state that the permission of the beneficiary or decendants is required before any building can be errected. 

The plots changed hands so many times when first sold and there are several names on the original deeds and  it is difficult to decipher who is the beneficiary. The problem is compounded  if the beneficiary married and changed their name. 

Would a letter requesting permission to build on the land sent to the last known address of the beneficiary in 1919, requesting a reply within 14 days suffice and nulify any claim?  The property is in a semi rural area not an estate each house is different in size,design and amount of land included. Most have ben extended or had additions or annexed. Any advice would be appreciated.

user1977

I think you're going to have to rely on your solicitor's advice about this (have you had any yet?), it's going to be difficult for any of us to give useful guidance without seeing the deeds.

For what it's worth, I've never heard of the concept of writing a letter to somebody 105 years after they were last heard of - have you?

elsien

Just because the covenants there doesn’t mean anyone is going to enforce it. 

Parent successfully ran a business for many years in a property that had a restrictive covenant from 100 years ago saying that no business could be run from the premises.
It also said she couldn’t take a horse and carriage down the drive, but that was less of an issue. She has since sold the business to someone else and it’s still up and running from the same property.

It’s about due diligence and looking into how realistic it is that there may be someone around, who would still enforce it. 

 In our case, the solicitor failed to spot and point out the covenant at the time the property was bought and it only came to light with a remortgage several years later, As it was solicitor error they paid for an indemnity policy which in practice was never needed. 

Mutton_Geoff

I had a BTL flat in a block of about 50 that had been built in the 1980s on land previously owned by the Temperence Society and a covenant prevented the consumption of alcohol on the premises. Had to buy an insurance policy against this being enforced. Judging by the number of bottles in the recycling bins, the deceased historic landowner must have been turning in his grave.

Statex2_2

Thanks for the replies. 

MultiFuelBurner

Just have a big bonfire then start again.

Statex2_2

user1977 said:

I think you're going to have to rely on your solicitor's advice about this (have you had any yet?), it's going to be difficult for any of us to give useful guidance without seeing the deeds.

For what it's worth, I've never heard of the concept of writing a letter to somebody 105 years after they were last heard of - have you?

Thanks for the reply but with regard to wriring a letter to some one 105 years after they were last heard of. I once purchased a computer, which failed and the company went bankrupt and the shop closed. The purchase was via credit card and I was advised to write a letter to the last known address of the seller although it was just an empty shop.WHich I did and eventually received a full refund from the credit card compamy.

The covenant states that any building on the land must be approved by the vendor or his successors or representatives. 

My theory is that I have fulfilled the requirements of the covenant by seeking permission if they do not update their forwarding address  or contact details to either approve or decline the permission its not my fault. 

The problem is that I want to move to the property with my son and his family and build an annexe for myself. The only place suitable is on the strip of land with the covenant. There is more land to the side but all the trees are covered by a blanket TPO and I would have to remove several trees to build there. I should walk away but it is the only house in the area with enough land, that we can afford to achieve our aim.

Statex2_2

Mutton_Geoff said:

I had a BTL flat in a block of about 50 that had been built in the 1980s on land previously owned by the Temperence Society and a covenant prevented the consumption of alcohol on the premises. Had to buy an insurance policy against this being enforced. Judging by the number of bottles in the recycling bins, the deceased historic landowner must have been turning in his grave.

I looked into indemnity insurance, I may be wrong but I was advised that I could only take it out if the covenant had already been breached by a previous owner.

Statex2_2

elsien said:

Just because the covenants there doesn’t mean anyone is going to enforce it. 

Parent successfully ran a business for many years in a property that had a restrictive covenant from 100 years ago saying that no business could be run from the premises.
It also said she couldn’t take a horse and carriage down the drive, but that was less of an issue. She has since sold the business to someone else and it’s still up and running from the same property.

It’s about due diligence and looking into how realistic it is that there may be someone around, who would still enforce it. 

 In our case, the solicitor failed to spot and point out the covenant at the time the property was bought and it only came to light with a remortgage several years later, As it was solicitor error they paid for an indemnity policy which in practice was never needed. 

The problem is that the property suits our needs exactly but I do not wish to purchase the property, only to find out afterwards that I am unable to build anything on part of the land. For example an annexe for myself as my son and his family also want to move with us.

Statex2_2

MultiFuelBurner said:

Just have a big bonfire then start again.

Sounds the best option.Alternatively the covenant states no pigs or goats. could test the water by borrowing a few pigs and goats and see if anyone objects.Then have a big bonfire if they do.

[Deleted User]

Roast pork and goat on the menu there soon, yum 😏