Plagued by restrictive covenants.

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

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.

Same property?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6406216/restrictive-covenant/p1

The government isn't going to enact laws to abolish all restrictive covenants, because some of them are really useful and others help deal with anti-social behaviour. The danger of 'unintended consequences' is too great to risk a blanket abolition. Furthermore, whilst the covenants exist and in theory someone could pop up and try to enforce them, in practical terms it is very rare for there to be an issue.

Statex2_2 said:

For instance why should someone dictate what can be built on a piece of land over 100 years later.

Because at the time the covenant was created they owned the land and had that right.

As an example of why covenants can be useful, say someone wants to donate land to the local council for a playing field, but doesn't want a future greedy council flogging the land off to greedy developers to build lots of houses and make a huge profit.  A covenant restricting what can be built on the land in perpetuity makes sense for the donor's peace of mind. It also helps protect the local community whose interests may not be looked after by a future owner of the land.

Likewise in a case similar to the one you posted about before, it isn't unreasonable for someone who has planted/cared for an area of woodland to want that land protected from development in the future.  The buyer should make themselves aware of the restrictions placed on the land before buying it, and if the idea of having to leave the trees unharmed is a problem, the have the freedom to buy a different plot of land.

Jonboy_1984

The village I grew up in has that precise covenant on the playing fields, use as playing fields for the benefit of the village, or return the land to the descendants of the owner who sold it to the village council for £1 for that purpose.

Around every 15 years someone has to remind the latest elected councillors that it exists and they cannot just evict the rugby club, football clubs, scouts and demolish the skate park/bmx track to cash in…


The estate I am on is an ex-council estate where around 2/3rds of the housing has gone through right to buy. There are covenants about not making structural alterations or erecting structures without consent of the council but looking out the window around 1/3rd have extensions or conservatory’s and half have added an extra shed or garage.

Mutton_Geoff

Statex2_2 said:

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.

Not true, the opposite in fact, most indemnity policies are issued on a "let sleeping dogs lie" basis.

elsien

Parent’s indemnity insurance was put in place despite her being the first person to breach the covenant. It had been a purely residential property up until that point.
No idea what it actually covered though - it was more belt and braces because her  business had been up and running for about 10 years by that point with no-one popping out of the woodwork to complain. 

user1977

Mutton_Geoff said:

Statex2_2 said:

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.

Not true, the opposite in fact, most indemnity policies are issued on a "let sleeping dogs lie" basis.

Think you've misinterpreted something - mostly such insurance is against enforcement of something which has already been breached in the past (and the insurers have the comfort that x years have passed with nobody kicking up a fuss).

It's quite a different risk if (like the OP) you're proposing to commit a new breach of a covenant, as nobody knows who is likely to complain. Though potentially still insurable, just not as easily/cheaply.