New House Covenant - Motorhome

NameUnavailable

Some motorhomes also double as the daily family car - my father had a VW camper for a while with was the family car.

A caravan is something that if parked on a drive, is likely to stay there for long periods of time, unlike a vehicle which will probably be moved regularly.

I used to have a Land Rover which was classed as a light goods vehicle - the same model if fitted with side windows would be classed by DVLA as an estate car.

So similar leaves the matter open to some argument.

Section62

NameUnavailable said:

Some motorhomes also double as the daily family car - my father had a VW camper for a while with was the family car.

A caravan is something that if parked on a drive, is likely to stay there for long periods of time, unlike a vehicle which will probably be moved regularly.

I used to have a Land Rover which was classed as a light goods vehicle - the same model if fitted with side windows would be classed by DVLA as an estate car.

So similar leaves the matter open to some argument.

There's nothing in the covenant about frequncy of use of the vehicle, or whether it doubles up as a family car.  Likewise there is nothing about how long it is parked for (at a time).  Compared to a lot of covenants this one leaves very little scope for interpretation, other than in the 'out of sight' phrase.

If DVLA class something as a LGV then it is difficult to claim it isn't.

Arguments can be had about anything, but arguing a covenant hasn't been breached because a parked camper van isn't "similar" to a LGV or caravan is likely to be an expensive and futile argument for the OP to engage in.

bobster2

lincroft1710 said:

My point was that the Kangoo was designed as a van rather than being derived from a car.

Indeed it was - but if it was a passenger Kangoo to start with it'll technically be a "car" for DVLA purposes and if the DVLA don't consider it a "light good vehicle" then it arguably would not be restricted by that convenant.

lincroft1710

bobster2 said:

lincroft1710 said:

My point was that the Kangoo was designed as a van rather than being derived from a car.

Indeed it was - but if it was a passenger Kangoo to start with it'll technically be a "car" for DVLA purposes and if the DVLA don't consider it a "light good vehicle" then it arguably would not be restricted by that convenant.

The few "mini campers" which were based om the Kangoo, Peugeot Partner or similar were based on the passenger carrying versions, so technically they would not be goods vehicles and as you say would not be restricted by the covenant,

Section62

lincroft1710 said:

bobster2 said:

lincroft1710 said:

My point was that the Kangoo was designed as a van rather than being derived from a car.

Indeed it was - but if it was a passenger Kangoo to start with it'll technically be a "car" for DVLA purposes and if the DVLA don't consider it a "light good vehicle" then it arguably would not be restricted by that convenant.

The few "mini campers" which were based om the Kangoo, Peugeot Partner or similar were based on the passenger carrying versions, so technically they would not be goods vehicles and as you say would not be restricted by the covenant,

Except the covenant restrictions also cover vehicles "similar" to a "caravan", so as a form of living accommodation on wheels, the management co might want to argue the point.

FreeBear

Section62 said:

NameUnavailable said:

That clause doesn't specifically mention motorhomes. Also some motorhomes are very small (Renault Kangoo?) and some are as large as a bus. Too many variables without seeing the actual motorhome and where it's parked to give an opinion but assuming it isn't a massive bus and isn't going to block light/access for neighbours I'd just park it and see if anything is said (whilst having a plan B if it is an issue).

In what way is a motorhome not a similar type of vehicle to a "light goods vehicle" or "caravan" ?

Motorhomes don't need to be mentioned specifically because the "similar type" covers it.

'Light goods vehicles' include car-derived vans (e.g. Kangoo sized), so it can't really be argued that the covenant was only intended to restrict larger motorhomes.

Wonder if anyone would object to this one - https://www.unimogs.co.uk/our-stock/unimogs/well-proven-u1300l-expedition-vehicle-well-proven-u1300l-expedition-vehicle-b1358 (at 7.5t, not LGV based )

lincroft1710

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

bobster2 said:

lincroft1710 said:

My point was that the Kangoo was designed as a van rather than being derived from a car.

Indeed it was - but if it was a passenger Kangoo to start with it'll technically be a "car" for DVLA purposes and if the DVLA don't consider it a "light good vehicle" then it arguably would not be restricted by that convenant.

The few "mini campers" which were based om the Kangoo, Peugeot Partner or similar were based on the passenger carrying versions, so technically they would not be goods vehicles and as you say would not be restricted by the covenant,

Except the covenant restrictions also cover vehicles "similar" to a "caravan", so as a form of living accommodation on wheels, the management co might want to argue the point.

It can be argued that "mini campers" are more similar to estate cars than caravans

Section62

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

bobster2 said:

lincroft1710 said:

My point was that the Kangoo was designed as a van rather than being derived from a car.

Indeed it was - but if it was a passenger Kangoo to start with it'll technically be a "car" for DVLA purposes and if the DVLA don't consider it a "light good vehicle" then it arguably would not be restricted by that convenant.

The few "mini campers" which were based om the Kangoo, Peugeot Partner or similar were based on the passenger carrying versions, so technically they would not be goods vehicles and as you say would not be restricted by the covenant,

Except the covenant restrictions also cover vehicles "similar" to a "caravan", so as a form of living accommodation on wheels, the management co might want to argue the point.

It can be argued that "mini campers" are more similar to estate cars than caravans

I can see that argument.

But my point was that "would not be restricted by the covenant" is subject to compliance with the rest of the restriction(s), not just the LGV part.  And then (if necessary) trying to argue the point with the management co.

Refreshing user1977's point, this appears not to be about specific types/sizes/classifications of vehicle, rather an attempt at a catch-all of things deemed to "lower the tone" of the neighbourhood.

lincroft1710

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

bobster2 said:

lincroft1710 said:

My point was that the Kangoo was designed as a van rather than being derived from a car.

Indeed it was - but if it was a passenger Kangoo to start with it'll technically be a "car" for DVLA purposes and if the DVLA don't consider it a "light good vehicle" then it arguably would not be restricted by that convenant.

The few "mini campers" which were based om the Kangoo, Peugeot Partner or similar were based on the passenger carrying versions, so technically they would not be goods vehicles and as you say would not be restricted by the covenant,

Except the covenant restrictions also cover vehicles "similar" to a "caravan", so as a form of living accommodation on wheels, the management co might want to argue the point.

It can be argued that "mini campers" are more similar to estate cars than caravans

I can see that argument.

But my point was that "would not be restricted by the covenant" is subject to compliance with the rest of the restriction(s), not just the LGV part.  And then (if necessary) trying to argue the point with the management co.

Refreshing user1977's point, this appears not to be about specific types/sizes/classifications of vehicle, rather an attempt at a catch-all of things deemed to "lower the tone" of the neighbourhood.

From memory (as I think I no longer have the magazine), some of these "minicampers" were designed so that their main use remained as day-to-day family cars with the camper use being secondary. I would doubt they would "lower the tone".