Title deeds allowing only one dog

user1977

RHemmings said:

user1977 said:

Scotbot said:

user1977 said:

Not that unusual, but immensely unlikely that anybody would even try to enforce it, and even less likely that they'd be successful.

I am not so sure, it only takes one neighbour to complain. As to whether it would go anywhere the question is who do they complain to and how much would it cost? Your solicitor can advise.

They complain to the courts. The courts have generally taken the view that such conditions can only be enforced where the breach is causing material detriment to the complainer. I've never heard of trivial stuff like this going anywhere.

Besides, if your dogs were causing some sort of objective nuisance, the neighbours may have other remedies anyway without having to rely on the titles.

That's very interesting. Are there any well known precedents where this was applied that you could recommend? 

There's this one:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=9df286a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

(in short, house was being used as a bed and breakfast, in breach of a title condition restricting use to a private dwellinghouse - neighbours went as far as the Court of Session, which held that it did not cause them material detriment so they could not get an interdict stopping the use)

RHemmings

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

user1977 said:

Scotbot said:

user1977 said:

Not that unusual, but immensely unlikely that anybody would even try to enforce it, and even less likely that they'd be successful.

I am not so sure, it only takes one neighbour to complain. As to whether it would go anywhere the question is who do they complain to and how much would it cost? Your solicitor can advise.

They complain to the courts. The courts have generally taken the view that such conditions can only be enforced where the breach is causing material detriment to the complainer. I've never heard of trivial stuff like this going anywhere.

Besides, if your dogs were causing some sort of objective nuisance, the neighbours may have other remedies anyway without having to rely on the titles.

That's very interesting. Are there any well known precedents where this was applied that you could recommend? 

There's this one:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=9df286a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

(in short, house was being used as a bed and breakfast, in breach of a title condition restricting use to a private dwellinghouse - neighbours went as far as the Court of Session, which held that it did not cause them material detriment so they could not get an interdict stopping the use)

Very interesting. Running a B&B seems a much bigger transgression of a title condition than having two dogs. 

koalakoala

I don’t think it would be a problem unless the dogs were a nuisance and annoyed the neighbours

stuhse

My understanding is the only party that can enforce the covenant is the one who originally created it...most likely the builder.  It ain't going to happen.   I wouldn't worry.

Bobo2009

I bought a house in Scotland years ago with a clause that said you could have one cat and one dog, i had two dogs and it was fine. Nobody ever said anything. There was also the clause about no vans being parked in drives and there were quite a few in the estate too that nobody cared about.

RHemmings

stuhse said:

My understanding is the only party that can enforce the covenant is the one who originally created it...most likely the builder.  It ain't going to happen.   I wouldn't worry.

I think this is true in some situations but not in others. The owners of land that benefit from the covenant can enforce it, and this can include neighbours in some situations, but not in others. Note that being entitled to enforce a restrictive covenant does not mean that any attempt to do so will be successful. 

https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/neighbour_disputes/breach_of_covenant/

https://www.ibblaw.co.uk/insights/neighbour-enforcing-restrictive-covenant 

https://southbanklegal.com/can-a-neighbour-enforce-a-restrictive-covenant/

user1977

RHemmings said:

stuhse said:

My understanding is the only party that can enforce the covenant is the one who originally created it...most likely the builder.  It ain't going to happen.   I wouldn't worry.

I think this is true in some situations but not in others. The owners of land that benefit from the covenant can enforce it, and this can include neighbours in some situations, but not in others. Note that being entitled to enforce a restrictive covenant does not mean that any attempt to do so will be successful. 

https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/neighbour_disputes/breach_of_covenant/

https://www.ibblaw.co.uk/insights/neighbour-enforcing-restrictive-covenant 

https://southbanklegal.com/can-a-neighbour-enforce-a-restrictive-covenant/

Just a reminder that in the OP's case we are talking about Scotland - your links (and indeed the term "covenant") are about English law.