What is the meaning of this restrictive covenant? (Leasehold, England)

RHemmings

I'm confused by this restrictive convenant in a title register for a flat in a converted church. The bolded bit - I just added a bit of context. 

(13.02.2015) The following are details of the covenants contained in

the Conveyance dated 4 April 1977 referred to in the Charges Register:-

"THE Purchasers pursuant to the provisions of Section 62 of the

Pastoral Measure One thousand Nine hundred and Sixty Eight and to the

intent that the same shall bind the said property into whosesoever

hands the same may come hereby covenant with the Commissioners as

follows:-

(a) Not to use the said property or any part thereof for any purpose

other than for civic cultural or educational purposes in connection

with the City of Leicester

The flat is clearly set up for living in. The old church is divided into flats clearly intended for living in. Reading that covenant as plain English makes me think that it means that living in the flat is not allowed. 

So, am I just completely wrong? Or is this convenant just likely being ignored? 

I'm very mildly interested in this property for 'purposes' that aren't me living in it, nor renting it out. For family use. So, this isn't just random curiosity. 

BarelySentientAI

A lot of church buildings (including halls and the like) had covenants like that - basically to say "don't convert this to flats".

They often got ignored.

user1977

Have you checked there hasn't been any subsequent variation to the condition?

RHemmings

BarelySentientAI said:

A lot of church buildings (including halls and the like) had covenants like that - basically to say "don't convert this to flats".

They often got ignored.

Thank you. It certainly got ignored. It does make things a bit tricky, I would presume, when selling as a solicitor would have to bring that up. As per another thread there is restrictive covenant indemity insurance, but I'm not sure how that would work if someone ever enforced the covenant. It's not like claiming on insurance if you have to replace a fence with a lower one. 

If I did buy it - I'm just running the possibilities over in my head - then I could use that as a riposte to any negotiations about my offer being low. 

I'm still feeling a bit confused as the covenant is not only on the freehold title register, but on the title register for the flat too. 

RHemmings

user1977 said:

Have you checked there hasn't been any subsequent variation to the condition?

I'm going through the auction pack, and I found a variation for the ground rent (improved, but the original wasn't too bad). So, a new lease with reduced ground rent in future parts of the term. And, I did notice a reference to deed of variation. But, I haven't found anything else yet. 

EDIT: 

Wait, I am most definitely not good at reading legalese. But, I found this:



(Later)



So, that specifically mentions residential use. Hence, I may have started this thread too early. But, I most certainly don't understand this document as a whole.  I also feel that I may have found two parts of the story, but there are still missing bits. Though I may feel that rightly or wrongly. 

user1977

RHemmings said:

BarelySentientAI said:

A lot of church buildings (including halls and the like) had covenants like that - basically to say "don't convert this to flats".

They often got ignored.

If I did buy it - I'm just running the possibilities over in my head - then I could use that as a riposte to any negotiations about my offer being low. 

Doubtful. The risk is (probably) almost non-existent. And if you can insure against it for, say, £100, then it only justifies £100 off your price...

(as to how insurance works - your insurer would sort it out in whatever manner was cheapest for them - so either challenging the attempt to enforce it, making the challenger go away with some cash, or in worst case scenario paying out to you for the loss in value of the property)

When was the conversion?

RHemmings

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

BarelySentientAI said:

A lot of church buildings (including halls and the like) had covenants like that - basically to say "don't convert this to flats".

They often got ignored.

If I did buy it - I'm just running the possibilities over in my head - then I could use that as a riposte to any negotiations about my offer being low. 

Doubtful. The risk is (probably) almost non-existent. And if you can insure against it for, say, £100, then it only justifies £100 off your price...

(as to how insurance works - your insurer would sort it out in whatever manner was cheapest for them - so either challenging the attempt to enforce it, making the challenger go away with some cash, or in worst case scenario paying out to you for the loss in value of the property)

When was the conversion?

Thank you. The earliest date I could find is the one in your username - 1977. That's on the Freehold Title Register document. It seems that the leaseholds for the flats start in 1989. 

In case you don't see it, I edited the post that you responded to. 

BarelySentientAI

It sounds like - and I think you're right, there might be bits missing - that the council bought it off the church with the covenant to use for "cultural" purposes, and then the council paid £2000 for that to be swapped into a 'residential and nothing immoral' clause so the church didn't have to worry about a later conversion into a betting shop or something.

user1977

RHemmings said:

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

BarelySentientAI said:

A lot of church buildings (including halls and the like) had covenants like that - basically to say "don't convert this to flats".

They often got ignored.

If I did buy it - I'm just running the possibilities over in my head - then I could use that as a riposte to any negotiations about my offer being low. 

Doubtful. The risk is (probably) almost non-existent. And if you can insure against it for, say, £100, then it only justifies £100 off your price...

(as to how insurance works - your insurer would sort it out in whatever manner was cheapest for them - so either challenging the attempt to enforce it, making the challenger go away with some cash, or in worst case scenario paying out to you for the loss in value of the property)

When was the conversion?

Thank you. The earliest date I could find is the one in your username - 1977. That's on the Freehold Title Register document. It seems that the leaseholds for the flats start in 1989. 

In case you don't see it, I edited the post that you responded to. 

Yes, so we seem to have been on a wild goose chase...

What do you think is still "missing" which is of any importance?

RHemmings

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

BarelySentientAI said:

A lot of church buildings (including halls and the like) had covenants like that - basically to say "don't convert this to flats".

They often got ignored.

If I did buy it - I'm just running the possibilities over in my head - then I could use that as a riposte to any negotiations about my offer being low. 

Doubtful. The risk is (probably) almost non-existent. And if you can insure against it for, say, £100, then it only justifies £100 off your price...

(as to how insurance works - your insurer would sort it out in whatever manner was cheapest for them - so either challenging the attempt to enforce it, making the challenger go away with some cash, or in worst case scenario paying out to you for the loss in value of the property)

When was the conversion?

Thank you. The earliest date I could find is the one in your username - 1977. That's on the Freehold Title Register document. It seems that the leaseholds for the flats start in 1989. 

In case you don't see it, I edited the post that you responded to. 

Yes, so we seem to have been on a wild goose chase...

What do you think is still "missing" which is of any importance?

Wording adding residential. The covenants appear to ban it. The second document says to maintain residential use. So, I think there is something inbetween. 

user1977

RHemmings said:

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

BarelySentientAI said:

A lot of church buildings (including halls and the like) had covenants like that - basically to say "don't convert this to flats".

They often got ignored.

If I did buy it - I'm just running the possibilities over in my head - then I could use that as a riposte to any negotiations about my offer being low. 

Doubtful. The risk is (probably) almost non-existent. And if you can insure against it for, say, £100, then it only justifies £100 off your price...

(as to how insurance works - your insurer would sort it out in whatever manner was cheapest for them - so either challenging the attempt to enforce it, making the challenger go away with some cash, or in worst case scenario paying out to you for the loss in value of the property)

When was the conversion?

Thank you. The earliest date I could find is the one in your username - 1977. That's on the Freehold Title Register document. It seems that the leaseholds for the flats start in 1989. 

In case you don't see it, I edited the post that you responded to. 

Yes, so we seem to have been on a wild goose chase...

What do you think is still "missing" which is of any importance?

Wording adding residential. The covenants appear to ban it. The second document says to maintain residential use. So, I think there is something inbetween. 

Not sure what you mean. It removes the condition which would have prohibited residential use, and later has added a condition to say that only residential use is permitted.