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

Bookworm105

user1977 said:

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.

I agree
there is clear evidence the original covenant has been removed and "permission" given for residential use.

I wonder if OP is doing things on the cheap and so has a conveyancer who won't answer questions?
After all, understanding the documents is why you employ a solicitor isn't it?

RHemmings

It will have to be later before I can re-read that document properly. It appears that the document as a whole (not just what I've quoted above) releases the council from other covenants, not the one to only use for educational/civic/educational uses. But, I need to read it properly. 

user1977

RHemmings said:

But, I need to read it properly. 

Why do you think you need to read it properly? Seriously. If it's been a block of flats for 35 years, then hundreds of other people (who understand how to interpret title deeds...) have already looked at the historic stuff. You are not going to find a fundamental problem.

RHemmings

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

But, I need to read it properly. 

Why do you think you need to read it properly? Seriously. If it's been a block of flats for 35 years, then hundreds of other people (who understand how to interpret title deeds...) have already looked at the historic stuff. You are not going to find a fundamental problem.

I read everything even before viewings. Sometimes I find problems. Not as bad as the person who posted here some time ago who bid at auction before checking the title plan and then found after winning the auction that the garden wasn't included. But, sometimes problems. I also view something I don't understand as a problem. 

Bookworm105 said:

user1977 said:

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.

I agree
there is clear evidence the original covenant has been removed and "permission" given for residential use.

I wonder if OP is doing things on the cheap and so has a conveyancer who won't answer questions?
After all, understanding the documents is why you employ a solicitor isn't it?

I check things, perhaps over-carefully but I'd rather err on the side of safety, before even viewing. I'm not at the stage of getting a solicitor yet. And, if I did instruct a solicitor, it would be the same expensive solicitor who I have worked with before. 

martindow

RHemmings said:

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 ...

If it's an auction and your bid is the highest you will be committed to buying, paying a deposit on the fall of the hammer and the rest typically 28 days later.  You will not be able to pull out if you find there are problems of any kind without severe financial losses for you.

Be cautious, properties often go to auction where there is some issue or other and it is essential that you get a solicitor to read through the pack beforehand.  Normally there is not enough time to sort a mortgage, assuming it's mortgageable, so you need cash or finance of some kind in place before you bid.

RHemmings

martindow said:

RHemmings said:

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 ...

If it's an auction and your bid is the highest you will be committed to buying, paying a deposit on the fall of the hammer and the rest typically 28 days later.  You will not be able to pull out if you find there are problems of any kind without severe financial losses for you.

Be cautious, properties often go to auction where there is some issue or other and it is essential that you get a solicitor to read through the pack beforehand.  Normally there is not enough time to sort a mortgage, assuming it's mortgageable, so you need cash or finance of some kind in place before you bid.

It's a modern method of auction property, and I've been here before shall we say. Because of that, and because of my history, I want to make sure that I'm 100% interested in this property before even asking for a viewing. Because I know from experience that it causes some 'consternation' if I make the same sort of offer I did for the house I'm currently sitting in. 

If people upthread think I'm being over-cautious now - I would be even worse if I was considering a property being sold by traditional auction. E.g. not only could I be out for my deposit for a traditional auction, but if I pull out and it subsequently sells for less I could be held responsible for the shortfall. Which in examples we've seen in threads here can be eye-watering. So for a traditional auction, I would have a solicitor look over the documents before bidding, and then have a survey. But, I would want to look at the auction pack extremely carefully before even asking a solicitor to do so. As I'm currently in absolutely no hurry, and I've found quite a few things in auction packs that immediately put me off the property - no need to pay solicitors if I know I won't want the property. 

But, if I buy a MMoA auction property by the same method I did before, then there isn't that risk. But, I still want to be confident before offering. 

BTW: No need for a mortgage. 

user1977

RHemmings said:

martindow said:

RHemmings said:

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 ...

If it's an auction and your bid is the highest you will be committed to buying, paying a deposit on the fall of the hammer and the rest typically 28 days later.  You will not be able to pull out if you find there are problems of any kind without severe financial losses for you.

Be cautious, properties often go to auction where there is some issue or other and it is essential that you get a solicitor to read through the pack beforehand.  Normally there is not enough time to sort a mortgage, assuming it's mortgageable, so you need cash or finance of some kind in place before you bid.

I've found quite a few things in auction packs that immediately put me off the property. 

But given your above comments (and I think those in previous threads) you appear to be getting distracted by things which are completely non-problematic. Which makes me wonder what you're overlooking!

RHemmings

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

martindow said:

RHemmings said:

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 ...

If it's an auction and your bid is the highest you will be committed to buying, paying a deposit on the fall of the hammer and the rest typically 28 days later.  You will not be able to pull out if you find there are problems of any kind without severe financial losses for you.

Be cautious, properties often go to auction where there is some issue or other and it is essential that you get a solicitor to read through the pack beforehand.  Normally there is not enough time to sort a mortgage, assuming it's mortgageable, so you need cash or finance of some kind in place before you bid.

I've found quite a few things in auction packs that immediately put me off the property. 

But given your above comments (and I think those in previous threads) you appear to be getting distracted by things which are completely non-problematic. Which makes me wonder what you're overlooking!

There is always the possibility that I'm overlooking something. But, particularly given threads by others, I think that I'm probably overlooking less than average. E.g. there is no shortage of threads here about people some way into the purchase process who find something unsettling in the title register that would have been obvious if they had read it. I wouldn't dream of having a viewing on a house without obtaining the title plan and register, searching for planning permissions, etc. Especially when those are things that can be checked free. 

I guessed that the convenant would be non-problematic as the property has been used as a private residence for years. But, I wanted to look into that covenant and learn more about that sort of situation. E.g. it appears that the covenant for the property I'm looking at has been dealt with formally. But, I found it interesting and informative when, for example, @BarelySentientAI says that sometimes those covenants are just ignored. 

lincroft1710

FGS avoid MMA, they are a con for would be purchasers!

RHemmings

lincroft1710 said:

FGS avoid MMA, they are a con for would be purchasers!

My current house was being sold by MMoA when I made a very carefully written offer for it. I'm confident that I know what to do about MMoA. The question is whether the MMoA company, having experience of dealing with me, is now less or more likely to agree to do things my way again should I make the same type of offer. My wild guess is: yes, because they got my money in the end. Just not the way they wanted to get it. 

I agree that the standard purchase process for MMoA is a con for would be purchasers. In several ways.