Restrictive Covenants on property

mrsdarbs

Hi all

We recently purchased a house with restrictive covenants in place. They weren't ideal, but they also weren't deal breakers. The original covenant was dated 1994 when the property was purchase as a Right To Buy from the local council.

The first was a proof of local connection etc - all fine, our solicitor dealt with the council for this. Since moving in, we enquired with the council regarding a covenant stating there was to be no parking in the front garden. In an ideal world we would like to install a driveway and request permission to drop the curb. The council notified us that they have no bearing over these covenants anymore as all had been passed to the local housing association. The only section they dealt with is the local connection clause.

We have contacted the housing association who are point blank refusing to agree to us installing a driveway (despite another house having already carried out an identical installation). 

I am unsure how relevant it is, but it is apparent that some of the other covenants are not being upheld... no plants or greenery above 4ft, yet the house to the back of us has a 30ft tree in the front garden and most other gardens have vegetation that exceeds the 4ft. Just to name one example.

My questions are:

1) The HM Land Registry title deeds showed that the covenants were with the council - there is no mention of the housing association.

2) As the covenants has been split - should a new document have been raised?

I have emailed our solicitor and am awaiting a response, I have also emailed the HA to see if they will remove them at our cost. b

Wondering if anyone has any advice, is aware of any loopholes etc.

daveyjp

The other house may have done the work anyway.  As they say "it is sometimes easier to seek forgiveness than obtain permission".

Section62

daveyjp said:

The other house may have done the work anyway.  As they say "it is sometimes easier to seek forgiveness than obtain permission".

But not really when it is a covenant, and you've asked and been told "No" already.  Needing to get the kerb dropped as well means there will be additional hurdles to jump.

Spending money having the front garden converted to driveway, then being made to turn it back into front garden isn't very money saving.

Baldytyke88

mrsdarbs said:

1) The HM Land Registry title deeds showed that the covenants were with the council - there is no mention of the housing association.

2) As the covenants has been split - should a new document have been raised?

I have emailed our solicitor and am awaiting a response, I have also emailed the HA to see if they will remove them at our cost. b

Wondering if anyone has any advice, is aware of any loopholes etc.

My ex-council house will have similar covenants, but I don't believe anyone takes any notice.

Rear gardens were not meant to be used as drives, but many do, and the odd caravan too. There are houses that have some boarded-up windows for some months, I would love to be able to force the council to fix those.

TELLIT01

As the OP has contacted the housing association, been told they can't, and has possibly informed them that other people have already created parking, it's entirely possible that the HA will check and tell others to remove the parking areas.

Jellynailer

mrsdarbs said:

My questions are:

1) The HM Land Registry title deeds showed that the covenants were with the council - there is no mention of the housing association.

2) As the covenants has been split - should a new document have been raised?

I am responding to the problem as per your original post and not seeking to pass judgement on it.

A covenant in the original transfer deed will apply to any subsequent owner. If any change is made to any of its provisions, there should be an updated Title registered. Check with Land Registry = phone is best,

In your case, the developer appears to be the Council but the status of the Housing Association is unclear: e.g. as purchaser; tenant; licensee or manager. Since the Council sorted out covenant one but not two, then the HA could merely be a managing agent.

Maybe a Subject Access Request would help make sense of your rights = money saving option compared with solicitor's cost.

Having said this, a right to develop is based on Case Law relating to the 1925 Property Act.  Only a good solicitor would be able to advise on whether the second restrictive covenant applying to a right to buy can be enforced now given the property is not a right to buy now.

Grenage

Jellynailer said:

mrsdarbs said:

My questions are:

1) The HM Land Registry title deeds showed that the covenants were with the council - there is no mention of the housing association.

2) As the covenants has been split - should a new document have been raised?

I am responding to the problem as per your original post and not seeking to pass judgement on it.

A covenant in the original transfer deed will apply to any subsequent owner. If any change is made to any of its provisions, there should be an updated Title registered. Check with Land Registry = phone is best,

In your case, the developer appears to be the Council but the status of the Housing Association is unclear: e.g. as purchaser; tenant; licensee or manager. Since the Council sorted out covenant one but not two, then the HA could merely be a managing agent.

Maybe a Subject Access Request would help make sense of your rights = money saving option compared with solicitor's cost.

Having said this, a right to develop is based on Case Law relating to the 1925 Property Act.  Only a good solicitor would be able to advise on whether the second restrictive covenant applying to a buy to let can be enforced now given the property is not a buy to let now.

There is no need for any of that. The covenant exists, has been queried, and request rejected. 

Buy to Let has not been mentioned and wouldn't be relevant.

Jellynailer

I am sure the OP will be able to decide whether the information I provided is useful to them.  If not, it may be of interest to others following this thread.  Thanks for the comment that my information was SO needed.  That's a breath of fresh air given all the negative comments I get whenever I post.

GingerTim

Jellynailer said:

.  Thanks for the comment that my information was SO needed.  That's a breath of fresh air given all the negative comments I get whenever I post.

I think that was a typo in @Grenage's post and it should have read 'There is no need for any of that'. 

'There is so need' doesn't make sense.

Grenage

GingerTim said:

Jellynailer said:

Oops, I meant Right to Buy.  However, I am sure the OP will be able to decide whether the information I provided is useful to them.  If not, it may be of interest to others following this thread.  Thanks for the comment that my information was SO needed.  That's a breath of fresh air given all the negative comments I get whenever I post.

I think that was a typo in @Grenage's post and it should have read 'There is no need for any of that'. 

'There is so need' doesn't make sense.

Ah, gesture typing.

GingerTim

Grenage said:

GingerTim said:

Jellynailer said:

Oops, I meant Right to Buy.  However, I am sure the OP will be able to decide whether the information I provided is useful to them.  If not, it may be of interest to others following this thread.  Thanks for the comment that my information was SO needed.  That's a breath of fresh air given all the negative comments I get whenever I post.

I think that was a typo in @Grenage's post and it should have read 'There is no need for any of that'. 

'There is so need' doesn't make sense.

Ah, gesture typing.

All been there!