Restrictive covenants

AGa206

I bought a house two years ago.  The house was built in 1967 and the previous owners had lived there since then until they died just before the house was put on the market and I bought it.  The deeds from when it was built it contains restrictive covenants as follows:

“No Building erected on the land hereby transferred shall at any time hereafter be used for any other purpose than a private dwelling with private garage…

The said private garage shall be of such design and construction as to conform to the architectural standards of the dwelling erected on the said plot of land hereby transferred and shall not be erected without first submitting to the Transferor detailed plans and drawings thereof in duplicate (one copy of which shall be retained by the Transferor) and obtaining in writing the approval of the Transferor to such plans and drawings

Save as hereinafter mentioned no temporary building of any kind shall at any time be erected on the land hereby transferred … or allowed to remain on the said land or any part hereof PROVIDED ALWAYS that this restriction shall not be deemed to preclude the erection on the garden at the rear of the said dwelling of a summer house, greenhouse or garden tool shed of which the type design and position shall have been first submitted to and approved of by the Transferor in writing.”

I emailed my solicitor and asked about the covenant.  They said that I should obtain consent from the National Coal Board who were taken over by The British Coal Corporation and dissolved in 1997 and therefore it would be unlikely that I would be able to obtain any consent.

I did see in the deeds that the actual transferor was the company who built the house.  They are still operating so I contacted them.  The person I spoke to asked me to send an email which I did.  A few weeks later, I rang him again to ask if he had it and he said he hadn’t so I had to send another email.  Then I rang again and said that there were two sheds on the property that according to Google Maps have been there since at least 2009 so would they have permission for those?   He said possibly not and send him an email, which I again did.  I also contacted my solicitor who said they couldn’t help me. I contacted the solicitor who were involved in the sale of the house and I’m still waiting for them to get back to me.  I just wondered if there’s anything I can do because every time I ring the transferor he says send an email.  I do and he says he’s never received it, even though I know it’s definitely been sent.  I just wonder where I go from here.

Emmia

If email isn't working, could you send him a physical letter, snail mail.

WIAWSNB

Why are you doing this AGa? Do you wish to erect a proper garden room? You surely cannot be concerned by the wee sheds?
I'm guessing that your house isn't the only one on your street built by this builder and originally owned by the NCB? What sorts of extensions and garden buildings have the others had done?
Obviously you cannot be wreckless in risk taking, but you may decide to just proceed, following normal Planning and BC protocols, of course, and 'gambling' on the worst case outcome. An indemnity policy should cover you when it comes to selling.
What I'm saying is, if other houses in the 'hood with similar deeds, have converted garages and built extensions and summer houses, then 'almost' certainly it won't be an issue for you either. And there is every chance that these other folk did so without any awareness of the content of their deeds. When we built an extension a few years back, we followed P & BC, but not once did it occur to me to glance at my deeds. But then, the building that's taken place on my road is staggering.
Anyhoo, what is it you are trying to achieve?

david29dpo

 Builders restrictive covenants are very rarely enforced once the estate is finished.

Section62

AGa206 said:

I emailed my solicitor and asked about the covenant.  They said that I should obtain consent from the National Coal Board who were taken over by The British Coal Corporation and dissolved in 1997 and therefore it would be unlikely that I would be able to obtain any consent.

Was the house built for the NCB, or has the solicitor got things muddled up?

The British Coal Corporation wasn't dissolved until 27th March 2004.  AFAIK all its residual assets and liabilities were passed to the Coal Authority which is now the Mining Remediation Authority.  Being the beneficiary of a covenant is an asset, so it may be them who would give consent in place of NCB.

If consent from NCB is required, and you are concerned about it, then you might want to contact the Mining Remediation Authority to verify the situation.

AGa206

I’m managed to get hold of him, so he’s going to look at it today apparently it’s gone into spam.

WIAWSNB

I hope that can of spam doesn't also include worms.

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

I hope that can of spam doesn't also include worms.

If the builder isn't interested in enforcing the covenant then they are likely to reply saying 'yes' or else deny knowledge the covenant exists.  If they are interested in enforcing the covenant then the sheds are a ticking timebomb waiting for an ambulance-chaser law firm to send speculative letters demanding payment and/or something for the next buyer's solicitor to get angsty about.

If it was something permanent like an extension then it would be sensible not to contact the beneficiary of the covenant to keep the option of indemnity insurance open.

But for a couple of sheds it is unlikely to be VfM to pay for an indemnity policy that the buyer benefits from... it would be better for the OP to simply remove the sheds before marketing the property.  Problem solved.

So in a case like this it probably makes sense to ask the beneficiary if it is Ok to keep the sheds, particularly as the wording of the covenant doesn't preclude the provision of a shed, it only requires prior approval of the "type design and position".

WIAWSNB

Section62 said:

WIAWSNB said:

I hope that can of spam doesn't also include worms.

If the builder isn't interested in enforcing the covenant then they are likely to reply saying 'yes' or else deny knowledge the covenant exists.  If they are interested in enforcing the covenant then the sheds are a ticking timebomb waiting for an ambulance-chaser law firm to send speculative letters demanding payment and/or something for the next buyer's solicitor to get angsty about.

If it was something permanent like an extension then it would be sensible not to contact the beneficiary of the covenant to keep the option of indemnity insurance open.

But for a couple of sheds it is unlikely to be VfM to pay for an indemnity policy that the buyer benefits from... it would be better for the OP to simply remove the sheds before marketing the property.  Problem solved.

So in a case like this it probably makes sense to ask the beneficiary if it is Ok to keep the sheds, particularly as the wording of the covenant doesn't preclude the provision of a shed, it only requires prior approval of the "type design and position".

Completely agree.

I wonder if this is about a couple of sheds, tho'? The OP hasn't clarified. 

Yorkie1

I'm not sure that an indemnity policy would be viable, now that enquiries are under way?