Restrictive Covenants on a FREEHOLD property with a management company

Maffy52

Flugelhorn said:

WIAWSNB said:

I suspect that on most such estates, if a consensus was taken on whether to abide by all the covenants or have a free-for-all, the majority would ponder and say, 'abide'.
But could well be wrong.

on ours when such things are muttered about eg the management company writing to everyone to remind them that commercial vehicles and motor-homes / caravans are not allowed

This is one of the restrictions I find the most over-reaching and ridiculous...
If it said in communal spaces or on the road, then okay. but not allowed on my own driveway?

Plenty of people have vans for their business (plumbers, dog walkers, cleaners etc...) and how can it be a problem for others parking them or a mobile home on your OWN drive?

Flugelhorn

Maffy52 said:

Flugelhorn said:

WIAWSNB said:

I suspect that on most such estates, if a consensus was taken on whether to abide by all the covenants or have a free-for-all, the majority would ponder and say, 'abide'.
But could well be wrong.

on ours when such things are muttered about eg the management company writing to everyone to remind them that commercial vehicles and motor-homes / caravans are not allowed

This is one of the restrictions I find the most over-reaching and ridiculous...
If it said in communal spaces or on the road, then okay. but not allowed on my own driveway?

Plenty of people have vans for their business (plumbers, dog walkers, cleaners etc...) and how can it be a problem for others parking them or a mobile home on your OWN drive?

I suppose that is the thing, much of the parking is in "designated parking spaces" in parking areas - no-one has a driveway. People usually have 2 allocated spaces + garage  but the motorhomes / commercials take up a lot more space, particularly as many households have more than 2 vehicles

eddddy

I guess I look at things differently from many people posting here.

I think developers put these types of covenants in place because it helps to sell the the properties, because that's what many potential buyers want.

Those potential buyers view a development with architect designed houses and landscaping, and they are pleased that there are covenants (or 'rules') in place to stop others from spoiling the look and feel, by...

- spoiling the open plan gardens with ad-hoc fencing
- having a random collection of sheds in front gardens
- parking vans on drives
- operating a car repair business in their garage and/or front drive
- hanging up washing in the front garden
etc


Interestingly, often the more upmarket the development, the tougher the covenants/rules.


I think it's reasonable to say that if you don't like the covenants/rules associated with a particular development, it's a bit antisocial to buy a property on that development with the intention of breaking the covenants/rules.

sheramber

15.1 states for 5 years from the transfer-  the first transfer to an owner? - or until sales office closed, if earlier.

Does the covenant still apply?

Section62

Maffy52 said:

Flugelhorn said:

WIAWSNB said:

I suspect that on most such estates, if a consensus was taken on whether to abide by all the covenants or have a free-for-all, the majority would ponder and say, 'abide'.
But could well be wrong.

on ours when such things are muttered about eg the management company writing to everyone to remind them that commercial vehicles and motor-homes / caravans are not allowed

This is one of the restrictions I find the most over-reaching and ridiculous...
If it said in communal spaces or on the road, then okay. but not allowed on my own driveway?

Plenty of people have vans for their business (plumbers, dog walkers, cleaners etc...) and how can it be a problem for others parking them or a mobile home on your OWN drive?

The typical complaint is about the blocking of light/views by having a dirty great caravan/motorhome parked right on the boundary next to the complainer's lounge/reception room window.  A polite request to park it elsewhere in the owner's driveway is met with response it is parked there next to the boundary because anywhere else would cause the owner inconvenience in parking their day-to-day vehicle(s).

There are also other (often unspoken) considerations, including the involvement of sterotyping of the type of people who might park certain kinds of vehicles on their driveways.... including for example that a commercial vehicle may be used by a tradesperson who is basing their business at home.

And it is also not unknown for people to use a caravan/motorhome as an extension to their living space, rather than having it for holidaying.  E.g. allowing friends/family/workers to live long-term in a van on the drive.

Bear in mind restrictive covenants are often used as a just-in-case protection - which in turn is likely why there are so many reports about them 'never' being enforced.  If you complain to the local council about a neighbour's anti-social behaviour - like airbnbing the caravan on their drive - then there's no guarantee the council will do anything about it.

But having a restrictive covenant (which you are a beneficiary of) which prohibits neighbours parking caravans/vans on the drive means you wouldn't be reliant on the LA to take action - you have a wholly independent course of action you could take.  This is why it is so important to read and fully understand the covenants and who can enforce them.  Relying on the generic 'never enforced' is risky, because sometimes it turns out the covenant is enforceable, and if you've incentivised someone to enforce it against you then that old and forgotten covenant can turn into a real PITB.

Maffy52

sheramber said:

15.1 states for 5 years from the transfer-  the first transfer to an owner? - or until sales office closed, if earlier.

Does the covenant still apply?

I had assume it means the first transfer (when the house was purchased as a new build) as it states 'this transfer'... 
As the initial transfer was October 2021, then they still apply, as not yet five years.... 

Maffy52

eddddy said:

I guess I look at things differently from many people posting here.

...

I think it's reasonable to say that if you don't like the covenants/rules associated with a particular development, it's a bit antisocial to buy a property on that development with the intention of breaking the covenants/rules.

I do think many of these restrictions are fine, basically common-sense. I guess the one about the business is the one that effects me personally as my wife had the idea of running an Air BnB to earn some extra cash (and keep herself busy!), but my solicitor said this would not be allowed. So she is disappointed, although it is not a deal breaker...

Maffy52

Section62 said:

Maffy52 said:

Flugelhorn said:

WIAWSNB said:

I suspect that on most such estates, if a consensus was taken on whether to abide by all the covenants or have a free-for-all, the majority would ponder and say, 'abide'.
But could well be wrong.

on ours when such things are muttered about eg the management company writing to everyone to remind them that commercial vehicles and motor-homes / caravans are not allowed

This is one of the restrictions I find the most over-reaching and ridiculous...
If it said in communal spaces or on the road, then okay. but not allowed on my own driveway?

Plenty of people have vans for their business (plumbers, dog walkers, cleaners etc...) and how can it be a problem for others parking them or a mobile home on your OWN drive?

The typical complaint is about the blocking of light/views by having a dirty great caravan/motorhome parked right on the boundary next to the complainer's lounge/reception room window. 
...

Relying on the generic 'never enforced' is risky, because sometimes it turns out the covenant is enforceable, and if you've incentivised someone to enforce it against you then that old and forgotten covenant can turn into a real PITB.

I get what you mean, there can be 'extreme' situations which can create problems (I have seen some bloody massive motorhome parked on peoples front garden or next to a neighbours wall!).
For me personally, I can't foresee any issues, but, I did wonder about how it may impact future 'saleability'...

incus432

Looking out of my window I see a house opposite has a very large motor home parked in the double space on the side drive. And their other car parked blocking the footpath. 

Smalltownhypocrite

WIAWSNB said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

Maffy52 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

... or 'intoxicated behavior'. 

for real? or you pulling my leg?

Yep as other posters said the land was owned by the church (not even sure which one as their is/was 5 different denominations all next to each other on the same street, I think the LDS church is fairly new but the other 4 are old church buildings), thought that was the most standard/normal one because it was on both.

So, the covenantee would have been, um, gawd? In which case, no risk of it being enforced.

Its actually the 'Reverend' he died like 100 years ago though so not sure if it passes to his replacement or not.

To be fair I don't want to open a brothel, slaughterhouse or brewery anyway... the police or planning would probably hold me accountable if I tried even if the reverend no longer minded.