Buying a house and the kitchen extension done without proper Restrictive Covenant consent

Nospiders123

RAS said:

Have you checked the local Council's planning portal to see if any permission was granted? You don't want to be asking them directly as that invalidates any possibility of indemnity.

Development permission in front of the building line is usually much harder to obtain. And I'd have thought it much easier to identify as having been done when comparing neighbouring houses?

Hi, Yes planning permission was granted but it seems this is different from the restrictive covenant  consent that is required. Lucky the property is slightly hidden behind a tree so not so easy to see thats been extended. 

Nospiders123

HouseMartin567 said:

I bought a house where the extension had the required planning permission and building regulations sign off, however, it broke the restrictive covenant of needing to seek permission from the house builder before making alterations. Considering the house was 30-40 years old the risk seemed low so we were satisfied with an indemnity policy. I don’t think it’s an issue which would have caused me to ask for a reduction - and considering how much the seller moaned about paying for the indemnity policy, I’m certain they wouldn’t have entertained the idea of a price reduction.

As suggested by bobster2, probably best just to check who owns the covenant and then go from there.

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I am curious was the property 30-40 years or the extension that was done ? 

user1977

Nospiders123 said:

user1977 said:

What's the logic for changing the price? The whole point of the indemnity insurance is that it will keep you free of expense in the very unlikely event of anything adverse happening. Isn't your solicitor explaining this to you? 

Also the non monetary impact that the insurance will not cover if something arises. 

But the "something" isn't going to arise. That's why the insurance costs peanuts. If the beneficiary of the covenant had had a problem with the extension, they'd have done something about it about six years ago.

Nospiders123

user1977 said:

Nospiders123 said:

user1977 said:

What's the logic for changing the price? The whole point of the indemnity insurance is that it will keep you free of expense in the very unlikely event of anything adverse happening. Isn't your solicitor explaining this to you? 

Also the non monetary impact that the insurance will not cover if something arises. 

But the "something" isn't going to arise. That's why the insurance costs peanuts. If the beneficiary of the covenant had had a problem with the extension, they'd have done something about it about six years ago.

You raise an interesting point. I have just googled the cost of such a policy and its only £100-£500. Relatively low considering how much enforcement might cost. Hummm 

HouseMartin567

Nospiders123 said:

HouseMartin567 said:

I bought a house where the extension had the required planning permission and building regulations sign off, however, it broke the restrictive covenant of needing to seek permission from the house builder before making alterations. Considering the house was 30-40 years old the risk seemed low so we were satisfied with an indemnity policy. I don’t think it’s an issue which would have caused me to ask for a reduction - and considering how much the seller moaned about paying for the indemnity policy, I’m certain they wouldn’t have entertained the idea of a price reduction.

As suggested by bobster2, probably best just to check who owns the covenant and then go from there.

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I am curious was the property 30-40 years or the extension that was done ? 

The property was 30-40 years old, extension probably 12 years. Part of my thinking being that a large property developer/builder probably isn’t walking around estates they built 35 years ago with a clipboard to see who has built extensions and then cross-referencing them to see who asked for permission 😂

Nospiders123

HouseMartin567 said:

Nospiders123 said:

HouseMartin567 said:

I bought a house where the extension had the required planning permission and building regulations sign off, however, it broke the restrictive covenant of needing to seek permission from the house builder before making alterations. Considering the house was 30-40 years old the risk seemed low so we were satisfied with an indemnity policy. I don’t think it’s an issue which would have caused me to ask for a reduction - and considering how much the seller moaned about paying for the indemnity policy, I’m certain they wouldn’t have entertained the idea of a price reduction.

As suggested by bobster2, probably best just to check who owns the covenant and then go from there.

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I am curious was the property 30-40 years or the extension that was done ? 

The property was 30-40 years old, extension probably 12 years. Part of my thinking being that a large property developer/builder probably isn’t walking around estates they built 35 years ago with a clipboard to see who has built extensions and then cross-referencing them to see who asked for permission 😂

Ha, you are right.  Thanks for clarifying.  

Bigphil1474

We had similar on the house we bought - house built in the 60's, extension in 1994, no permission from developer to build extension as they ceased to exist in the 80's. Second extension built in 2013, again no permission from developers. Both had PP and BC sign off. Not something that keeps me awake. We have indemnity policy, plus another in case the church comes knocking. I believe the extension policy cost about £85, the church one was about £45 (can't 100% remember).

Vienss

Nospiders123 said:

Hi

Hoping to get some advise here. 
I am close to completing on a purchase and the enquires have come back to say that the kitchen extension done to the front of the building in 2019 does not have restrictive Covenant Consent.
(Slightly annoyed that the enquires came back so late. Not sure if this is the norm.) 
 The seller has offered to provide an indemnity policy which covers various things but obviously doesn't rectify the problem.  I like the property and want to proceed and also want to adjust my price based on the enquiry finding.  Does this seem reasonable and what percentage reduction would seem reasonable. 

Does such a breech generally affect the property price or resell-ability?

The survey has also flagged a few issues like damaging in chimney stacks, leak in garage and leak in shower room that I think should affect my price. 
Again not sure what price reduction for those issies would be seen as ok or too cheeky etc. 
The seller is chain free so not sure if this will affect his willingness to re- negotiate.
Sorry new to this property purchasing thing and want to be careful.  

Happy to hear other people's thoughts. If you’re managing rental properties and want less hassle, looking into a full-service firm like Property Management could be a smart move. They handle tenant vetting, maintenance, and payment processing — letting you focus on investment growth rather than day-to-day headaches.

It’s completely reasonable to renegotiate based on new findings — both the missing restrictive covenant consent and the repair issues affect value and resale. The indemnity policy protects you legally but doesn’t fix the breach itself, which may limit future flexibility. Many buyers use such findings to request a reduction of around 2–5% of the purchase price, depending on repair costs. Get repair quotes for the leaks and chimney damage to justify your offer. The seller being chain-free may make them more open to negotiation, especially if you’re ready to proceed quickly.

Nospiders123

Vienss said:

Nospiders123 said:

Hi

Hoping to get some advise here. 
I am close to completing on a purchase and the enquires have come back to say that the kitchen extension done to the front of the building in 2019 does not have restrictive Covenant Consent.
(Slightly annoyed that the enquires came back so late. Not sure if this is the norm.) 
 The seller has offered to provide an indemnity policy which covers various things but obviously doesn't rectify the problem.  I like the property and want to proceed and also want to adjust my price based on the enquiry finding.  Does this seem reasonable and what percentage reduction would seem reasonable. 

Does such a breech generally affect the property price or resell-ability?

The survey has also flagged a few issues like damaging in chimney stacks, leak in garage and leak in shower room that I think should affect my price. 
Again not sure what price reduction for those issies would be seen as ok or too cheeky etc. 
The seller is chain free so not sure if this will affect his willingness to re- negotiate.
Sorry new to this property purchasing thing and want to be careful.  

Happy to hear other people's thoughts. If you’re managing rental properties and want less hassle, looking into a full-service firm like Property Management could be a smart move. They handle tenant vetting, maintenance, and payment processing — letting you focus on investment growth rather than day-to-day headaches.

It’s completely reasonable to renegotiate based on new findings — both the missing restrictive covenant consent and the repair issues affect value and resale. The indemnity policy protects you legally but doesn’t fix the breach itself, which may limit future flexibility. Many buyers use such findings to request a reduction of around 2–5% of the purchase price, depending on repair costs. Get repair quotes for the leaks and chimney damage to justify your offer. The seller being chain-free may make them more open to negotiation, especially if you’re ready to proceed quickly.

Thank you very much for your feedback. 

Nospiders123

Bigphil1474 said:

We had similar on the house we bought - house built in the 60's, extension in 1994, no permission from developer to build extension as they ceased to exist in the 80's. Second extension built in 2013, again no permission from developers. Both had PP and BC sign off. Not something that keeps me awake. We have indemnity policy, plus another in case the church comes knocking. I believe the extension policy cost about £85, the church one was about £45 (can't 100% remember).

This is good to know. This property i am looking at was built in the 60s too. Wonder if the beneficiaries still exists.