HELP NEEDED!! - Builders Covanent re Caravan on drive

bluejake

I agree the plural argument - caravan or caravans - you are putting forward is nonsense. The wording clearly covers a single caravan.

The way I see it you two have two options: do nothing and ignore the letter. It is easy and inexpensive to get a solicitor to send a threatening letter. I think there is a good chance you will not hear from them again or maybe they will send you a second letter but they will not take try to take expensive court action.

The second option is to go and get some legal advice. Property law is complicated. I know a little about property law because I studied it. I know enough to know that many people on these boards post legal answers on these boards with great confidence when in fact they do not know their legal ar*e from their elbow. I would be wary of any legal advice on property law on these boards.

My preference would be to do nothing and see if they take some legal action against you. I would bet they don't.

On a personal note I can think of nothing worse than having a neighbour who parks a caravan or a large commercial vehicle on their property. Why oh why would anyone want to do this on their own property? Have you no consideration for your neighbours? It is just so ugly. Their enjoyment of their property and no doubt the value of their property is affected by you. If I was considering buying a property and I saw a caravan next door that would be it - no sale. 25 years you have have that thing parked there! Christ!:rotfl:

ken_and_dot

I would have thought that the real issue is 'who can enforce the covenant'. There must be some 'legal beagles' out there who can answer that question but surely it can only be enforced by the person who inserted it into the deeds in the first place i.e. the builder. If so, it is unlikely that he will be interested in becoming involved in a court case after all this time even assuming he (or the company) still exist. One other point to consider is why the convenant was inserted in the first place. Could it be that it was a condition of the original planning approval. If so, then that condition cannot be enforced if the situation has gone unchallenged by the local authority for more than ten years.

shelovestobuystuff

Dont worry about it.The wording is quite clear that you are not allowed to park a caravan in the garden,the drive is not the garden,not intended to be used as part of the garden and so you can park your caravan there.
I am just wondering why the neighbours are being like this now after so many years.Is someone living in the caravan or has anything else changed to prompt this from them?

Soubrette

I'm wondering if your caravan has acquired 'squatter's rights' after this amount of time?

I don't think the caravan/caravans argument holds water personally, I would, however, go and see a solicitor myself about the letter.

Have you had a word with the neighbours to find out why it's suddenly such a problem?

Sou

mitchaa

I would be put off buying a house if next door had a caravan permanently on the drive. They are eyesores and i would go as far as to say that it could possible devalue a house.

You're lucky they haven't paid someone to torch it;)

Raggie

Before paying to see the solicitior.. do you have any legal cover with your house insurance.. they may be able to give some advice?

evetsnworb

With regards to it looking awful and unsightly, first as mentioned its an elevated town house and the caravan is parked neatly on the drive. It is only the roof that can be seen and it is in no way blocking any views or day light from the living room window. Yes its been parked on the drive for many yrs as its part of life and we enjoy having weekends away in it. As mentioned if they felt strongly about it then they could have made it clear yrs ago but didn't.

Also there are other commercial vans parked in the street (not on driveways) and are infact parked on the path which if you ask me look worse than a modern caravan on a drive way. If the caravan was old and tatty then fair enough but its not. The people with vans are not being pin pointed about their vans lookly awful and de-valuing the house price only me. I however dont have a problem with the vans as its part of their living and job.

Interesting about the "garden issue" as the caravan is parked on a paved driveway (something to look into)

Other interesting point made was the fact that its the builder who should object not the neighbours, the covenant does also state:

"the right to enforce any covenant entered into by the puchaser of any other site on the vendors said estate shall not pass to the purchaser unless such right be expressly assigned to him"

Therfore this means the builder should be the one to enforce it not the neighbours as they dont have the right to do so. Would you say this is correct?

Will the builder want to go to court to enforce something which does not effect him and he has not been made aware of it 25yrs ago?

System

BobProperty wrote: »

I thought that was a possibility but the clause says and not to use or permit or suffer the same or any part thereof to be used for the keeping of poultry or bird nor for the parking of caravans.

Surely the bit that says "the same or any part thereof" is referring to "any unbuilt on part of the property" which is mentioned in the schedule, rather than the complete parcel of land as defined in the deeds.

This is just my take on it and I am just being as pedantic as the legal profession can be.

PasturesNew

My unqualified opinion is: garden/drive, the wording would be irrelevant as they'd amount to the same thing for a normal house.

BobProperty

!!!!!! wrote: »

Surely the bit that says "the same or any part thereof" is referring to "any unbuilt on part of the property" which is mentioned in the schedule, rather than the complete parcel of land as defined in the deeds.

This is just my take on it and I am just being as pedantic as the legal profession can be.

I think it could go either way. My interpretation is as follows:
Not to use or suffer to be used any unbuilt on part of the property hereby conveyed for any purpose except as and for a garden and to keep such garden tidy and free from weeds and rubbish and not to use or permit or suffer the same or any part thereof to be used for the keeping of poultry or bird nor for the parking of caravans.
"..... any unbuilt on part of the property ....for any purpose except as and for a garden...."
= the unbuilt part shall be only used as a garden
" .....the same"
= the unbuilt or garden part
"....or any part thereof"
= any of it
"....to be used for the keeping of poultry or bird nor for the parking of caravans."
Otherwise you could keep "poultry or bird" on the "built" part of the property, which I think is unlikely.

Get some pigs instead.
If they are going to sell their place and are trying to "tidy up" the neighbourhood they are "shooting themselves in the foot" as they will have a least one, if not several, unresolved disputes with their neighbours to declare.