PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.restrictive covenants may have been lost
Options
united_land_co
Posts: 7 Forumite
I bought a £6 Title + Plan from the Land Registry for a house I'm interested in. I can see it's freehold, and mortgaged. But what's more interesting is that the Proprietorship Register includes this item:
A quick duckduckgo (other search engines are available
) suggests that the United Land Company was a company which bought up lots of land, divided it up into plots, and sold it on to builders. I even found reference to a legal case, Faruqi v English Real Estates, in 1979, in which another property owner was unable to find a covenant involving the same United Land Company (or another company with the same name ).
United Land Company presumably doesn't exist any more (I can't find it on the Companies House website), but any rights they had might have passed to somebody else. Is there any chance that such rights could still be enforceable? Or is there some general principle that would prevent that?
Presumably this is very low risk anyway. Am I over-thinking it?
and the Charges Register includes this item:(XX.XX.200X) The Transfer to the proprietor contains a covenant of indemnity in respect of the covenants referred to in the Charges Register.
Does that suggest that nobody (involved in recent transactions for this property) knows what these covenants might say, and the last buyer was advised about this and chose to take the risk that somebody might turn up later waving a restrictive covenant saying they can't paint the house red, or keep chickens, or whatever?A Deed dated YY YY 188Y made between (1) The several persons whose names and seals were subscribed and set in the Second Schedule thereto and (2) The United Land Company Limited contains restrictive covenants.
NOTE: No copy of such Deed was produced on first registration.
A quick duckduckgo (other search engines are available
) suggests that the United Land Company was a company which bought up lots of land, divided it up into plots, and sold it on to builders. I even found reference to a legal case, Faruqi v English Real Estates, in 1979, in which another property owner was unable to find a covenant involving the same United Land Company (or another company with the same name ).United Land Company presumably doesn't exist any more (I can't find it on the Companies House website), but any rights they had might have passed to somebody else. Is there any chance that such rights could still be enforceable? Or is there some general principle that would prevent that?
Presumably this is very low risk anyway. Am I over-thinking it?
0
Comments
-
It'll be low risk and almost certainly insurable if you wanted to cover it off somehow. The fact a mortgage lender has accepted it as security suggests there's no significant issue.0
-
Covenants bind the land and their benefit invariably also attach to land owned by at the time. If that benefiting land has changed hands then you potentially have new benefiting landowners.
The entry doesn't appear to make it clear as to who owned what benefiting land. However when the title was registered the Deed must have been referred to but not submitted.
Someone could turn up claiming the benefit but as posted you can insure against that normally. Digging too deep into it though may be an issue for any insurer as doing so may alert a benefiting landowner and thus increase the risk markedly“Official Company Representative
I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"0 -
So, thinking about which land might benefit ... if the purpose of the covenants was to prevent anything that might interfere with the landowner's plans to build up the rest of the street, that would be irrelevant now that it's been fully built up for over a hundred years. But if the purpose was to prevent anything that might upset residential neighbours, it could still apply? Everything in close proximity is now residential.0
-
Those are 2 good guesses.united_land_co wrote: »So, thinking about which land might benefit ... if the purpose of the covenants was to prevent anything that might interfere with the landowner's plans to build up the rest of the street, that would be irrelevant now that it's been fully built up for over a hundred years. But if the purpose was to prevent anything that might upset residential neighbours, it could still apply? Everything in close proximity is now residential.
Insurance is the solution, though be aware that the insurance will cover any cost of someone turning up and enforcing a covenant - it won't invaldate the covenant.
So for example, if you have a fetish about living in a red house and you paint your house red, if someone came along waving a covenant that required the house to be painted green, the insurance would pay for the painter and paint, but you'd still have to live in a green house (or move).0 -
Exactly that.united_land_co wrote: »Does that suggest that nobody (involved in recent transactions for this property) knows what these covenants might say, and the last buyer was advised about this and chose to take the risk that somebody might turn up later waving a restrictive covenant saying they can't paint the house red, or keep chickens, or whatever?
We have a portion of our land which has the same situation - there's a ruined stone wall on it, so it was probably once a separate property.
The chances of somebody rocking up, waving an ancient piece of paper, and having an enforceable issue are somewhere around zero. You may think an indemnity is worth the vendor paying for. You may not think it worth paying for yourself, or letting the sale fall through over.0 -
Reviving my own thread ...
What's the worst that could happen? I.e. supposing, for the sake of argument, that somebody does find these restrictive covenants, and actually attempts to enforce them, what is the most inconvenient covenant that might still be enforceable?
Bearing in mind that these covenants date from the 1880s, and the house is now surrounded by other residential property in all directions (at least 10 houses in each direction on the same side of the road, ditto on the opposite side of the road, and the back gardens join the back gardens of residential properties in a parallel road).0 -
"You can't build houses here", I guess.united_land_co wrote: »Reviving my own thread ...
What's the worst that could happen? I.e. supposing, for the sake of argument, that somebody does find these restrictive covenants, and actually attempts to enforce them, what is the most inconvenient covenant that might still be enforceable?
But why concern yourself about it? Just get insurance and forget about it.0 -
'most inconvenient'? That depends what you plan to do in the house!united_land_co wrote: »....
What's the worst that could happen? I.e. supposing, for the sake of argument, that somebody does find these restrictive covenants, and actually attempts to enforce them, what is the most inconvenient covenant that might still be enforceable?
.
If you want to keep chickens, and the covenant prohibits keeping chickens, that would be inconvenient (to you, though not to me!).
Likewise if it prohibits the sale or consumption of alcohol (yes, some 1800s Temperance landowners did specify this!).
Buildig an extension, summer house/garden shed might be prohibited. Or running a business from the property. 'Inconvenience' would depend on your lifestyle........0 -
Are you seriously suggesting that might be enforceable, when the houses have been standing for over 100 years??"You can't build houses here", I guess.
There are 2 broad kinds of inconvenience I'm thinking of.But why concern yourself about it? Just get insurance and forget about it.
1) Restrictions that impinge on my enjoyment of the property as a home. Insurance can't cover this. E.g. if I'm not allowed to play a musical instrument after 6pm, I may be miserable living there.
2) Restrictions which significantly affect the resale value of the property. Would insurance cover this, as opposed covering direct financial outlays?0 -
1) give us a list of all your hobbies, plans for the property, family circumstances, occupation, vehicles, and fetishes. We'll then be able to comment (and will greatly enjoy doing so...:rotfl:)united_land_co wrote: »There are 2 broad kinds of inconvenience I'm thinking of.
1) Restrictions that impinge on my enjoyment of the property as a home. Insurance can't cover this. E.g. if I'm not allowed to play a musical instrument after 6pm, I may be miserable living there.
2) Restrictions which significantly affect the resale value of the property. Would insurance cover this, as opposed covering direct financial outlays?
2) No. Anf if it did, how could you ever prove by how much the resale value had been affected?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards