The nervous wait to exchange....

  • Thread starter Thread starter noj
  • Start date Start date
NvidiaDan said:
Received our solicitors report and draft contract on Saturday for our house purchase.

This has revealed a restrictive covenant dating back to 1964 meaning we would need permission for any future development and also a public sewer running down the edge of the boundary meaning we would also need a build over notice.
Click to expand...

Permission in this case would just be standard planning permission that you'd need anyway, no?
What's the exact wording of the covenent, permission from whom?

I'd seek to clarify exaclty what that means - your conveyencer should know straight way if they are any good.
 
NotAGolf said:
I'm sure ours had something about not keeping pigs, sheep, or rabbits on the property. And another one about not parking a car out the front of the house (which literally everyone does).
Click to expand...

I'm not allowed to build or operate a slaughterhouse within 5 yards of the public highway...

...erm, ok then? :cry:
 
mattyfez said:
Permission in this case would just be standard planning permission that you'd need anyway, no?
What's the exact wording of the covenent, permission from whom?

I'd seek to clarify exaclty what that means - your conveyencer should know straight way if they are any good.
Click to expand...
"Please take particular note of the following obligations and restrictions that affect the Property.

You must not carry out any additions or alterations to the Property without first obtaining written consent or approval from the original vendor named in the Transfer. This consent is required over and above any requisite planning permission or building regulations approval from the local authority."
Click to expand...

Thats how it's explained in the solicitor report however I've spent quite a while reading through all the documents I have and I can't see words to that exact effect written. The closest I can find is this from the 1964 title.

No hut, shed, or other structure (other than and besides a dwellinghouse) shall be erected, placed, or allowed to remain in or upon the property hereby transferred or any part thereof unless the character, size, color, and mode of construction thereof shall have been first approved in writing by the Second Company. And if anything is erected, placed, or allowed to remain on the property hereby transferred contrary to the foregoing stipulation, the Second Company may at any time within one year thereafter enter upon the said property and remove therefrom what has been so erected, placed, or allowed to remain, and the materials so removed shall belong to the Second Company, and all costs and expenses occasioned by such removal shall be paid to the Second Company by the Purchaser on demand.
Click to expand...

Surely "other than and besides a dwelling house" means the house is fine to alter anyway?
Just as I was starting to think we were a few weeks away from being in :rolleyes::cry:
 
Pretty sure you can request removal of the convents - I'm sure I did when buying. Mine had one in relation to windows, which required me to consult the original builder from 50 years ago
 
I'm not a lawyer, but your first para/quote seems to be your conveyencers 'interpretation' of the actual covenant.

On the acutal quotation of the covenant, It's wooly...at best, I tend to agree with your interpretation, to me it says you can't put a shed in the back garden (yeah whatever) or build a seperate 'bungalow' within the property boundaries, which is fair enough...I'm not reading that you can't build an extension to the main house.
 
Last edited:
mattyfez said:
I'm not a lawyer, but your first para/quote seems to be your conveyencers 'interpretation' of the actual covenant.

On the acutal quotation of the covenant, It's wooly...at best, I tend to agree with your interpretation, to me it says you can't put a shed in the back garden (yeah whatever) or build a seperate 'bungalow' within the property boundaries, which is fair enough...I'm not reading that you can't build an extension to the main house.
Click to expand...


EDIT...I mean if we are to take that covenant verbatim, then you can't put up a small regular garden shed... I can't see how that would stand up in court, lol!
 
It sounds like a storm in a tea cup, to me, but, again, I'm not a specialist in these things... I'd maybe get a second opinion from a different conveyencer, someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
 
Thanks! Yeah hopefully it's just a misinterpretation by the conveyancer but I may try and seek a second opinion this week.

It's a tricky situation to navigate, my first thought was to contact the original building company directly and address it head on, however if there actually was a breach of the covenant with the 70's extension then I've just dropped the vendor in it and voided the indemnity insurance :cry:
 
I'd be inclined to agree, but it's very difficult to be objective when you are in the process. Too much emotion, time and effort invested and all that
 
In my case it's a housebuilding company who are very much still around .

I was able to speak to my solicitors colleague who said she's so confident of them no longer being interested in enforcing these old covenants that she would put her practice licence on it. She's been dealing with them for the past 30 years so that's reassuring!
 
mattyfez said:
I've done a bit of googling and (IANAL)... But it seems it would have to be someone with an interest... Maybe the person or company that put it in place... But if they are dead/nowhere to be seen... Dunno?
Click to expand...
Based on this I'd imagine there will be many covenants in place that relate to person(s) who have long since passed.
 
I remember two covenants in particular from when we bought our house. The first was that any precious metals or minerals discovered on our land belonged to the state and they had the right to raze the land and house to obtain them. The other was that we are not allowed to run a business from home or associated land which might be a problem as looking to the future that could be a possibility.
 
Mysterae_ said:
I remember two covenants in particular from when we bought our house. The first was that any precious metals or minerals discovered on our land belonged to the state and they had the right to raze the land and house to obtain them. The other was that we are not allowed to run a business from home or associated land which might be a problem as looking to the future that could be a possibility.
Click to expand...

On mine if you were a doctor or a solicitor you could practice from home, otherwise no.
 
NvidiaDan said:
In my case it's a housebuilding company who are very much still around .

I was able to speak to my solicitors colleague who said she's so confident of them no longer being interested in enforcing these old covenants that she would put her practice licence on it. She's been dealing with them for the past 30 years so that's reassuring!
Click to expand...
Unless it's written down I'd not trust that, house builders aren't known for their hatred of making money off of some poor buyer who didn't read/understand a contract or similar.
 
Last edited:
mattyfez said:
I've done a bit of googling and (IANAL)... But it seems it would have to be someone with an interest... Maybe the person or company that put it in place... But if they are dead/nowhere to be seen... Dunno?
Click to expand...
the neighbours ? who who have similar covenants and could pursue you for breaking yours ?
least a ways we have covenant obliging no changes on front appearance for 5 years .. also that any building changes shouldn't impact air&light for others,
which should preceed any of this govt nonsense for building extensions w/o needing permission

e: I mean the convenant gets enforced by neighbours legal action irrespective of original company existance.
 
Last edited:
Neighbours can not enforce a covenant, only the original party (or those specifically mentioned in the deeds w.r.t the covenant) can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom