Reply to: Restrictive Covenants on property

[SueEllen]

WPS

My friend has little time for the legal profession. He feels that if he goes down that route then the only ones guaranteed to win financially are the lawyers.

Your "friend" has obviously been ripped off by those in the legal profession who are too dishonest to say - sort it out amicably.

Every member of the legal profession I speak to informs me that I should sort out all disputes amicably.

If your "friend" is objecting to a planning issue they need to some research on what the local council has in it's planning frameworks i.e. local development framework, to see what is and isn't allowed. Though if other people on the road have got away with doing things like the neighbour then that won't work.

Plus if your "friend's" neighbours are running a business on-site and they have any visitors or other employees, I hope they are paying business rates as well as council tax.

[shaunbhoy]

So it sounds like I was right - Once that phrase "retained by the vendors" no longer applies, the covenant lapses (in practice and probably also in principle).

Maybe yes, and maybe no. If the following principle applies then it is immaterial that the vendors have sold the property on.
The restrictions are there for the welfare of the land rather than any particular owner.

A restrictive covenant is a private agreement between land owners where one party will restrict the use of its land in some way for the benefit of another's land. Restrictive covenants, once agreed between the parties, are placed in the title deeds to the property. They bind the land and not the parties personally. In other words, the restrictive covenant 'runs with the land'. This means that the covenant continues even when the original parties to the covenant sell the land on to other people. Restrictive covenants also continue to have effect even though they were made many years ago and appear to be obsolete. They are enforceable by one landowner against another, provided they are restrictive or ‘negative’ in their effect and effectively allow a form of private planning control.

[Lockhouse]

Our last two houses have had restrictive covenants on because although they are freehold they have both been in private roads.

With the first one, as long as we got approval from the management committee there was no problem - in fact the general rule was "you can do what you like as long as no-one objects".

With the second one, our current house, the land is protected by a deed of covenant referring back to the original owners and we have to ask their permission if we want to change the external appearance of the house etc. In practice it's not usually refused.

Most of these things are on a live and let live basis I've found which is why it pays to stay on good terms with your neighbours and not hack them off unnecessarily.

[OwlHoot]

The way it is worded is

"For the benefit and protection of the adjoining land retained by the vendors known as XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX aforesaid the purchaser hereby covenants with the vendor that the purchaser and its successors in title will etc." ...

So it sounds like I was right - Once that phrase "retained by the vendors" no longer applies, the covenant lapses (in practice and probably also in principle).

[shaunbhoy]

He sounds very mistrustful your 'friend'. Does he also have six fingers and like haggis???

You mean like most of your "nearly family"?

[MarillionFan]

WPS

My friend has little time for the legal profession. He feels that if he goes down that route then the only ones guaranteed to win financially are the lawyers.

He sounds very mistrustful your 'friend'. Does he also have six fingers and like haggis???

[shaunbhoy]

A book written by a lawyer or judge for £30 or even £100+ is worth more than a seeing a solicitor.

WPS

My friend has little time for the legal profession. He feels that if he goes down that route then the only ones guaranteed to win financially are the lawyers.

[Paddy]

Might just be worth an explorative discussion with a legal bod. See if "your friend" has a case. Emphasise the point that said mate is skint.

A book written by a lawyer or judge for £30 or even £100+ is worth more than a seeing a solicitor.

[Arturo Bassick]

Might just be worth an explorative discussion with a legal bod. See if "your friend" has a case. Emphasise the point that said mate is skint.

[shaunbhoy]

Sounds like your 'friend' could get taken to the cleaners. Hope your 'friend' has a big warchest.

A restrictive covenant is a private agreement between land owners where one party will restrict the use of its land in some way for the benefit of another's land. Restrictive covenants, once agreed between the parties, are placed in the title deeds to the property. They bind the land and not the parties personally. In other words, the restrictive covenant 'runs with the land'. This means that the covenant continues even when the original parties to the covenant sell the land on to other people. Restrictive covenants also continue to have effect even though they were made many years ago and appear to be obsolete. They are enforceable by one landowner against another, provided they are restrictive or ‘negative’ in their effect and effectively allow a form of private planning control.

If this part is true, then it is not "my friend" but his neighbours that might have need of the warchest. The covenants bind their property, not his.

[AtW]

What a stupid f-cking quote? It's not insurance unless you get paid out? F-ck me.

It's my own quote and I personally think it's a great one

[MarillionFan]

Some good advice on here. "My friend" says thanks!!

On balance, I doubt he will engage the services of a solicitor and will simply work round the issue.
He may write a strongly worded letter of his own, suggesting to his neighbours that he has taken legal advice and is deliberating upon how best to enforce these covenants. Just to put the wind up them a bit really.
Other than that, I will suggest that he just ignore them and carry on.

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS | DESKTOP LAWYER

Sounds like your 'friend' could get taken to the cleaners. Hope your 'friend' has a big warchest.

[shaunbhoy]

Some good advice on here. "My friend" says thanks!!

On balance, I doubt he will engage the services of a solicitor and will simply work round the issue.
He may write a strongly worded letter of his own, suggesting to his neighbours that he has taken legal advice and is deliberating upon how best to enforce these covenants. Just to put the wind up them a bit really.
Other than that, I will suggest that he just ignore them and carry on.

[MarillionFan]

See MFs comments below yours. If they have insurance then its going to cost your friend big legal fees to solve the issue.

While you could possible win the chances are it will simply cost you a fortune and give you a pile of grief.

I know its annoying but its probably better to grin and bear it.

WHS.

Having never heard of this insurance I phoned by brother who has done up 6 houses in the last few years & a mate who is builds houses for a living.

Definitely was the answer. It saves all of the hassle later.

This feels like a Suity thread.

[MarillionFan]

You'll only know what exactly you got covered when you make a claim - you did not buy insurance, you just bought right to make a claim: it only becomes insurance when you get paid by them.

What a stupid f-cking quote? It's not insurance unless you get paid out? F-ck me.