Issue with a covenant, advice please?

Hi there, this is the letter I sent to my solicitor regarding a house we are in the process of buying.
#######
We have been looking at the deeds again/charges register which stipulate a few covenants in place. The one that is of concern to us is (d) regarding erecting any building basically in line with or behind the present building line and the road. Whilst not an urgent requirement, we wish to build a garage on the front drive separate to the house, and whilst we understand planning permission will be required, we have read that the covenant can overrule the planning permission.
The charges register states the conveyance is between 1) The Seedhouse Property Company Limited(Vendor) and 2) Fifteen Two Limited and 3) David Hunter and Pamela Kathleen May Hunter (Sub purchasers).
1) Appears to be dissolved from what I can see and I cannot see anything about 2) or 3).
With this in mind, is this covenant still enforceable, how do we go about getting it lifted? I doesn't say how long the covenant is for, but at the beginning of the document it does say it was transferred to the Holt's so I can only assume it was carried on exactly the same to them.
Do you have any advice please?
#######

The reply I had back was:
#######
The covenant would be enforceable and it is highly unlikely that we could have it lifted. The wording on the clause is not only for the benefit of the two companies mentioned but also adjoining and neighbouring land that they owned, so when they sold the land (i.e the individual plots) the benefit of this covenant would have passed to the owners. So in other words your neighbours could enforce a breach of covenant.

In my opinion I think you would be unlikely to get planning permission for this anyway but I were you I would discuss this with the planning officer at the Council. There must have been a reason why a building line was to be preserved. The covenant was put on for a reason.

The alternative would be to convert the ‘office/bedroom 4’ area back to a garage and extend instead the property at the rear.
#######


Does anyone have similar experiences? I don't know the neighbours yet so do not know how they would respond. We don't have a neighbour as such on the LHS because its a house from another road, and they are doing loads of work on their house at present so hope I could win them over.

Whilst it isn't a complete show stopper. it's something ideally I was looking forward to doing. I don't want to convert back the 4th bedroom(which is now an office so thats not an option).

Thanks All

Provided all affected parties agree a covenant can be "ignored" while all affected parties agree to that. This is OK until one of the affected properties changes ownership and the new owners want to enforce the covenant.

Where my mother lived there was a covenant that no one would erect sheds or other builings in the gardens. Sheds were built and no one objected until some years later when a new tenant in one house objected the shed next door and invoked the covenant. The owner told her tenant that if he wanted to start a civil action to enforce the covenant then he would have to fund it. She, like all the other owners, had no objection to the shed.

It isn't only neighbours and / or owners of affected property who can require a covenant to be enforced if the terms are broken.

bernardgreen said:

Provided all affected parties agree a covenant can be "ignored" while all affected parties agree to that. This is OK until one of the affected properties changes ownership and the new owners want to enforce the covenant.

Where my mother lived there was a covenant that no one would erect sheds or other builings in the gardens. Sheds were built and no one objected until some years later when a new tenant in one house objected the shed next door and invoked the covenant. The owner told her tenant that if he wanted to start a civil action to enforce the covenant then he would have to fund it. She, like all the other owners, had no objection to the shed.

It isn't only neighbours and / or owners of affected property who can require a covenant to be enforced if the terms are broken.

Click to expand...

Hi, thanks for the information, oh, this is looking harder than I first expected. I was under the impression I could just apply and get the covenant completely removed some how?

You can apply to the Land Tribunal have the covenant discharged, but there have to be good reasons for them to do so e.g. everyone agrees that it should be discharged or circumstances have changed in some way that makes it no longer reasonable. Google it.

What happens when the covenant is releated to an estate? Which I assume is a group of people, how can I find out who?

The people on the deed who appear to have registered the covenant, as i say, one appears to have dissolved and I don't know who the other people are or how to get in touch with them, do you know who would know how to track these people down?

I've seen about the land tribunal, and it does seem costly and an almost last chance saloon. I've also been reading about Single Premium Indemnity Policies etc, but that's not much help really

The people benefit from the covenant are those who would have to look at your "ugly garage" and whose house values would fall as a result of its presence.

I'm not sure why you're asking random people on an internet forum when your solicitor seems to be the person you should be listening too!

Might be of interest

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/49095/page/11373/data.pdf
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/48906/page/2817/data.pdf
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/48906/page/2818/data.pdf

I'd be surprised if this is the company you refer to in you post but you never know:

http://coys.co.nz/company/?no=2420973-FIFTEEN+TWO+LIMITED
http://www.business.govt.nz/compani...nies/2420973/21364660/entityFilingRequirement

Download a copy of their land registry deed, find out what (if any) covenants they have on theirs. See if they have complied with theirs (approx).
If they are not, and they are giving you issues, threaten to counter attack. Also see if they have any trees which under the new Nuisance Act, block our light etc because a series of trees are made to look like one large hedge to give them privacy and is above 2m in height.

Only do this if they are being an **se and looking for trouble.

A covenant must have a burden and a benefit which is associated to the land and not to the people. You will purchase the land with the burden and the benefit will be on some neighbouring land, to which it may have been transferred to whomever owns that land at this present time, if it's not the original named people on the covenant.

The insurance policy would be on the instance that whomever owns the benefit can't be located. I think they're usually set up when there are old covenants on properties but may have been lost over time or the original estate has no realatives that can be found. You'd have to check with your solicitor as to what the insurance covers as its them that has to take out the policy.

You could go to a tribunal and apply for the covenant to be removed but you have to satisfy quite a strict process. The court will allow anyone to come forward and if no one does then they might release it, but if someone comes forward and you loose then you'll have to make a contribution, set by the court, as to a suitable fee of compensation and you'll probably have to cover the other parties costs.

Planning permission has nothing to do with wether you have a covenant on the land or not. They will grant or refuse based on current planning policy so you could test the water and first seen if it's possible to obtain planning. If not, then the covenant is pretty irrelevant for your needs.

Of course, I'm not a professional but I am trying to release a covenant of my own!

Jesus, we have one that says no trees, no extensions, no outbuildings, and no cars on driveways (must be in garage). All part of a council housing estate built in 1958, and restrictions transferred to the deeds.

If someone enforces them everyone on the "estate" would be screwed!

ISTr that a covenent is setup between the people at the time and it would require those people (or reprasentatives) to be able to enforce it.
So if the building company etc that built the estate & setup the covenent are no longer around - then there is no one to enforce it/

mattylad the covenant persists. It is normally passed by assignment upon the sale of the land.

That's right, some covenants transfer with the land - both burdens and benefits.