Covenants

[mrrusty]

Any beneficiary of a covenant can enforce it, not just the original/previous owner.

If you mean any neighbour etc. this is not correct. The beneficiary of the covenant named in the covenant is the only party that can take action, in this case the transferor. Taking a quote from specialist solicitors in this field:-

"A neighbour can only enforce a restrictive covenant on a property or land if they are the landowner that benefits from the covenant. A neighbour that has no direct connection to the restrictive covenant cannot enforce it in any way." https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/neighbour_disputes/breach_of_covenant/

I am not sure whether "transferor" specifically means the original creator of the covenant or cascades down when the property is bought and sold - you'd need legal advice on that one.

In any case, the remedy is court, injunctions and damages, so in real-world it would have to be a significant and persistent breach to make it worth anyone's time and money to pursue.

 

[Dereekoo]

If you mean any neighbour etc. this is not correct. The beneficiary of the covenant named in the covenant is the only party that can take action, in this case the transferor. Taking a quote from specialist solicitors in this field:-

"A neighbour can only enforce a restrictive covenant on a property or land if they are the landowner that benefits from the covenant. A neighbour that has no direct connection to the restrictive covenant cannot enforce it in any way." https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/neighbour_disputes/breach_of_covenant/

I am not sure whether "transferor" specifically means the original creator of the covenant or cascades down when the property is bought and sold - you'd need legal advice on that one.

In any case, the remedy is court, injunctions and damages, so in real-world it would have to be a significant and persistent breach to make it worth anyone's time and money to pursue.

Definition of a neighbour, next door or one who lives 10 houses away but could see the caravan? As you say would anyone be bothered or have the money/inclination to pursue it

 

[JohnD]

Usually the developer, to protect his investment and maintain values while he continued building and selling houses in that street/on that estate/in that area. Sometimes the original landowner who intended to sell further parcels of land for development later.

Once the developer has sold them all and moved on, he has no interest any more.

In many cases, he died a hundred years ago and nobody cares.

These days, planning permission and change of use would prevent you setting up a pig farm, funfair, brothel or ale-house in your back garden.

 

[^woody^]

Any beneficiary of a covenant can enforce it

If you mean any neighbour etc. this is not correct.

A neighbour can only enforce a restrictive covenant on a property or land if they are the landowner that benefits from the covenant.

 

[blup]

Where is the OP?

Blup

 

[^woody^]

Definition of a neighbour, next door or one who lives 10 houses away but could see the caravan? As you say would anyone be bothered or have the money/inclination to pursue it

Don't concentrate on the item itself and a direct neighbour, as the principle is that that the practice of storing the thing on the drive, or running a business from the property or doing the thing that the covenant prevents can affect the wider estate and impact the wider neighbourhood in other ways directly and indirectly.

 

[mrrusty]

A neighbour can only enforce a restrictive covenant on a property or land if they are the landowner that benefits from the covenant.

It's not any landowner - it's only the landowner of the land prescribed in the covenant - in this case the "retained" land. A neighbour who isn't the owner of the retained land cannot be a beneficiary of the covenant unless specifically named and can do nothing to enforce it.

Also https://www.johnantell.co.uk/restrictive-covenants-land

So what exactly IS the retained land with the benefit of the covenant? and who has the right to act on it? Has the right flowed down from the original transferor?

Personally, I think as the purchaser of this property with covenants I wouldn't be worrying because I see little in there that could cause enough grief to the extent that anyone who had the right to enforce would be bothered. Unless, of course you intend to do things to breach the covenants and the covenants are newly created for this sale.

 

[Notch7]

Mortgage companies don’t like restrictive covenants, that’s the likely reason the purchase fell through, not the restriction itself

 

[Notch7]

How can a buyer find out is a restrictive covenant is enforceable - my understanding is that’s not easy to determine.

 

[ETAF]

In our bungalow we are not allowed to keep pigs as in 1860 when the land was originally sold the piggery did not want any competition. The developer in 1957 felt obliged to pass on the same covenant to subsequent purchasers.

we have the same , no pigs allowed to be kept, in our 1932 house and still in the deeds.
also not allowed to put any wooden buildings (sheds) but everyone has one...
its about who is going to enforce some of those......

I can see a few people may drop out because of trade van, business at home .......
But they may have fallen through for all sorts of reasons. Mortgage was refused, it may have been a buy to let... and had issues , need to ask the estate agent and see if they actually know why.

I have seen that a few times recently with my son buying , and offers well over the asking price - and then later they fall through ....

 

[blup]

The owner is flogging the original house and the plots at the same time. Those covenants would normally benefit the original house and apply to the new estate, maybe there are mirror covenants, we don’t know because the OP has gone away. If you block someone’s access road it can’t be addressed by compensation so all the covenants should be taken as enforceable. My guess is the sellers solicitors have drafted the documents and he is unwilling to pay for them to be reviewed or changed.

Blup

 

[JohnD]

my house has a covenant that the the windowframes must not be painted a different colour

it doesn't say what the colour should be

 

[^woody^]

in this case the "retained" land.

What is the retained land then? How can an owner of the retained land be the owner benefiting if he has sold it?

When a landowner sells the land, the covenants remain with the land and relate to those who benefit from them if that is what the covenants intend, and they do not have to be landowners, just beneficiaries.

 

[blup]

The original owner has a direct contract with the first buyers.

Blup

 

[biryani_boy]

Mortgage companies don’t like restrictive covenants, that’s the likely reason the purchase fell through, not the restriction itself

not true at all, a huge chunk of properties have one or more restrictive covenants and they sell just fine, mortgage lenders couldn't care less.