restrictive covenants-can I get them lifted?

[jess marley]

Hi there lovelies, now..When we bought this house, we were correctly advised by our conveyancer that it was Not A Good Idea. A B!**%^s Muddle, in fact. And hey, he was right.
It has a couple of restrictive covenants on it, which prohibit us changing the paint colour, and building anything onto it. These are imposed on us by the property opposite, now a business, but at the time of origination, a private dwelling.
Subsequently to moving in, we have found that the road noise at the front of house makes it, at peak times at least, unpleasant to be in the two drawing rooms.........sooooo, I would like to extend the house at back(subject to necessary consents etc) to provide us with safe pedestrian access,and somewhere quiet at peak times.Seems to me, as the business opposite has just applied for planning to increase it's footprint by 150%, now might be a good time to ask that this particular restriction be lifted.. what do you think?
Thanks. J.

 

[Penners]

Jess - I reckon you need advice from a solicitor. You need to show him full details of the restrictive covenant, and ask his advice on how best to approach the matter of getting it lifted.

Good luck!

 

[jess marley]

Thanks for replying, was beginning to feel lonesome.

Yes, deffo a job for legal eagles, ...I'm sure I can hear them rubbing their hands in glee already.

 

[Penners]

How long ago did you buy? Would your solicitor still hold the deeds. etc? If so, you might manage to get quite a quick answer from him (quick? solicitors???!)

 

[Moo]

This may not be relevant, but -

How long ago were the covenants imposed on the house?

 

[jess marley]

We only bought about 4 months ago, and I can see the deeds, right now, in fact. We are unequivocably NOT allowed to change the elevations of the house, or indeed, even paint it a different colour, without written permission from neighbours. These covenants were presumably put in place to stop the house being ruined, although since their application, it has been listed and put in a conservation area.
The paint issue is becoming a bit of a problem, as several layers of masonary paint are not a good idea over the (potentially) lovely slate hung exterior, and I'd like to strip it all off. The building at the back issue is something I'd like to do, but not essential maintenance, other than to it's value, ...

I guess I just wanted everyone to immediately leap up and say, 'no problem! We flout our covenants on a daily basis,' (oo er).

 

[biffvernon]

What happens if you break the covenant?

 

[jess marley]

Well, this is the thing, the people we bought the house off, had successfully obtained planning permission for a (horrid) four bedroom 'executive' thing in the back garden, in all but action directly contravening the 'don't build on the back garden' covenant. Now whilst I don't want to do that, I would like to extend the house, pref' in cob like the rest of it........I suppose they could sue me, but they'd have a job proving it created a nuisance, especially if I built in cob, progress might be so slow they never even noticed that we'd started...

 

[jess marley]

I should add that the property imposing the covenants is no longer in the hands of the original covenant imposer (!), but has passed through two subsequent owners...both care homes, owned by large chains. So whilst here I am, panicking about all this, the current owners may not even know about these covenants, and may care even less.

Q: collective noun for care -homes? How about 'a frailty'.

 

[Penners]

I guess I just wanted everyone to immediately leap up and say, 'no problem! We flout our covenants on a daily basis,'

Jess, I think you could be causing problems for yourself if you do flout the covenant. Even if your neighbours don't do anything about your extension, when you come to sell the house the purchaser's solicitor would probably spot the problem.

 

[jess marley]

You're probably right, me ol' mucker.

 

[geoff]

If the other property is owned by a company, expect their solicitors to be expensive sharks (sorry, even more expensive sharks than usual....) who will demand a fortune (probably many, many thousands) to allow any development or to alter covenants - they have you over the proverbial barrel and will exploit it to the hilt, along the way finding lots of things to charge you fees for doing. This they will call "looking after their clients' interests". If they do take that attitude, and you find they have done anything at all to their own building you could of course report them and make a fuss. Probably won't get you anywhere, but the company would at least have to pay out money as well. Unfortunately, one party in all this doesn't suffer at all, and in fact profits greatly - guess who?

 

[jess marley]

Ah yes, you see, this is something else I was wondering, is it likely that on their deeds, there are restrictive covenants going the other way? That is to say, in our interests, preventing them from changing anything about their property? There were no deeds posted on the land reg' site, but they must exist somewhere...
As I say, they have just re-applied for a truely massive extension at the back, which I have some concerns about-hence wondering if it would be a good time to have a little chat about restrictive covenants with them.

 

[Lime]

Just a suggestion.

If you believe the business opposite doesn't know anything about these covenants why don't you write them a letter about the problem of noise?
Say to them you find it very hard to cope with it all at times and would like to build a small out-of-sight extension to the rear of your property to escape to.
Ask them if they would have any objections to it.

If they know nothing about the covenants they may well give you their ok in writing.

p.s. don't mention the covenants!

 

[jess marley]

I'm liking this very much, lime. Seems about as up-front as I want to get at the mo. Thanks.

 

[biffvernon]

Of course all the best conspiracies are hatched on public access Internet forums. Let's just hope the boss of the firm across the road doesn't live in a Period Property.

 

[jess marley]

Don't worry, Biff, only the most charitable of souls is ever likely to read one of my threads, thhat probably rules out interested parties in this case.

 

[Nemesis]

I read 'em - it's just I don't have time to reply!

I have RSI too. Humph.

 

[jess marley]

Ah ha, have just found out that if said covenants were imposed after 1925, but before the property was registered AND if the necessary registration under the Land Charges Act was not made, then they are unenforceable.
This may explain why the previous owners got planning for their 4-bed detached in the garden....sorry, this is all now very dull. Going to get wine and see if that makes googling Land Registration Act anymore interesting.

 

[Nemesis]

Planning permission has nothing at all to do with covenants though... that's a civil law matter.