After being messed about for 7 months I'm trying to buy a different house. This has come up on the deed as a restrictive covenant. My solicitor isn't confirming or denying anything yet, but the understanding seems to be that I can't build a shed/workshop (there's 2 on the plot already), and possibly not extend the house (others in the row have extended). Anyone care to offer a non-binding professional legal interpretation before I pay for the solicitor to leverage their liability insurance and give me an official opinion!
apart from the dwellinghouse and/or garage recently erected upon
the said property no tenement building or erection of any kind shall be
erected at any time hereafter on the land hereby conveyed and no hut
shed caravan house on wheels or other chattel adapted or intended for
use as a dwelling or for sleeping purpose shall be placed or used or
permitted to be erected on the said land
When or who placed the covenant on the property? Any chance that neighbours have the same covenant? My experience is that most are simply ignored - the ones on ours relate to the original developer not wanting the houses they'd sold & occupied having caravans or work vans parked on their nice newly (& badly) built close before they managed to sell the rest of the houses...
use as a dwelling or for sleeping purpose
Isn't that the critical bit of text? You can have a shed/workshop/summerhouse but you can't sleep in it. I think (and IANACS) that the key difference is whether it has a flushing toilet in it or some daft technicality like that. It's there essentially to stop people building a granny flat in the garden.
Also, I see no mention of extensions in there?
We had work vans, caravans and external aerials etc. on the covenants. Most have been ignored, including our builder neighbour, who even has two sheds in-front of his property on his drive, as well as his work van - but people need to have a living. Currently two work vans out of 12 houses.
My solicitor isn't confirming or denying anything
No surprise there then. No other profession is so reluctant to actually provide some of their expertise.
use as a dwelling or for sleeping purpose
Isn't that the critical bit of text? You can have a shed/workshop/summerhouse but you can't sleep in it.
That's the way I read it too
Crucially there is an "and" before that bit. Before the and you have "no tenement building or erection of any kind shall be
erected at any time hereafter on the land hereby conveyed". It's pretty restrictive but whether anyone would chase it up is doubtful.
What you could do is get the CS to apply for the covenant to be removed on the grounds it is pretty unreasonable. I got one lifted recently.
I would read that that as any kind of building intended to be used as a house or for overnight stays. I think an extension on the house would be OK. I think a shed/work-shop/garage would be OK.
But I'm not a solicitor, so that probs. wrong.
The clause seems to make a distinction between an erection (behave!) and a hut or shed. The limitation for huts and sheds seems to relate only to their use for sleeping. Professionals will tell you what "tenement building or erection" actually means - but to my understanding, a tenement is a separate dwelling with its own front door, facilities etc but sharing one or more walls with the existing dwelling. Extending the existing dwelling for use as one integrated home would not be a tenement. Its less clear whether an extension falls within "erection" but then so would a conservatory and it seems even less likely that was the intent.
Also, I see no mention of extensions in there?
or erection of any kind
IANAL -
The beneficiary of the covenant is a defunct company that sold the land, AND (the current owners of) whatever the adjacent land the company owned at the time was.
There's other restrictions on running a business, not keeping goats (would make cutting the lawn easier) and mining, but apart from the goat's that's all fine.
I would be checking the legal definition of tenement in conveyancing, and that might differ depending if you are in Scotland or in England and Wales but assume it means any substantial building for now, it's the erection of any kind which seems a very broad restrictive definition to use and looks to captures basically anything you might ever build.
otherwise i would interpret the covenant as follows
apart from the dwellinghouse (the house) and/or garage (the garage) recently erected upon
the said property no tenement building or erection of any kind (anything) shall be
erected at any time hereafter on the land hereby conveyed and no hut
shed caravan house on wheels or other chattel adapted or intended for
use as a dwelling or for sleeping purpose (basically as said anything you might intend to sleep in) shall be placed or used or
permitted to be erected on the said land
However restrictive covenants do require someone with a desire to enforce them to make them meaningful. Look at when and who attached the covenant to the title and then assess by who would would be likely to ever try to enforce them.
Most people continue perfectly well with ignoring restrictive covenants because they require someone with the desire to expend money and effort on legal action to try to enforce them. A neighbour with knowledge of you covenant might take umbrage if your caravan on your drive blocks their view but probably won't want to spend the cash to take it up legally.
If you or your conveyancer is still concerned there should be an indemnity policy available from a a title insurance provider fairly cheaply to cover the cost of any potential legal enforcement of the covenant and to ensure that no one else worries about buying the property.
Gemini and a friend who deals in property both reckon the "errection of any kind" mean no extension. So need to get insurance, which seems to involve attempting to find the current owners of the adjoining land first. Doing a bit of digging in the planning archives and it looks like the developer (now defunct) knocked down a bungalow and built 4 houses on the plot, so the adjoining land is likely to only be the other 3 houses on 1 side rather than the other neighbor or the large estate to the rear. Now just need to solicitors to agree 😥
A Conveyance of the land in this title dated 2 February 1973 made
between (1) Tearland Limited (Vendor) and (2) .... (Purchaser) contains the following
covenants:- "THE Purchaser to the intent that the covenant in this clause contained
may so far as possible bind all persons who are or shall hereafter
become entitled to any estate or interest in the property hereinbefore
conveyed or any part thereof but not so as to bind the Purchaser or any
such person after he or they shall have disposed of all his interest or
their estate or interest therein hereby covenants with the Vendor to
the intent that this covenant shall be for the benefit of the adjoining
land or property nor or formerly belonging to the Vendor that the
Purchaser and all persons intended to be bound as aforesaid will duly
observe and perform the covenants and stipulations set out in the First
Schedule hereto
THE FIRST SCHEDULE before referred to:-
Little update - seems it all hinges on the date the adjacent property was sold by the developer back in the 70's. Apparently although the covenant attempts to have all 4 plots mutually benefit, a restrictive covenant can only be enforced by successors in title to the original covantee. So if next door was sold off by the builder first, then it can't enforce the covenant.
Unfortunately the deed is unregistered so I don't have the date. I have the name of the solicitor doing the sale of next door, but don't expect them to give up a copy of the deed without a fight.
Any other good ways of finding out that don't involve simply waiting for the next door property to complete and the land registry to update their records?