If you breach a covenant you can be made to undo it or pay a fee for it, says Rudolf. This means that in principle the development can now go ahead. But on 28 June this year the court of appeal overturned that decision, saying that the judge was wrong and that there was insufficient evidence to back up the couple’s case. That represented a victory for the owners of the neighbouring property, Andrew and Michelle Hunter, who had argued they were entitled to enforce the covenants. But last year a high court judge ruled that a restrictive covenant set out in the deeds in 1909-10 was still enforceable, which meant no further building was allowed on the land. In 2012 a company called Birdlip Limited was given planning permission to build two detached homes on land it owns in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire. Very old ones can still be enforceable, though often this isn’t straightforward. The age of a covenant doesn’t necessarily affect its validity. If a resident has been hanging out washing on a Sunday for the past 20 years without complaint, then a covenant prohibiting this would be unenforceable, Rudolf says. Generally speaking, whether the covenant is enforceable will depend on how long ago the breach occurred, if it was intended to benefit a particular individual and whether the breach can be deemed a loss or nuisance. Also, sometimes the wording of the covenant will be vague – for example, you might be able to argue that your chickens are pets. Contributors to web forums have suggested that, realistically, it is your immediate neighbours who would be most likely to report you for breaching such a covenant, so try to keep them on side – by, for example, talking to them about your plans, allaying any concerns they may have about noise/smells/rats, and giving them some eggs from time to time. For example, some may take the view that even if they are technically banned from keeping “fowl” or “livestock,” they are unlikely to face legal action for having a couple of chickens at the bottom of the garden. Some people are prepared to take their chances and plead ignorance if caught. I won’t be buying a new house again,” he says. I never knew these things existed and how heavy-handed they can be. “I’m a first-time buyer and I own the freehold. In this letter the solicitor quoted another clause that prohibited “any act or thing in or upon the property which may be or grow to be a damage, nuisance or annoyance to the management company or to the neighbourhood”.Īfraid that he would end up in court, Baker removed the front camera as well. He removed the rear camera and then, three weeks later, received a letter from a solicitor, acting on behalf of the management company, asking him to remove all the cameras. Baker received a letter from the management company of the development, asking him to remove the camera at the back of the house because it breached a covenant stating that he was “not to add to or alter any building on the property in any way so as to affect substantially the external appearance without prior written consent”. He had bought the cameras for £100 to monitor his van parked at the back of the house and visitors to his front door, but did not seek permission from the developer. In May this year, security engineer Chris Baker* was told to remove CCTV cameras from his house on a new estate in Sevenoaks, Kent, because they breached two restrictive covenants. Buyers were told about the rules before they signed contracts. It also said residents could not park caravans or trailers on their driveways. In 2015 a development in Yorkshire made the headlines because a covenant in buyers’ contracts said that they could not hang washing where it could be seen outside the property. Housing developers and property management companies are often keen to enforce covenants on their estates or blocks of flats to maintain an attractive environment while properties are being sold. However, this can take several years and can be costly. If you have a covenant on your property that you believe has become obsolete you can make an application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) – formerly the Lands Tribunal – seeking an order to “discharge” or “modify” the restriction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |