Covenants / Charges on a title??

Anyone on here got any knowledge on these matters???

We have a property that has been under family ownership for about 60 years ... I have just become aware of the covenant on the title that is 100 years old, or more ...

The entity that "owns" the covenant still exists.

This is a shop with two flats above ... but the charge limits the use of the land to "Not to erect more than one house or house and shop on the piece of land hereby conveyed." ...

Anyone got any experience with these matters? Do covenants expire at all or lose their rights if not enforced / collected on over the years?

Any guidance would be most welcome before I go knocking on the solicitors door ...



THE FIRST SCHEDULE above referred to

1. Not to erect more than one house or house and shop on the piece of land hereby conveyed.

2. To erect and hereafter maintain proper boundary walls or fences on the sides of the said piece of land as shown on the plan hereon and thereon marked T."

NOTE 1:-The two Conveyances referred to are the Conveyances dated 10 May 1900 and 28 December 1922 referred to above.

We had one on a previous house - unbeknown to us, the property had previously been owned by the local church, when it was sold on they had a covenant included to prevent association with the church moving forward. Our solicitor was of the view that it was very limited in its scope - she was correct and it did not cause us any issues when we purchased and subsequently sold.

Unless somebody wants to demolish the existing stuff with a view to develop then it's dependant on how concerned you are?.

It's only come to light as we are considering selling it to the neighbour.

My initial response is I don't see a problem as a house is still a house even if it's split into two flats ...

Just googled this up ...

December 2015

The Court of Appeal has recently handed down judgment in the case of Jewelcraft Limited v Pressland and decided that a flat above a shop was a house within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (the Act).

Section 2(1) of the Act defines a house as including any building designed or adapted for living in and reasonably so called, notwithstanding that the building is not structurally detached, or was or is not solely designed or adapted for living in, or is divided horizontally into flats or maisonettes; and

- where a building is divided horizontally, the flats or other units into which it is so divided are not separate “houses”, though the building as a whole may be; and
- where a building is divided vertically the building as a whole is not a “house” though any of the units into which it is divided may be.

https://www.lease-advice.org/article...ettes%3B%20and

Clearly the covenant was placed on the land when it was sold as a building plot to limit the builder to a single "house" ...

Do these things expire??

Just offer to pay for an indemnity insurance policy. A one off modest premium and everyone happy


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

On a house that had development potential. There was a restriction stating that only 1 dwelling was to be constructed on said parcel of land. Any further development then the increase in value of the new development would be passed to the original company minus the construction costs. Fortunately the company wasn’t registered at the time and the restriction was unenforceable.

I would seek legal advice as this should only cost a couple hundred pounds, therefore you also have the protection/comfort should the advice not be correct.

B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dandanthewatchman

Just offer to pay for an indemnity insurance policy. A one off modest premium and everyone happy

---

Aye, usually the standard outcome in these cases ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bomberman

On a house that had development potential. There was a restriction stating that only 1 dwelling was to be constructed on said parcel of land. Any further development then the increase in value of the new development would be passed to the original company minus the construction costs. Fortunately the company wasn’t registered at the time and the restriction was unenforceable.

I would seek legal advice as this should only cost a couple hundred pounds, therefore you also have the protection/comfort should the advice not be correct.

B

---

I think the buyer may have an eye on development ... if I accept his offer then this will need to be cleared up by the solicitors.

How long has the property been a shop with 2 flats above ? If a restrictive covenant has been openly breached for in excess of 20 years then it is pretty much unenforceable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAM580

How long has the property been a shop with 2 flats above ? If a restrictive covenant has been openly breached for in excess of 20 years then it is pretty much unenforceable

---

It’s been in this configuration for over 50 years.