Jeremy Harris

Yes, from what I've learned so far you have to make sure that the beneficiary of the covenant doesn't get wind of any indemnity insurance until after the policy is in place, and ideally not even then. TBH, I doubt he'd be the slightest bit bothered, anyway. Condition one of the covenant stipulates that there can only be a "single storey dwelling" on the plot, so condition two is really superfluous, I think, as all it does is place the additional restriction that the dwelling must be "private". I think it would be hard to prove that the dwelling not being private, but owned by a charitable trust, would be detrimental to the beneficiary, anyway, and that's what he'd have to do, as I understand it.

I suspect he was suckered, @Ferdinand, by playing with people that were out of his league. The head of the planning committee confirmed to the Parish Council a couple of months ago that enough work had been done to "lock in" the PP forever, and separately I know about the 15% of sale price contract with the developer that has walked away. My suspicion is that the developer is playing a long game here. They know they have very little chance of making the development pay if they go ahead at the moment, as they are involved in developing some cheaper land in the village. By not tying up capital in the plot next door, they can retain it as a land bank, knowing that it's very unlikely to sell to any developer whilst there are other developments proceeding locally. They need the market price to increase, so that means waiting a while until the sites identified in the Neighbourhood Plan have been completed. Once they are, demand will once again outstrip supply and prices will start to rise again. There is a steady, strong, demand here - witness what happened when we put our house on the market. I believe that if the original developer was to offer to buy that land again, in, say, three or four years time, then there is a very good chance that they would get it for less money than they had originally agreed to pay. I know that there is zero interest from other developers in buying that land, something that several people who were involved with the Neighbourhood Plan, and know a bit about local politics and the way developers work around here, believe to be linked. One ex-Parish Councillor drew up a time line showing how four developers had synchronised their activities on 12 local developments in such a way that they weren't competing with each other. The interesting thing is that this synchronisation started long before PP had been granted to any site, it went right back to the dates when agents approached land owners, then continued through the planning process and is still clear from the pattern of new house releases to the market. The latter I can fully understand as good business practice, but the synchronicity of the earlier time lines strongly suggests that they each knew of the plans of the others ahead of time. This is way off the topic of the sale of our house, but to bring it back, I realised that I've been in breach of the second condition in our restrictive covenant since around 2003. I used to work (a second job) as a light aircraft kit designer, working from my home office in this private dwelling, then ran my own (unsuccessful...) microlight aircraft import business from here, including using my garage as an assembly and test workshop, then for the last few years (since retirement) I've been doing consultancy work from home. I have evidence of all these business activities going back to 2003, so I believe that, by being in breach of the covenant (unwittingly) and being able to prove it, I may well be able to get an indemnity policy. I'm going to ring a few insurers today to find out. It's much quicker to just pay for an indemnity policy than faff around getting the covenant released, I think.

The law doesn't allow any LA to define a period in which a house must be built. If it did, then perhaps the problem would be relieved, but there would then be a significant impact on self-builders, some of whom may take many years to complete their home.

I agree in principle, but it's the way they game the planning system that gets me. The local authority has a target to ensure there are a given number of houses built to cover the housing needs for 5 years. They grant PP on this basis - if they are below the target that will be built they grant PP on greenfield sites, if they are at the target they stop granting PP. The developers know this, so get PP, start a development, do enough to lock in the PP, then stop the development. This means the local authority now won't meet their 5 year target, so they have to grant more PP to the developers on new sites, who then repeat the cycle. Sure they are a business, and need to make a profit, but housing is also a major social issue, and one that the government and local authorities are constantly trying to address by increasing the supply. When developers are deliberately throttling back the supply to push up prices and allow more PP to be granted then they are not acting in the interest of society as a whole. In fact they are helping to create the very problem that government and local authorities are trying to resolve.

One thing to add - if you're thinking of knocking up a Pi-Hole, there's no need to splash out on a full blown Raspberry Pi 3. I've been looking at the processor load on my Pi Zero running Pi-Hole and it is running at around 1%. The relatively slow Ethernet speed of the USB to Ethernet adapter isn't a problem, either, as the DNS requests are only a very tiny bit of the traffic, so 99%+ of the data isn't going near the Pi-Hole at all.

That does look interesting. At the moment I'm running the Pi-Hole through Open DNS, so it's letting legitimate requests out to Open DNS and just blocking all requests from the LAN side to resolve any URL on the block lists it's using. The effect is interesting on web pages with lots of ads, as you just have loads of blank spaces where the ads should be, and no annoying banners about using an ad blocker. I can see how this speeds things up, as only legitimate URLs get passed out to Open DNS for resolution, which cuts down the traffic be a fair bit on a typical ad-infested page. Be interesting to see how the advertisers come back at this - they've already started having a go at ad blockers, presumably by being able to detect that an ad blocker is running on your browser. Hard to see how they could easily detect that the Pi-Hole was causing their ads to not show.

Suckered, is, I think, the word you're looking for. I have a feeling he may well have started spending some of the money he was expecting from the sale before they had exchanged contracts, too. One thing I learned from this is that developers are absolute bastards, of the first order. They always seem to play the long game, to maximise their gain. We had a conversation with one young couple who came to view our house who had made the same observation. They had been going around the local new developments and had quickly worked out that the developers were very deliberately throttling the supply of houses by stopping work after they finished a handful, then letting demand (and price) build up before they built a few more.

Russell, I'd keep the pressure as high as you can - lowering it increases the risk of contamination into the water supply. The last thing you need is to be held responsible for a change to her water supply that causes her harm. I'm assuming here that you have no rights over that pipe or her stopcock at all. @Temp may know the law on this, but I was fairly sure that communications pipes crossing land owned by others were the responsibility of the water company. Not sure the location of the meter is relevant in this case.

It's a long story, but it's not turned out to be a windfall for him at all. In essence, a developer approached him about 5 years ago and asked if he was interested in selling his paddock. He said yes, and they agreed to purchase, subject to gaining PP. The developer got PP, after a long battle, but there were some shenanigans. One bit I heard with my own ears, after the planning meeting when I was standing outside talking to a local journalist was the agent for the developer say to the developers rep "I thought we'd have to give him a bigger bung than that". The journalist turned to me and said "Did he just say what I thought he said?" and I said "Yes, I think we can expect to see Councillor X driving a new Range Rover soon" (which we did!). Said Councillor has come very close to being caught out, but no one has been able to get any evidence. The young journalist was getting fed up with her editor not letting her run stories about him, because everything she picked up was hearsay, like the conversation about the "bung". The developers started work on the land, before buying it, and did just enough to lock the PP in (they cleared some trees and put in a water main and foul drain, that's all). They then just let it sit for around four years. Last year they told my neighbour that they weren't going to buy the land after all, but have given him a condition that as they own the locked in PP, if he does sell the land then they are entitled to 15% of the sale price. Needless to say, my neighbour is not a happy bunny about this at all. He's been trying to sell the land, but no one is interested, as the cost to develop what is a pretty difficult sloping site is too high. Currently he's sat with what amounts to a liability in his back garden. I believe he wanted to sell the house as soon as the developer had completed the purchase of the paddock, but he's now decided to stay put and wait to see what happens. It's unlikely that any developer will be interested now, as in the intervening years the village put together a Neighbourhood Plan, which identified several areas for development (none of which include his paddock). Needless to say developers are already starting to work on some of the areas identified in the Neighbourhood Plan, as they are all cheaper to build on, and they are now close to having started on all the houses that the village needs for the next few years. He's a nice enough chap, but I doubt he feels any real benevolence towards me. The flip side is that I supported his planning application to build a granny annexe a year or so ago, so at least he has no reason to not listen to any proposal. Before we get to that stage, though, I need confirmation that it is that word "private" in condition 2 that is the problem for the trust. I'm near-certain it is, and also near certain that if it ever went as far as going to the Land Tribunal they would almost certainly throw the condition out as it's worded, as they would judge it under common law and may well view it as being overly restrictive, because it may well stop a buy to let landlord, housing association, even the local authority, from purchasing the house, I believe, as well as a charitable trust.

FWIW, I've already been here before, when buying our plot. We ended up having to get three sets of deeds changed to correct errors and remove a covenant that had been included by error - just a cock-up on the previous conveyance when the land was split into two plots. I found then that as all parties agreed it was pretty straightforward - we got the vendor to pick up the tab for the legal costs, but they weren't massive. To illustrate the situation a bit better, here's an annotated Google earth shot with our boundary (red) and the boundary of our neighbour who is now the beneficiary of the covenant (blue): The neighbour has planning permission to build 24 houses on the land to the lower left corner (his paddock extends up the hill in that corner for a fair way). It's pretty obvious that another house would not fit on our plot, and it wouldn't make economic sense to convert it to two storeys (been there, done the costing, doesn't come close to the added value covering the cost, because the plot is so small).

That's my feeling too, and it's the "single private dwelling" legal interpretation that is the concern. I also think it's the easiest covenant condition to try and get changed, as I can't see how altering the wording to allow, for example, renting it out to two or three people, would be of any concern to my neighbour, especially given how far away he is from the house and the fact that I can't see that there would be any inconvenience to him if there were two or three unrelated people living in the house. The only sticking point, if this is the issue, may be agreeing the form of words for the new covenant. Could be as simple as just changing the wording to read: "Not use the property for any purpose other than as a single dwelling house", perhaps, if the word "private" is what's causing the problem. There isn't room to build a second house on the plot, anyway, so this particular covenant condition is pretty pointless in practice.

If the beneficiary agrees to the changes then it's pretty easy, just a deed of release for the old covenant and an equivalent variation to add a new covenant, both done via the Land Registry and both can be finalised after completion, as long as there is a legal agreement in place between the beneficiary, ourselves and the purchasers to make the covenant changes. Probably a couple of hundred pounds or so, all told, so well worth doing if we can. Changing to another buyer now will set us back more than this in sunk legal costs, I'm sure, plus we may well have to accept a lower offer price for the house, so all told it seems worth trying to salvage this deal if I can. Starting again with another buyer will also add at least two or three weeks to the process, depending on who the buyer is and how quickly their solicitor/conveyancer can get their act together.

We may be back in with a chance. The trustees are meeting this evening and will come back to me tomorrow with whether or not they will accept my offer to try and renegotiate the conditions of the restrictive covenant and clarify the amendments they would need to be agreed. Fingers crossed that any amendments are both reasonable and acceptable to our neighbour, if we get that far. Worth trying to salvage this deal, as we've already spent a fair bit of money in fees - we were right at the point of exchanging contracts when this came up.

First off, I don't yet have enough information as to whether it is just the second condition, all three, or one of the other conditions. Secondly, if it is the "Not use the property for any purpose other than as a single private dwelling house" condition that is causing the problem, then there looks to be plenty of scope to amend that. For example, the wording "single private dwelling house" seems pretty restrictive, and could be interpreted as not allowing the house to be owned by a trust and rented, perhaps (this is what I believe they wish to do). I very much doubt that our neighbour would object to a reasonable re-phrasing of this, especially as he has a plot of land he owns, behind his house, that has planning permission for half a dozen affordable homes, with an agreement that they may be part rented, part owned. He's a supporter of providing affordable homes in the village, now, so may well be amenable to an amendment to this condition. Finally, removing that condition wouldn't change anything as far as what someone could do with the house. There isn't a hope in hell of anyone getting planning permission for change of use from residential, for two main reasons. The neighbourhood plan takes precedence over local planning policy, and specifically makes the points that no existing dwelling shall be converted for commercial use, and that there is a pressing need for 33 affordable homes in the village. Our house is also right on the boundary of the Conservation Area and adjacent to two listed buildings, both of which would impact on any possible change of use from residential. I'm convinced that the trust wants to keep the house as a residential dwelling, but possibly not just for one person/family. I don't have a problem with paying to get the covenant changed, that would be less than we've already shelled out on wasted fees etc.

Hard to be sure. Do you have mains gas? If so, it looks suspiciously like an old capped off gas pipe to me.

Welcome Ed, Really glad you've joined us, especially as I keep referring people here to your great blog entries on the comparison between PV and ST!

Just been going back through the negotiations and it looks very much as if the trust intended to purchase the house as a dwelling. This is the wording at the end of their off: That makes me think that it's either covenant clause 1 or 3 that may be the problem, or possibly that they want to use the house as an HMO, which may well infringe covenant clause 2. Either way it looks worth trying to see if I can work something out with our neighbour, rather than just let the deal fall through and pick up one of the other potential buyers, especially as any potential buyer is going to want to know why the initial purchase fell through.

It can't hurt to ask, as we are well away from their house, plus there's a 12ft high hedge along our boundary with them, so they can't see our place at all from where they are. They never use the bit of land that's between the boundary and their driveway; it's like a small paddock, with a few trees growing on it.

Very good point, and one I'd forgotten about. The law changed a few years ago and all communications pipes like this ceased to be private property and became the property of the water company.

I agree that this seems to be a very common covenant; I'm pretty sure I've seen it on some of the other houses we've bought over the years. As you say, it rarely causes a problem for most buyers. It's such a common covenant that I would have thought that the purchaser would have guessed it might be there, or at least thought to ask during one of their visits before they made their formal offer. I had all the house documents out on the dining room table for them to look at, including the Land Registry info, but they weren't interested in looking at it. That, and something our agent said on the phone about them often buying up properties, collectively as a trust, doing them up and then selling or renting them to other brethren, makes me think that either the first or last covenant might be the issue. Hopefully I may find out later today, as I've raised the point about me asking the neighbour about lifting the covenants that are preventing them purchasing.

I suspect it may well be the "use only as a single dwelling house" covenant that is the problem - not sure what the neighbour would think about lifting it, but it has to be worth asking. There's no room on the plot for another outbuilding at all; the plot's already pretty small, so I doubt that's the problem. As @newhome says, I doubt you can insure against something you know you're going to do. I need to find out which of the three covenants is the show stopper for them, and then talk to the neighbour.

Just got hold of the three restrictive covenants, all of which relate to the sale of the land in 1981, just before our house was built. They don't seem too onerous to me, and there's a good chance that our neighbour might agree to lift at least two of them (he'd probably not want to lift the dormer window one). These are the only covenants that have been found (not sure why we didn't already have a copy of these): The owner of the property from time to time shall not: 1. Erect on the land any building other than one single storey dwelling house and single storey outbuildings appurtenant thereto 2. Use the property for any purpose other than as a single private dwelling house 3. Not construct in the roof of the property any dormer window which faces to the north west.

So very true. Our last house had some wall lights fitted directly above a double outlet. We wanted to change them and I was a bit shocked (literally - I got belt) when I tried to unscrew the old ones. One screw had gone through the cable from the outlet and just nicked the line. Goodness knows how long that screw had been live. The house was built around 1960, and so didn't have an RCD. Mind you, when I came to fit another new wall light in the same room I drilled right through another cable - that one was running at an angle down the wall...

There are no covenants listed in any of the documents we got back from the bank, including the Land Registry Title - that has no mention of any covenants. We don't have a copy of the original deed of sale from c.1980, presumably that got lost when the land was registered on transfer of ownership. We know of three owners previous to us buying the house in 2000, so my guess is that the original deeds got thrown out a fair time ago, when the land was registered for the first time, probably. Checking the Land Registry info it seems that covenants are not always included in the title, but may well be held separately by them. To find this out I have to complete a deeds request and cough up £7 for each document they find - it seems that the only title download may well not show some of the info. Right now I'm trying to get hold of the docs via our conveyancer, plus I've asked the agent if he can try and get a copy from the purchaser, just in case they've found out something different. I've asked and am awaiting a response - past experience tells me that they are not quick to respond... My plan is to look at the covenants when I get them, try and guess which restrictions may be causing the religious trust problems (they are pretty secretive about what they will reveal to non-brethren, it seems) and then see if I can get those covenants lifted by talking to my neighbour. Knowing the neighbour, and the fact that our house is around 60m away from theirs, I doubt they would have problems with lifting any really daft restrictions. Their house is dead opposite the parish church (as in 20m away from it), and I believe the family that built the old manor farm house may also have built the church. If so, then there may well be a possibility that there is some sort of restrictive covenant regarding places of worship, perhaps, and that may be why the trust has pulled out (I believe that they hold prayer meetings informally, and perhaps in each other's houses).

We're good friends with the successors in title to any covenants on our place, as they are our neighbours. The house next door is the old manor farm that dates back a couple of hundred years or so, and back in 1980 they sold off the land our house has been built on. I'm pretty sure that it's only the owners of that house that can have inherited any rights, as I know a fair bit of the history of the village, from the time when I was helping with the neighbourhood plan. One option, once I know what the covenants are, may be to see if the successors in title would be prepared to remove or amend the restrictions. That may well be possible, as the neighbour owes me a big favour - relating to support for a planning application he put in recently.