Permission from the developer?

[Mstevo21]

Hi,

 

we are looking to have an extension on our property and have read the deeds or check if we need permission form the developer. We are unsure of the wording in the deeds and what it means. Do we need permission or are we ok?

 

the deeds refer to the ‘transferror’ in part B of the Attached photo. Not clear at all.

 

the house was built in 2006 and has had 1 owner before us.

 

thanks

 

 

[Marvin]

Yes you obtain permission, to have an extension built, from the developer, and have to pay for the privilege, but only reasonable costs, what ever they are.

 

And of course you would need the usual planning permission or permission under permitted development.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Marvin

[Marvin]

Reading further, I would suggest you think long and hard about any other changes listed as requiring permission before submitting a request for permission, to save costs.

Friend of mine had to obtain permission to lay a patio!

[PeterW]

Unlikely to be enforceable. There is usually a period for which it refers - 5 years after the end of the last property in the development being built is the norm. It’s there so you don’t spoil the street scene etc whilst they are trying to build more houses and sell them. 
 

 

[Ronan 1]

7 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Unlikely to be enforceable. There is usually a period for which it refers - 5 years after the end of the last property in the development being built is the norm. It’s there so you don’t spoil the street scene etc whilst they are trying to build more houses and sell them. 
 

 

+1 if this is a fully handed over estate, likelihood is the developer has had everything "taken in charge" and has no tie to it any longer and has probably closed the company they set up to build that specific estate.

[Mstevo21]

Thanks for the replies,

 

to find out for sure am I looking at a solicitor and their costs,

 

we have contacted the developer but no reply as of yet.

[nod]

Pretty standard stuff 

Once they have finished the development 

and the sale office have gone 

They won’t care 

 

 

 

[Olf]

Solicitor should not be required as nothing changes in the documents. I've had similar situation, housing association is entitled to enforce the covenants, wanted both planning and building permission and charged £300 for kindly not objecting.

A lot to do with neighbours: if nobody reports, you'll be fine, but if the cost of such consent is reasonable, it saves trouble at the next sale transaction.

[Ferdinand]

If anyone else has built extensions knock on the door and ask what happened to them.

 

Standard covenants can be rendered unenforcible by others being allowed to violate them.

 

15 years might be enough for that to have happened.

 

Do not necessarily believe people saying "Yes, you must give us money".

 

F

[Marvin]

I think caution is the word. I think that it depends on the developer.

 

My friend certainly had to obtain permission and the estate was over 20 years old.

 

Secondly when we came to sell the purchasers solicitor questioned us having bushes in the front garden and said we broke the covenant... and our home was built 30 years before. But the original developer was Woodrow.

 

However on another property the developer was no longer trading and the covenant was considered not enforceable.

 

Good luck.

 

M

[Makeitstop]

8 hours ago, nod said:

Pretty standard stuff 

Once they have finished the development 

and the sale office have gone 

They won’t care 

 

 

 

 

This, 100%

Edited August 9, 2021 by Makeitstop

[Pete Nice]

I stumbled across this forum while searching for advice on restrictive covenants. I'm in the process of building an extension - planning approved - party wall agreement in place and no objections. We do have a restrictive covenant in our deeds that require permission from the developers to build an extension. Our deeds date back to 1970 and the development company no longer exist - they went into liquidation a few years ago. A few of the residents here have been here since 1970 and have had extensions and have done restricted work without getting permission.

 

I'm in the process of getting indemnity insurance to be on the safe side but I wondered what everyone's thoughts are on this - is it a waste of money? Is the covenant still enforceable?

 

 

[joe90]

There was a restrictive covenant on a previous house but because of its age and neighbours ignoring it we did the same.

[Pete Nice]

@joe90 So do you think it's a waste of money getting indemnity insurance?

Edited August 25, 2021 by Pete Nice

[Mr Punter]

1 minute ago, Pete Nice said:

@joe90 So do you think it's a waste of money getting indemnity insurance?

 

The insurance is fairly cheap and you can pass it on to future owners.

[joe90]

Just now, Pete Nice said:

@joe90So do you think it's a waste of money getting indemnity insurance?

Depends, I am not risk averse, insurance has its place but I don’t insure everything. I think it’s down to your piece of mind, if you will worry about it, Insure it, if not don’t ?‍♂️. If the company no longer exists who is going to notice?

[Pete Nice]

Yeah the insurance is £200 so it's not really a huge amount. Think I'll still go head with it - thanks for your input.

[Temp]

As I recall covenants only bind future owners (eg you) if they are written to the benefit of nearby land rather than people. Yours appears to be written to benefit the transferor  (eg a person or company) not the land next door.

 

See...

 

https://www.harrison-drury.com/property-construction/challenging-and-enforcing-restrictive-covenants/

 

Sorry about large font. It's in the original. [mod comment: formatting fixed]

 

Quote

When is a restrictive covenant enforceable between successors in title?

For the covenant to be enforceable between the successors in title to the original parties the following rules for the passing of the benefit and the burden of the restrictive covenant must be complied with:

1.         The covenant benefits land owned by the person seeking to enforce it

The covenant must “touch and concern” or relate to the land owned by the person seeking to enforce the covenant. It must affect the land and not merely be of personal benefit to the original contracting party. A covenant is deemed to touch and concern land where all of the following apply:

• The covenant benefits only the owner for the time being of the land and if separated from the land ceases to be of benefit. 
• The covenant affects the nature; quality; mode of user; or value of the land
• The covenant is not expressed to be personal

The covenant must actually benefit or preserve the value of the land. The courts assume that a covenant is capable of benefiting particular land for which the covenant was imposed unless it can be proved otherwise.

2.         The person seeking to enforce the covenant owns the benefiting land

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by jack
Quote formatting fixed

[jack]

14 minutes ago, Pete Nice said:

@joe90 So do you think it's a waste of money getting indemnity insurance?

 

I wouldn't bother, especially if the company is no longer trading. Even if it were, it's arguably unenforceable. But as you say, it's only £200 for peace of mind. Only you can assess whether that's good value.

 

In our case, we have a covenant dating to the 1950s saying we need the original vendor's permission to do literally anything building-related to the property. We've since knocked down a small brown brick bungalow and replaced it with a modern two-storey house with three times the floorspace.

 

Our mortgage provider wanted us to get insurance, but we just ignored the request from the solicitor and the mortgage went through without it. I've since occasionally wondered whether the mortgage company wasn't the one pushing for it, and it was instead the solicitor carefully wording his comments to make it appear that way. 

[markc]

+1 on the above, I would say the £200 insurance is money thrown away.

50 year old agreement with a company that has since gone bust …. Nothing enforceable, everything regarding the company ceased when it went under.

[Pete Nice]

@markc So just an additional piece of info. A local solicitor we spoke to  showed us a letter a  neighbour received from a different company (not the original beneficiary) a few years ago about not getting permission to do some work. Could the original developer's assets have been picked up by another company when they liquidated?

[markc]

50 minutes ago, Pete Nice said:

@markc So just an additional piece of info. A local solicitor we spoke to  showed us a letter a  neighbour received from a different company (not the original beneficiary) a few years ago about not getting permission to do some work. Could the original developer's assets have been picked up by another company when they liquidated?

Hi, another company or person could have purchased any assets but unless they took on the company in its entirety, debts, liabilities etc. Then I cannot see how any agreement made during a sale could be transferred especially as there is no monetary value and if any other purchaser on the estate were to have an objection, would the company or new owner still honour their agreement? Definitely not.

[LSB]

just a thought, is your house leasehold or freehold.

Some developers are building houses and selling them leasehold and consequently having a lot more control.