Re: Covenants --- Does anyone take any notice!



JNugent wrote:

steve robinson wrote:

JNugent wrote:
steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:
steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:
steve robinson wrote:
PeteM wrote:
steve robinson <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted

they seem to forget that many tradesmen take thier
vans home or have thier own vans to carry tools
around ,

No, I don't think they forgot it. They made the
covenant precisely because they remembered it.

these need to be parked close to
your home for security of contenst

What you mean is that the driver wants to park them
close to his home. But what some people want, is not
always compatible with what other people want. That's
why we have laws and property rights.

well what do you prefer a tradesmen claterring and
banging in the early hours having fetched the van from
a compound or driving away at 8am without causing to
much disturbance At the end of the day the road is a
public one as such any covenant has no bearing on it

That last bit is simply not true (depending on the
wording of the covenant).
What seems to be missed here is what a covenant actually
is - it's an agreement. The house-owner agrees not to do
things prohibited by the agreement. He is under no
compulsion to enter into the agreement - he is free to
look elsewhere for a house with no covenant restrictions.

The person setting up the covenant has no power to enforce
or apply the covenant accross land that they have no
control , if its a public road then the covenant will cover
only the land adjoining it that they are selling not the
roadway

That's simply not true.
On a new development or estate, the developer buys and owns
all the land including the land on which the new roads are
laid out (that's obvious, yes?). That highway land is usually
parcelled out with each house as it is sold (the land to the
middle line of the road belonging to the house it is
opposite).

Not so unless the roads are private roads , not all new
developments are on greenfield sites ,

Greenfield status is irrelevant. The developer has to acquire the
land whether it is green field or brownfield.

many developments already have the roadways in

Do they?

yes , its only green field sites and some old factory sites that have
new roadways built , many developments use existing roadways along
which they are sited

more often than not local authorities take
over the roads as part of the deal , otherwise every house in
the uk would own the land to the centre of the road and thats
simply not true

Ah...
It is normal for LAs to take over responsibility for maintaining
estate roads (provided they are up to standard to start with), but
that does not mean they own the land. Take a look at your deeds -
you'll almost certainly see that your plot goes to the centre line
(assuming you live on a new estate).

Just checked my deeds and no it goes to the end of the garden

Local authorities do not resurace or maintain private roads or roads
they do not own

Actually, they very often do, since they usually do not own the land
on which estate roads are laid out (and are not interested in
acquiring it unless there's a bit of "spare" land involved).

Part of the planning and development process will determin if the LA
will take on the roads after construction ,
I would be very warey of buying a house if i owned the land to the
centre of the roadway as that would make me liable for that section
of the road and its repairs ,

Only if the developer does not satisfactorily complete the estate
(and the roads) to a proper state. But you are right - that sometimes
does happen, and the roads are left unadopted. It doesn't happen
often, but it it does happen now and then.

i thought you said the LA took them on

The developer has to complete the estate and roadways to comply with
building regs so the council could not say they were not up to standard
if they had passed them

Covenants certainly can and frequently do restrict parking of
commercial vehicles on the road. They'd be useless if they
didn't.

Any vehicle under 3.5 tonne is not classified as commercial but
private /light goods within its taxation class so any
enforcement might be difficult so it would be irelevant

That'd be for the developer and/or the courts to decide.

The developer is unlikely to give a monkeys once all the properties
are sold off , its not something you really want to take to court ,
many covenants are difficult even impossible to enforce as they now
infringe on law laid down by statute , no contract can usurp this

The developer will not even check on what is happening. Any
enforcement would probably be triggered by a complaint by another
resident. At that stage, the developer would have to choose between
relaxing the covenant or enforcing it. But in receipt of a valid
complaint, relaxing the covenant would be potentially damaging to the
developer (because it could cause reputation-damaging bad publicity -
"Don't buy a house from XXX Homes - they don't protect buyers against
abuse of the agreements not to do this, or that").


it could also have the effect of saying dont use that developer they
wont let you park outside your house
it cuts both ways

The other issue is any covenant will apply only to residents
not non residents so even if the covenant could be enforced
on the roadway (private road) if that road was a public
right of way it could not be enforced on non residents --

Given all the previous spiel about the tradesman needing to
have his van and tools close at hand right outside the house,
why would a non-resident tradesman want to leave his van
there? That doesn't make sense, does it?

i can fully understand people not wanting lorries parked in
residential roads , thats common sensse but more often than
not the van issue is more to do with snobbery than anything
else , a case of we are allowed to buid the homes but not
live in them

Builders, just like prison officers, bailiffs, abbattoir
workers or estate agents, are "allowed" to live anywhere they
can afford or buy. That's not the issue. The issue is
whether residents (whatever their job or lack thereof) should
treat their neighbours properly by adhering to the agreements
they make when buying the property.

It depends wether those agreements are actually legally enforceable
many are not

Of course they are.

Contract law can not be enforced if it breaches any of our laws on
statute


Last thing you want to do is go to war with your neighbour

Indeed. But that fact should not be used as a weapon against people
who simply want the residential amenity they paid for, agreed to, and
have a right to expect. I'm sure you agree with that.

Yes i do however i cant see that parking a transit type van on your
driveway or outside your house alters the aminities any more than
parking a car in the same position , any covenant based around that is
both arbitary and dicrimianatory ,



years ago i had a neighbour that constantly complained about my
garage and the steel saftey shed next to it
even had the council round because the apex was to high above her
ground level and it was painted brown not green drove me nuts
(garage meet all local planning and building reg requirements)
right flippin bussie body

I see.

in the end i painted the garage bright blue and the shed bright red
Should have seen her face it was a picture , needless to say the
local council turned up and told me to change the colour , i never
did and they relised they hadnt the legal authority to make me
change the colour , she threatened all soughts of legal action , in
the end she left

got great neigbhours now

You sound like a great neighbour yourself.

i am i believe in live and let live , i wont tolerate being told what
to do with my property i paid for it its mine i wouldnt dream of
telling my neighbours what to do with thier property , its pure petty
snobbery complaining about a transit sized van in your roadway or on a
driveway



--

.