wording of our covenant. (1 Viewer)

Jonny5

Free Member
Apr 9, 2018
77
52
Funster No
53,279
I am planning on putting our motorhome into storage throughout the majority of the year when we are not using it however there will be spells where it may spend time between our trips away in it on our drive for convenience reasons.
One set of our neighbours have been really chilled out and taken the attitude of live and let live and have talked to us about it and what plans we have for it.
Sadly the other set of neighbours are Dickenses and he has just sauntered over and stated it has to go due to the fact there is a covenant on the area.
I do plan to move it and should he have been polite and reasonable he would have found that out.

The wording of the covenant is as follows.....
"No hut tent or caravan or house on wheels or other chattel (except a shed for the purpose of building in the land) shall be allowed to remain on the land hereby transferred or any part thereof"

So can anyone with Direct or Legal experience tell me if I can have it here temporarilly or if this statement is direct enough to apply to a motorhome?
 

Silver-Fox

LIFE MEMBER
Sep 5, 2014
9,234
28,705
Cheltenham Spa
Funster No
33,201
MH
Rapido
Exp
im a not so newbie
Has this not been covered before?
From what I recall it’s a civil matter and matey who isn’t happy would need to take legal action.
Or just park it on the road :)

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

old-mo

Funster
Extra Special
LIFE MEMBER
Oct 16, 2008
16,341
93,473
Weymouth. Dorset...
Funster No
4,470
MH
Nearly aint got one.
Exp
Caravan & motorhome 45 + yrs
As long as it is taxed/MOT`d and insured and you do not live on a private road..

Leave it on the road... (y)

Silver fox beat me to it..
 
Apr 17, 2016
5,782
34,624
South Coast
Funster No
42,523
MH
White One..
Exp
3 years….
I am sure I have seen somewhere that the only people who can enforce a covenant is the ones that put it on, if the developer is no more than I didn’t think they applied.
Probably wrong though!
 
May 7, 2016
7,187
11,611
West Sussex
Funster No
42,951
MH
Carthago Compactline
Exp
Since 2003
I am sure I have seen somewhere that the only people who can enforce a covenant is the ones that put it on, if the developer is no more than I didn’t think they applied.
Probably wrong though!
I think covenants, the benefit and the responsibilities pass with the land. This means that neighbours can enforce covenants.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

RowleyBirkinQC

LIFE MEMBER
Sep 20, 2014
2,336
222,866
Dazed & Confused
Funster No
33,417
MH
A Class
Exp
Since 2007
And you can buy indemnity insurance to cover you should someone try and enforce the covenant via legal channels. How much use it would be I know not, but I have one just in case, as although the vendor assured us no such covenant existed on our house, it transpired not to be the case (only highlighted by conveyancer late in proceedings despite my requesting to be informed as early as possible due to MH).
 

MC 55 FUN

Free Member
Feb 18, 2016
3,432
6,347
Rural South West Wales.
Funster No
41,707
MH
2015 Majestic 195
Exp
Since 20th Feb' 2016
https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/law-a-A76052D76388/?A76052D76388=

What happens if I breach a restrictive covenant?
If you buy a property that is subject to a restrictive covenant you will be bound by its terms, unless it is not reasonable or practical.


I would suggest that parking ones' Moho on ones' own land is reasonable, however others may not.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 29692

Deleted User
I am planning on putting our motorhome into storage throughout the majority of the year when we are not using it however there will be spells where it may spend time between our trips away in it on our drive for convenience reasons.
One set of our neighbours have been really chilled out and taken the attitude of live and let live and have talked to us about it and what plans we have for it.
Sadly the other set of neighbours are Dickenses and he has just sauntered over and stated it has to go due to the fact there is a covenant on the area.
I do plan to move it and should he have been polite and reasonable he would have found that out.

The wording of the covenant is as follows.....
"No hut tent or caravan or house on wheels or other chattel (except a shed for the purpose of building in the land) shall be allowed to remain on the land hereby transferred or any part thereof"

So can anyone with Direct or Legal experience tell me if I can have it here temporarilly or if this statement is direct enough to apply to a motorhome?

Any covenant can only ever be enforced by the person who put it in place. In the case of housing developments they are normally put in place by the developers to keep their site looking pretty whilst there are plots to sell. After that they don't care.


I think covenants, the benefit and the responsibilities pass with the land. This means that neighbours can enforce covenants.

Nope. They don't and they can't. (y) Been through this many times.

If the neighbours wanted to try and get it enforced their only possible route is to take the person or organisation that originally put the covenant in place to the High Court and apply for an order requiring them to take you to court to enforce their covenant. Whilst technically possible there are two big problems with this: 1. It's hideously expensive, well out of reach of the average home owner and 2. If the company that put the covenant in place is no longer trading there's nobody to take to court so although the covenant will still appear on searches and technically remain in place it is completely unenforceable by anyone.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

MC 55 FUN

Free Member
Feb 18, 2016
3,432
6,347
Rural South West Wales.
Funster No
41,707
MH
2015 Majestic 195
Exp
Since 20th Feb' 2016
@NickNic

Is this info' incorrect ?

Under land law, restrictive covenants ‘run with the land’. This means they bind all successive purchasers/owners of the property (unless the terms of the covenant state otherwise). It is possible for a restrictive covenant to be discharged by agreement with the person who has the benefit of the restrictive covenant. If necessary, an application can be made to the Lands Tribunal for an order discharging or modifying the restriction; for instance, if the restrictive covenant is interfering with the use of the land.
 

Abacist

LIFE MEMBER
Oct 15, 2013
3,649
10,041
Devon
Funster No
28,581
MH
N & B Tag Axle
Exp
since 2013
My father enforced a covenant against his Neighbour many years ago and they had to remove their caravan from their drive!

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
3

34127

Deleted User
You may find that there are other conditions in the covenant that are being ignored such as siting of tv aerials, satellite dishes, building of extensions without covenant holders permission etc. If that is the case then there could be a lot of home owners breaching the covenant so ask your neighbour what he is going to do about them.
 

TheBig1

LIFE MEMBER
Nov 27, 2011
17,509
42,755
Dorset
Funster No
19,048
MH
A class
Exp
many many years! since I was a kid
we have been through this and the covenant could not be enforced. remind the dick of a neighbour any dispute between neighbours must be disclosed if they ever sell and will be detrimental on their property value

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

joka250

Free Member
Jul 29, 2017
907
1,554
Fylde Coast.
Funster No
49,691
MH
Coachbuilt
Exp
Since 1985
we have been through this and the covenant could not be enforced. remind the dick of a neighbour any dispute between neighbours must be disclosed if they ever sell and will be detrimental on their property value
And indeed to the original poster.
 

Kirsten

LIFE MEMBER
May 5, 2015
829
3,384
Stratford on Avon
Funster No
36,214
MH
Hymer B544
Exp
Since 2010
Hope you get it sorted amicably- never understood why people object to motorhome parked outside when no covenant exists re the number of cars or skips ( building work can drag on) tradesman vans etc .Are they saying you can’t park it there ever not even to to load it?
 
Sep 3, 2012
7,452
25,837
Cheshire
Funster No
22,759
MH
C Class Elddis 175
Exp
8+ years
your covenant states that they shall not remain on the land, your van is only there on a temporary basis in between storage etc, tell your neighbour that. If he wants to take it further it will cost him. Also point out that you could legally park your MH in front of his property on the public highway if you so wished.(y)

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

MC 55 FUN

Free Member
Feb 18, 2016
3,432
6,347
Rural South West Wales.
Funster No
41,707
MH
2015 Majestic 195
Exp
Since 20th Feb' 2016
Enforceability of Covenants in Equity / Common law.
If a covenant cannot be enforced under common law rules then it may still be enforceable under equitable rules. As with common law rules, where the original covenanting parties have parted with their respective land it will have to be shown that both the benefit and the burden has passed to their respective successors in title. Unlike common law, it was established in the case of Tulk v Moxhay [1848] that the burden of a covenant can run in equity provided five conditions are met:

1. The covenant must be negative (restrictive). This means that it must prevent an action rather than compel an action to be performed. Sometimes a positive covenant will be phrased negatively or vice versa, for example “to keep the area between the building line and the highway open and unbuilt upon” is worded positively but is really saying “do not build on the land between the building line and the highway”. Conversely, a covenant “not to allow the wall between the land and the highway to fall into disrepair” is really a covenant “to repair and maintain the wall between the land and the highway”. The burden of positive covenants does not, as a general rule, run either at common law or in equity, though see the exceptions above in relation to common law.

2. There must be a benefited and a burdened land and the two must be “reasonably close together” – close enough for the benefited land to be genuinely adversely affected by a breach.

3. The covenant must actually benefit the benefiting land. In Re Gadd’s Land Transfer [1966] it was stated that a “benefit” must be “something affecting either the value of the land or the method of its occupation or enjoyment”. This is important because many old covenants cease to have any material benefit as the nature and character of the surrounding area changes over time.

4. It must be the original parties’ intention for the burden to run with the land. Unless the wording of the deed contains an express contrary intention it will be assumed that the burden was intended to run. This is confirmed by s79(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

5. The purchaser of the burdened land must have had notice of the covenant before buying the land. In unregistered land, if the covenant was created after 1 January 1926 then in order to be binding it would need to have been registered as a Class D(ii) land charge. If the covenant is registered in this way then the purchaser is deemed to be aware of it even if he did not actually search the Land Charges register prior to his purchase (s198 Law of Property Act 1925). Conversely, if it is not registered then he will not be bound even if he actually knew of the covenant (s199 Law of Property Act 1925). For covenants relating to unregistered land created before 1 January 1926 a purchaser of burdened land will be bound unless he is an arm’s length purchaser for value (meaning he is not connected to the seller and pays more than a nominal sum for the land) and he has no notice of the covenant. Notice can either be express, i.e. he can be told, implied, i.e. if it is or should be obvious from a reasonably careful inspection of the land or imputed, i.e. if his legal advisor or surveyor is aware, even if the information is not passed on to him. In registered land, a covenant must be protected by the entry of a notice in the register to be binding.

The benefit of a covenant will run in equity provided it actually benefits the land and it was intended by the original parties for the benefit to run. Intention can be either express (i.e. the wording of the covenant states that it is intended to benefit successors of the original covenantee), or since 1 January 1926 by statute under s78 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
There are two basic systems of law in England & Wales – common law and equity. The Judicature Acts of the late nineteenth century basically merged the two systems but there are still some differences. In respect of covenants, for them to be enforceable, both the benefit and burden must run in common law or both must run in equity. So if the benefit runs in common law but the burden only runs in equity (or vice versa) the covenant will not be enforceable.

In order for the benefit of a covenant to pass at common law, four requirements must be satisfied

1. The covenant must “touch and concern” the land of the covenantee. This means that the covenant must be capable of benefiting any owner of the land and not just be a personal benefit to the current owner.

2. The covenantee must own the legal estate in the land to be benefited when the covenant is made. In other words, the original covenantee must have actually owned the land that benefits when the covenant was made – if for example he had only contracted to buy the land then it will not be enforceable. Usually new covenants are contained in the same deed that transfers ownership to the covenantee which deals with this condition.

3. The successor of the covenantee must have a legal estate. This just means that a future owner looking to take the benefit of a covenant must be the legal owner of the land which benefits.

4.The original parties must have intended that the covenant should run with the covenantee’s land. Not all covenants are intended to benefit future owners, some are purely personal. The intentions of the parties can usually be ascertained from the words used to create a covenant, for example words such as “the covenantor covenants with the covenantee his successors in title and those deriving title under him” confirm that it is intended that the benefit should run. Section 78(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 implies similar words into any covenant created after the act came into force on 1 Januarym1926 with the effect that it is deemed that the benefit was intended to run. So pre-1926 a covenant has to explicitly say that it is intended to benefit future owners whereas from 1926 onward this is implied unless the wording of the covenant expressly states that it should not, for example by stating that the operation of s78(1) is excluded.

The burden of a covenant will not run at common law meaning that future owners of the burdened land will not be bound however the original covenantor will remain liable even after he has parted with his land. This rule was established in the case of Austerberry v Oldham Corporation [1885]. There are several exceptions:

1. A chain of indemnity covenants can be created. Where a piece of land burdened by covenants is sold it is usual for the seller to require that a clause be included in the transfer to the buyer whereby the buyer agrees to indemnify the seller against any claims for breach of any of the covenants. The owner of the land which has the benefit of the covenant can still sue the original covenantor for breach of contract however the original covenantor can then sue his buyer on the indemnity. If that buyer has since sold the property and obtained an indemnity from his purchaser then he can sue him and so on down the chain of ownership. In theory a chain of indemnity covenants can continue indefinitely however in practice it will come to an end either on the disappearance of the original covenantor or where the chain is broken (by a transfer taking place that does not incorporate an indemnity covenant).

2. The rule in Halsall v Brizell [1957], also known as the doctrine of mutual benefit and burden, states that a person cannot continue take the benefit of a deed without subscribing to the obligations under it. What this means is that if a deed grants the owner of a property the right to, for example, use a private road but the same deed also contains a covenant to contribute toward the cost of the upkeep of the road then the owner cannot exercise the right to use the road without contributing to its upkeep.

3. The burden of covenants contained in a lease will generally run therefore granting a lease out of the freehold title instead of simply conveying the freehold title is a useful way to ensure the covenants remain enforceable.

4. An estate rentcharge can be imposed, whereby the owner of the property is obliged to contribute an annual sum toward the repair and maintenance of shared facilities. If this is coupled with a right of re-entry for non-payment this ensures the covenant to contribute should not be breached.
 

Nasher

Free Member
May 6, 2016
2,094
7,178
Pontardawe
Funster No
42,923
MH
Pug Boxer
Exp
Since 2013
Have you tried having a chat with your neighbours - maybe over a beer or glass of wine?
 

Abacist

LIFE MEMBER
Oct 15, 2013
3,649
10,041
Devon
Funster No
28,581
MH
N & B Tag Axle
Exp
since 2013
I wonder why?

The neighbour's house was right next door but built higher up the hill and his drive was right next to Mum & Dad's living room window. When the caravan was put there it blotted out most of the light and the view. Dad tried to explain the position but the neighbour wasn't interested in how they were spoiling life for my parents so Dad paid a lot of legal fees to enforce the covenant but he succeeded which is the whole point of this thread! In spite of what some say it can be done and he didn't have to sue the builders so that the builder's had to enforce their covenant as the estate had been completed but not long before as the neighbour and Mum & Dad bought the houses when new.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Aug 26, 2008
4,721
24,577
B&NES
Funster No
3,823
MH
Van Conversion
Exp
since 2007
@NickNic

Is this info' incorrect ?

Under land law, restrictive covenants ‘run with the land’. This means they bind all successive purchasers/owners of the property (unless the terms of the covenant state otherwise). It is possible for a restrictive covenant to be discharged by agreement with the person who has the benefit of the restrictive covenant. If necessary, an application can be made to the Lands Tribunal for an order discharging or modifying the restriction; for instance, if the restrictive covenant is interfering with the use of the land.

Good luck with that. I have yet to find a Lands Tribunal decision where the covenant against keeping a caravan has been discharged or modified. In the cases I have read the covenant was upheld and application dismissed. The other route of discharge by agreement with the person with the benefit of the covenant would seem more doable but money might have to change hands too.

This legal stuff about the benefit of restrictive covenants running with the land and who has the right to enforce an old covenant is very technical and arcane. I wouldn't rely on social media advice, ever. In my experience even conveyancing solicitors can also be somewhat confused about it.

As to whether the interpretation of "caravan" as including "motorhome" suggested by @scotjimland is correct, although the definition in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 is widely assumed to be applicable to these covenants, there has never been a reported case as far as I am aware that can be relied on as legal authority for that wider interpretation outside the scope of planning law and caravan site licensing. In a previous thread I have put forward an argument to the contrary, so that point isn't really settled one way or the other and is open for a test case if anyone has the balls and money to fight it.

https://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/foru...e-motorhome-outside-their-house.170265/page-6

The best solution is never to get into a dispute with your neighbour that ends up in Court. Anything to avoid that is better and cheaper in the long run, and that includes moving house to somewhere that doesn't have a restrictive covenant of this kind. That is worth it just for peace of mind. Also, mediation for neighbour disputes should be available, and worth a try if amicable discussions fail.
 
Last edited:

Minxy

LIFE MEMBER
Aug 22, 2007
32,488
66,011
E Yorks
Funster No
149
MH
Carthago Compactline
Exp
Since 1996, had Elddis/Swift/Rapido/Rimor/Chausson MHs. Autocruise/Globecar PVCs/Compactline i-138
The neighbour's house was right next door but built higher up the hill and his drive was right next to Mum & Dad's living room window. When the caravan was put there it blotted out most of the light and the view. Dad tried to explain the position but the neighbour wasn't interested in how they were spoiling life for my parents so Dad paid a lot of legal fees to enforce the covenant but he succeeded which is the whole point of this thread! In spite of what some say it can be done and he didn't have to sue the builders so that the builder's had to enforce their covenant as the estate had been completed but not long before as the neighbour and Mum & Dad bought the houses when new.
What was the actual covenant though and was there also one regarding light etc?
 
May 7, 2016
7,187
11,611
West Sussex
Funster No
42,951
MH
Carthago Compactline
Exp
Since 2003
Nope. They don't and they can't. (y) Been through this many times.
I spent 30 years in property management and I have known of both enforceable and unenforceable covenants, including ones enforced by neighbours. It is a complex issue and I think it should not be dismissed too lightly. If in doubt I would get an opinion from whoever did your conveyancing. It might also be worth remembering that caravans and motorhomes are not universally popular, hence the inclusions of these covenants in some recent conveyances. Hope you get it sorted out without too much hassle.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Silver-Fox

LIFE MEMBER
Sep 5, 2014
9,234
28,705
Cheltenham Spa
Funster No
33,201
MH
Rapido
Exp
im a not so newbie
Please don't start posts like this as it can put people off of asking. Cheers (y) Of course its been covered, a few times, but something new or new life experiences are revealed/turn up each and every time (y)

In my defence a part quote isn’t leading to my second paragraph relating to other posts about covenants :)
It may even lead the op to search the site

Along with the smiley means it wasn’t meant as a negative comment.

So I’ll accept your apology in advance of it being given as I’m sure it’s on its way (y):D:D

Wonder what Coventry is like this time of the year :whistle:
 
D

deleted-member02

Deleted User
Since the vehicle is only an occasional visitor, what's the problem?
Worst case scenario, you remove the vehicle day before court hearing... bring it back a week later and start the whole process again;)
 
Oct 17, 2016
453
376
Cheshire
Funster No
45,657
MH
A-class
Exp
40 years caravanning. New A-class Moho owners
Bu
In my defence a part quote isn’t leading to my second paragraph relating to other posts about covenants :)
It may even lead the op to search the site

Along with the smiley means it wasn’t meant as a negative comment.

So I’ll accept your apology in advance of it being given as I’m sure it’s on its way (y):D:D

Wonder what Coventry is like this time of the year :whistle:
If you had looked carefully, you would have seen that the OP is a relative newby and doesn’t spend every waking moment on here.:LOL: Please note smiley. So Specsavers for you my man.
My BIL has a similar covenant on his property but that’s because he lives on a housing ‘development’ not ‘estate’. :rolleyes: Mike

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Funsters who are viewing this thread

Back
Top