# Restrictive Covenant - No Dogs !



## Blizzard (Sep 21, 2009)

I eventually got moved in to my new place a couple of weeks ago and collected the property deeds from my Solicitor yesterday.
On reading through the deeds I came across a covenant that I hadn't picked up on before purchase, effectively preventing dogs being kept on the land, or any dwelling houses built on it.
It looks to be dated in the seventies, which predates the house being built in the nineties and a few neighbours have dogs, so it doesn't look as if anyone has tried to enforce it.

It seems a rather petty covenant on a fairly modern housing estate, to restrict family pets from family homes ?


----------



## Sprinta (Sep 15, 2010)

as you say rather petty.

not really applicable in this case, but, I always vote with my feet if I can't take my dog somewhere we want to go.


----------



## caulkhead (Jul 25, 2007)

Sprinta said:


> as you say rather petty.
> 
> not really applicable in this case, but, I always vote with my feet if I can't take my dog somewhere we want to go.


The Ship Inn on the quay in Porthleven in Cornwall used to have a sign outside which said, "Dogs Welcome, No Children"! My sort of pub.....:grin2:


----------



## tugboat (Sep 14, 2013)

I would have thought it was your solicitor's job to check that stuff prior to completion, so you would have all the facts to make an informed decision about whehther to purchase or not.

Where I live, it was designed to be open plan, with no walls or fences over 18inches high. To have otherwise would completely alter the feel of the place. Over the years, a couple of people have thought to make changes, and i've had to inform them of that restriction. I'm determined to protect where I live.

I think some covenants are enforceable (with the help of local planners) and others aren't. Parking round here seems to be one that isn't, unfortunately. Times do change, and what might have been a sensible restriction 30 years ago, maybe not so now.

I believe covenants were put on the properties by the developer who built them, if the developer isn't around any more it would be down to the residents themselves to enforce them (if they wanted to). Many residents, of course, have mortgages and have never seen their deeds so don't even know about these covenants.

If your neighbours have dogs, once a precedent has been set, I'd have thought you'd be OK.


----------



## 113016 (Jun 5, 2008)

I would have thought that any solicitor who did not point out the Convents, prior to a person signing, was not doing the job properly and negligent!
However, there are some strange covenants, which were applicable when the houses were built, but most certainly would not be now.
Many are here to help the builder sell the properties on later builds!


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

3 choices I'd say. Go back to the solicitor and say the deals off and they need to sort the mess out at their cost as they missed this key fact.

Just move in dog and all and ignore it.

Challenge the covenant in court and have it removed (risky this one as if you fail then you open a can of worms)

Our estate has 2 covenants one restricts parking of caravans and the other states every other front garden has a tree in it. There are a few caravans parked and most of the trees are gone. We re-planted a tree in our garden and we park a motorhome not a caravan.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

The covenants will have been in the papers your solicitor sent to you and asked you to check that everything was OK before exchange of contracts.
It was at this point a few years ago when I was in the process of buying a very nice ex-council house that I found there were 18 restrictive covenants most of which said that just about everything you could possibly want to do was subject to "the approval of the Director of Technical Services".
The housing stock had since been taken over by a housing association so I called them and asked "As this house was built over 50 years ago and sold off by the Council in 1977 surely these covenants were no longer enforced?" "Oh no" came the reply "the Housing Association still considers them valid and enforces them when it thinks it's appropriate." 

It would have meant that having bought a house sold off 40 years ago I would have in effect still been treated the same as a council tenant.

Since then I have always gone to the Land Registry site and bought a copy of the deeds for £6.00 online and read the lot carefully before even thinking about buying a house. 
It's the best £6.00 you can spend when buying property.
If you have completed on the house and moved in it's too late to do a thing, if you challenge the Solicitor all he will say is "you were sent the papers and asked to read them to make sure you were happy with the deal and you didn't question this matter then"

Reading what you bought after you've bought it is too late.

As they say on "Homes under the Hammer" ............

"Did you read the legal pack?"


----------



## Sprinta (Sep 15, 2010)

Stanner said:


> As they say on "Homes under the Hammer" ............
> 
> "Did you read the legal pack?"


I seldom hear what's being said - too busy goggling Lucy Alexander >


----------



## ardgour (Mar 22, 2008)

we have become rather too well acquainted with restrictive covenants over the years and discovered that most solicitors are shockingly ignorant of them. The basic principle is that in most cases they can only be enforced by the person who puts them on - so a developer might put a restriction on parking certain vehicles or extending properties without permission but if that developer goes bust and no longer exists then the covenant can not be enforced. This happened with my daughters house. Only after asking the specific question (are there any restrictive covenants?) did the solicitor notice the one about no extensions without developers permission but the house she was buying had an extension and no evidence of receiving permission. Solicitor panicked and wanted to sell her an insurance policy in case the covenant was enforced in the future. It took me 10 minutes to find the relevant bit of case law that showed the covenant could not be enforced - solicitor was completely unaware of it!
Having said that there are some restrictive covenants that continue such as those imposed by the local council or those that are worded in such a way that the right to enforce them continues - we have such covenants with our house, we can enforce conditions that were put in place by previous owners of the property when they sold off land.
I would ask the solicitor for an explanation and no it is not OK for him to say he sent you the documents - he should point out anything in the title which will adversely affect you
Chris


----------



## fatbuddha (Aug 7, 2006)

the last property we owned had quite a number of restrictive covenants that came in two forms - those imposed by the developers, and those imposed by the Estate that sold the land on to the developers (this was a huge development on the South Coast that has been built over the last 20+ years on land acquired from a major landowner). they key one that affected most was no motorhomes, caravans or commercial vehicles on the estates. depending on what estate you lived on, this was either enforced (ours) by the management or not. many of the minor covenants only had a 10 year time limit anyway to preserve continuity of look as the area was being developed.

however, these were all pointed out to us by our solicitor in advance of contract exchange and he asked whether we were happy to proceed. we were.

we now live in a property with no covenants - but restrictions due it's Grade 2 listing! hey ho.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I doubt that the covenant is enforceable but you should check whether the solicitor had previously made you aware of its existence. If he hadn't then you should certainly make him aware of it and ask his opinion. If he suggests buying insurance then he should pay for it! Also if there is subsequently an issue then it will be his responsibility to resolve it for you.


----------



## Carl_n_Flo (May 10, 2005)

The covenant regarding the restriction of certain pets - particularly cats or dogs - can be placed by the Local Authority. It is usually the case that there is an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) nearby where the increase (by building more family homes) in pet population (cats roaming and dog walking) can have a detrimental impact on the SSSI.


This came to head a few years ago where a complete embargo of housebuilding was implemented by a Local Authority in Surrey (near Farnborough) because of the perceived impact on the nearby SSSI of the intensification of new homes, families and, consequently, pets.


Carl


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Solicitors do not point out covenants because they send YOU the paperwork and ask YOU to check you are happy. 
They may pick up on something like rights of way (this I have had with a house that had access via a private road) but the sort of covenants you get on estates and ex-council houses are down to you to assess the impact.


----------



## 113016 (Jun 5, 2008)

A couple of years ago, we were looking at a bungalow and it did have a covenant restricting m/h's and caravans from parking. Although on the estate there were at least half a dozen M/H's and caravans happily parked.
I searched Mr Google and from the results I received, most covenants can be enforced, some by local Councils and some by a neighbour, and even some from anybody living on the estate, even far away! A person can fight any action, but if you loose, you would most probably be responsible for both parties costs!
In the end, we did not buy the bungalow, as I just did not want to take the chance. We have sometimes asked owners of neighbouring properties, but houses can change hands and any new owner can object!
This is only my opinion, and a person must check out for themselves!


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

It could be worse, the land for one of the biggest social housing estates was sold in the 1950s to the local housing authority in NI, the sale included a covenant that no public house was allowed to be built on the land. 

The good news being it didn't specifically mention social clubs, several of which subsequently opened and have a large membership, and to this day no pubs exist there.

Terry


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

dghr272 said:


> It could be worse, the land for one of the biggest social housing estates was sold in the 1950s to the local housing authority in NI, the sale included a covenant that no public house was allowed to be built on the land.
> 
> The good news being it didn't specifically mention social clubs, several of which subsequently opened and have a large membership, and to this day no pubs exist there.
> 
> Terry


I'm guessing Greenisland Terry?


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Near, but it is Rathcoole.

Terry


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 21, 2009)

Thanks for all of your responses folks and after digging a bit deeper, it looks as if this covenant originated in 1910 when the local landowner started selling parts of his land off to the Local Authority.
It first appeared in the title deeds when the house was built in 1991 and again, earlier this month when the deeds were transferred in to my name.

I was shown an awful amount of legal documentation prior to exchanging contracts, but have no recollection of seeing any of the restrictive covenants contained within the title deed. My solicitor brought several issues to my attention, all of which I was happy with, or had resolved to my satisfaction. 

The restriction would not have stopped me from buying the house, but something that affects my Labrador would have stuck in my mind, had I seen it. That said, the sale of our marital home hitting problems, problems and delays with Grant Of Probate on the house I eventually bought and the pending divorce have resulted in my head being a bit of a shed at times, so I'm not totally laying the blame at my solicitor's door.

To set the record straight I have emailed him asking for confirmation of if/when the restrictions were brought to my attention.

Ken.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Thanks for the update - as you said, the key thing is to find out the implications and how likely they are to be enforced.

Life is always a risk and finding out if the covenant has ever been challenged may well show that the risks are so small as to be insignificant.

Insurance may well be the best way forward "just in case", my daughter had one on a house in the area of the local Parish Church who apparently have a dated covenant that they could claim the costs of rebuilding the church from the residents, in that case it cost £30 for the life of her ownership.... so hardly a prohibitive sum and that would have covered any costs involved in any attempt to claim by the Church as well as the costs of ny final settlement for rebuilding.

Check as much as you can and then try to insure against "unseen" problems.

Dave


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

Where oh where 

We've just returned after 4 days

He's gone crazy, didnt realise he had that much energy 

But if we couldn't take him, much as he is a pain

I'd never leave him

Sandra


----------



## Carl_n_Flo (May 10, 2005)

Penquin said:


> .......
> 
> Insurance may well be the best way forward "just in case", my daughter had one on a house in the area of the local Parish Church who apparently have a dated covenant that they could claim the costs of rebuilding the church from the residents, in that case it cost £30 for the life of her ownership.... so hardly a prohibitive sum and that would have covered any costs involved in any attempt to claim by the Church as well as the costs of ny final settlement for rebuilding.
> 
> ...


Known as the 'Chancel Repair Liability'.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability

It is something that we (as developers) always check for when buying land anywhere near a church - even up to a mile away!!! Even if the Church themselves don't enforce it, the solicitors of our buyers will always question whether we have insurance to cover it before advising their clients.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 21, 2009)

Update.

My Solicitor has confirmed that he was aware of the restrictive covenant, but did not bring it to my attention as it is no longer relevant. The legality of the covenant is that in 1910 when it was put in place, it was done so by an individual, who, being sole beneficiary of the covenant and was elderly at the time, cannot now be alive to benefit. It may have been a different matter had the covenant been put in place by a company that still exists.

Any legal action to attempt to enforce the covenant would fail on two fronts, the first being that there is no beneficiary and any such action would have to be on his behalf, the second being that the covenant is obsolete due to changes in the character of the land and would prevent reasonable use of the land. In 1910 this entire area was sparsely populated, with only a few farms, however it is now primarily a residential area.

Without going too deep in to the matter, or spending money, it is closure enough for me !

Ken.


----------

