Are covenants with a dissolved company binding?

[Phil Mcbride]

I am about to invest in an outbuilding for my wife to work on her home
jewelry business. A second connected outbuilding would be a garden
studio to for me to do any work there. Basically we want to free up a
bedroom and kitchen which we are using on an ad hoc basis as a SOHO
and workshop. Both outbuildings would be in the rear garden.

When I bought the house, the fourth schedule of the charges register
lists a number of restrictions:

"Not to use the dwellinghouse for any purpose other than that of a
single private dwellinghouse but so that the profession of a doctor,
solicitor, architect or accountant may be carried on thereon."

"No building shall be altered as to external appearance thereof
without the prior approval in writing of the Vendor or its surveyor."

I hold a software engineering doctorate. Can I assume the first clause
above exempts me?

Do alterations to the external appearance mean alterations to the
facade and physical structure of the house, or does it also include
outbuildings not connected to the house?

According to Companies' House, the original vendor was a limited
company that was dissolved in 1993. Are any of the covenants listed on
the charges register binding any more?

In practical terms if a successor company acquired these from the
original Vendor (how do I find the successor company?), are they going
to be most certainly unwilling to enforce such covenants?

[Martin Bonner]

On Thursday, 5 July 2012 10:15:04 UTC+1, Phil Mcbride wrote:
> I am about to invest in an outbuilding for my wife to work on her home
> jewelry business. A second connected outbuilding would be a garden
> studio to for me to do any work there. Basically we want to free up a
> bedroom and kitchen which we are using on an ad hoc basis as a SOHO
> and workshop. Both outbuildings would be in the rear garden.
>
> When I bought the house, the fourth schedule of the charges register
> lists a number of restrictions:
>
> "Not to use the dwellinghouse for any purpose other than that of a
> single private dwellinghouse but so that the profession of a doctor,
> solicitor, architect or accountant may be carried on thereon."
>
> "No building shall be altered as to external appearance thereof
> without the prior approval in writing of the Vendor or its surveyor."
>
> I hold a software engineering doctorate. Can I assume the first clause
> above exempts me?

No. You may have a PhD, but you don't carry on the profession of a doctor.

>
> Do alterations to the external appearance mean alterations to the
> facade and physical structure of the house, or does it also include
> outbuildings not connected to the house?

It says "building", not "house", so I think it includes outbuildings.

> According to Companies' House, the original vendor was a limited
> company that was dissolved in 1993. Are any of the covenants listed on
> the charges register binding any more?

That's a MUCH more interesting question. I don't know.

> In practical terms if a successor company acquired these from the
> original Vendor (how do I find the successor company?), are they going
> to be most certainly unwilling to enforce such covenants?

I suspect they probably won't be willing to enforce the covenants, but you seem to want certainty - and that's more tricky.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Martin Bonner" wrote in message
> news:33d6dda2-5395-488b...@googlegroups.com...

The usual answers when dealing with old, obscure restrictive covenants are:

1 It's generally impossible to ascertain whether anyone other than the
original party has the right to enforce the covenants, but only a nearby
landowner is likely to have that right;
2 Do not attempt to contact the person entitled or to ask their
permission: it will prevent you getting insurance;
3 Apply openly for whatever planning permissions are needed, which is
likely to flush out anyone who thinks they can enforce the covenants;
3 Either take out insurance against the covenants being enforced, or take
the risk. It's likely that a future buyer from you will want insurance.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Fredxx]

Won't the privileges have gone to the Treasury (Bona Vacantia) unless
the company's rights were purchased by a third party prior to to
dissolution.

Are the surrounding properties of the same "original vendor"? If not
you could quietly ignore any existence of a covenant and either way it
is very unlikely to be enforced.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jt4c2g$e5t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:45:03 on Thu, 5 Jul 2012,
Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:

>Are the surrounding properties of the same "original vendor"?

I'm not sure why that matters - or are you expecting to find the
original landowner living in one?

>If not you could quietly ignore any existence of a covenant and either
>way it is very unlikely to be enforced.

When I sold my last house, built in a suburb in the 1920's, I had to
take out insurance because there was a covenant that said the design of
the house had to be approved by the original landowner (who had sold to
a developer), and no such document or proof existed.

If they didn't like the house, you'd have thought they'd have complained
about this in the 1920's, rather than wait until the 2010's though.
--
Roland Perry

[Janet]

> > On Thursday, 5 July 2012 10:15:04 UTC+1, Phil Mcbride wrote:
> > > I am about to invest in an outbuilding for my wife to work on her home
> > > jewelry business. A second connected outbuilding would be a garden
> > > studio to for me to do any work there. Basically we want to free up a
> > > bedroom and kitchen which we are using on an ad hoc basis as a SOHO
> > > and workshop. Both outbuildings would be in the rear garden.
> > >
> > > When I bought the house, the fourth schedule of the charges register
> > > lists a number of restrictions:
> > >
> > > "Not to use the dwellinghouse for any purpose other than that of a
> > > single private dwellinghouse but so that the profession of a doctor,
> > > solicitor, architect or accountant may be carried on thereon."
> > >
> > > "No building shall be altered as to external appearance thereof
> > > without the prior approval in writing of the Vendor or its surveyor."

Are you in Scotland? Those sound like familiar constraints of the old feu dispositions.
The feudal system came to an end on 28 November 2004
in line with the abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003.

Most but not all feu burdens of that kind have gone; but you would still face local planning rerstrictions.

http://www.hmitchell.co.uk/jhmchari-title-conditions.htm

Janet

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-07-05 16:30:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <jt4c2g$e5t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:45:03 on Thu, 5 Jul
> 2012, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:
>> Are the surrounding properties of the same "original vendor"?
>
> I'm not sure why that matters - or are you expecting to find the
> original landowner living in one?

snip

It matters (in general, I know nothing of the leasehold situation here)
because then the neighbours are likely to know of the covenants and
may wish to get them enforced. This can still happen if someone is in
a position to enforce them.

--

Percy Picacity

[Roland Perry]

In message <5p1eql....@news.alt.net>, at 20:20:09 on Thu, 5 Jul
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

>>> Are the surrounding properties of the same "original vendor"?
>> I'm not sure why that matters - or are you expecting to find the
>>original landowner living in one?
>
>snip
>
>It matters (in general, I know nothing of the leasehold situation here)
>because then the neighbours are likely to know of the covenants and may
>wish to get them enforced. This can still happen if someone is in a
>position to enforce them.

I expect most of the neighbours are infringing the covenants too (or
hoping that if they did, it wouldn't be a problem).
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

We may think so, but they perhaps can't afford or don't want an
exension. I believe the original land owner may have some obligation
to enforce the covenant against another neighbour at one neighbour's
request, and this has happened in practice.

--

Percy Picacity

[Roland Perry]

In message <5p1hgj....@news.alt.net>, at 21:05:02 on Thu, 5 Jul

2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

>> I expect most of the neighbours are infringing the covenants too (or
>>hoping that if they did, it wouldn't be a problem).
>
>We may think so, but they perhaps can't afford or don't want an
>exension. I believe the original land owner may have some obligation
>to enforce the covenant against another neighbour at one neighbour's
>request, and this has happened in practice.

Very much into "be careful what you wish for" territory.
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

Phil Mcbride wrote:

> I am about to invest in an outbuilding for my wife to work on her home
> jewelry business. A second connected outbuilding would be a garden
> studio to for me to do any work there. Basically we want to free up a
> bedroom and kitchen which we are using on an ad hoc basis as a SOHO
> and workshop. Both outbuildings would be in the rear garden.
>
> When I bought the house, the fourth schedule of the charges register
> lists a number of restrictions:
>
> "Not to use the dwellinghouse for any purpose other than that of a
> single private dwellinghouse but so that the profession of a doctor,
> solicitor, architect or accountant may be carried on thereon."
>
> "No building shall be altered as to external appearance thereof
> without the prior approval in writing of the Vendor or its surveyor."
>
> I hold a software engineering doctorate. Can I assume the first clause
> above exempts me?

No

>
> Do alterations to the external appearance mean alterations to the
> facade and physical structure of the house, or does it also include
> outbuildings not connected to the house?

Quite possibly

>
> According to Companies' House, the original vendor was a limited
> company that was dissolved in 1993. Are any of the covenants listed on
> the charges register binding any more?

Yes wether they will be enforced is another issue

>
> In practical terms if a successor company acquired these from the
> original Vendor (how do I find the successor company?), are they going
> to be most certainly unwilling to enforce such covenants?

Probably not

[Fredxx]

If you want, why don't you contact them and see if you can purchase the
right to enforce the convenant? And then just sit on it and if you want
to be a fly in the ointment hold your neighbours to ransom if they
infringe the same covenant?