Restrictive Covenant Breach?

[Buddy1012]

This topic has been discussed extensively in the past so I’ve assumed that other Funsters may be interested in the outcome in my situation. Others may at some point find themselves in similar circumstances. Here are the headlines:

We bought a new build house (freehold) on a small development in 2023.​

House is in a decent sized plot with a long private driveway tucked away at the farthest point of the development.​

It has an area with hard standing at the side of the garages big enough to accommodate a 9m motorhome - no interference with garages or main driveway and hardly visible from the house, or any one else fro that matter - so ideal which is why we chose it.​

Restrictive covenant clause in place prohibiting parking of 'boats, caravans and commercial vehicles' - obviously I knew this when I bought the property but was unfazed by the wording and didn't even bother to clarify the meaning during conveyancing process.​

M'home been parked on site since mid 2023 (except when use usually 12 - 14 weeks a year).​

Recently been asked to move it by the 'Transferor in Title' who has pointed out the aforementioned parking restriction. (The request has been made entirely at the behest of the Transferor and relates to the intended sale of the final property on the development).​

I rejected this request on account of (in my view) not being in breach of the covenant in question.​

The basis for this rejection was as follows:

• The established legal precedent i.e. the relevant case law Oaktree Motorhomes v HMRC (2017), which rests on the common English language usage of the term ‘caravan’ together with the lack of any relevant legal definition of a ‘caravan’ that could be taken to include vehicles such as ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’.
• Other precedents in the form of genuine (redacted) examples of land transfer deeds that have been exchanged since 2017 and which contain clauses specifically prohibiting the parking of vehicles including ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’, in addition to the standard / generic clause referring to ‘caravans’. These documents are available to download via the Land Registry. All you need is the exact address for a particular property. In my case I obtained one from a property that I used to own and another from a property that I had previously looked at. In both cases I knew that there were parking restrictions in place that went beyond 'caravans'. The idea behind this was to deal with any possible argument claiming the intention of the covenant rather than the specifics of the actual wording.
• The actual legal definition of a ‘motor caravan’ (the all encompassing DVLA classification for ‘motor homes’ and ‘camper vans') as set out in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. This confirms that something that falls within this definition could never be considered as being a subset of the wider term ‘caravan’. This point was also referenced in the aforementioned case law. The idea behind using this was to deal with any suggestion that a vehicle categorised on a V5 document as a 'motor-caravan' is therefore a 'caravan'.

The outcome:

The above points have now been accepted by the Transferor's representatives. The requirement for me to relocate the motorhome has been withdrawn and I now have a letter on file which acknowledges that I am not in breach of the particular covenant and therefore have the right to park a motorhome on the property.

 

[BrianJane]

Well done. No doubt it cost a substantial amount to get to this point.
Now all wording will be changed in future to include motorhome as its own entity.

 

[Nanniemate]

This topic has been discussed extensively in the past so I’ve assumed that other Funsters may be interested in the outcome in my situation. Others may at some point find themselves in similar circumstances. Here are the headlines:

We bought a new build house (freehold) on a small development in 2023.​

House is in a decent sized plot with a long private driveway tucked away at the farthest point of the development.​

It has an area with hard standing at the side of the garages big enough to accommodate a 9m motorhome - no interference with garages or main driveway and hardly visible from the house, or any one else fro that matter - so ideal which is why we chose it.​

Restrictive covenant clause in place prohibiting parking of 'boats, caravans and commercial vehicles' - obviously I knew this when I bought the property but was unfazed by the wording and didn't even bother to clarify the meaning during conveyancing process.​

M'home been parked on site since mid 2023 (except when use usually 12 - 14 weeks a year).​

Recently been asked to move it by the 'Transferor in Title' who has pointed out the aforementioned parking restriction. (The request has been made entirely at the behest of the Transferor and relates to the intended sale of the final property on the development).​

I rejected this request on account of (in my view) not being in breach of the covenant in question.​

The basis for this rejection was as follows:

• The established legal precedent i.e. the relevant case law Oaktree Motorhomes v HMRC (2017), which rests on the common English language usage of the term ‘caravan’ together with the lack of any relevant legal definition of a ‘caravan’ that could be taken to include vehicles such as ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’.
• Other precedents in the form of genuine (redacted) examples of land transfer deeds that have been exchanged since 2017 and which contain clauses specifically prohibiting the parking of vehicles including ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’, in addition to the standard / generic clause referring to ‘caravans’. These documents are available to download via the Land Registry. All you need is the exact address for a particular property. In my case I obtained one from a property that I used to own and another from a property that I had previously looked at. In both cases I knew that there were parking restrictions in place that went beyond 'caravans'. The idea behind this was to deal with any possible argument claiming the intention of the covenant rather than the specifics of the actual wording.
• The actual legal definition of a ‘motor caravan’ (the all encompassing DVLA classification for ‘motor homes’ and ‘camper vans') as set out in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. This confirms that something that falls within this definition could never be considered as being a subset of the wider term ‘caravan’. This point was also referenced in the aforementioned case law. The idea behind using this was to deal with any suggestion that a vehicle categorised on a V5 document as a 'motor-caravan' is therefore a 'caravan'.

The outcome:

The above points have now been accepted by the Transferor's representatives. The requirement for me to relocate the motorhome has been withdrawn and I now have a letter on file which acknowledges that I am not in breach of the particular covenant and therefore have the right to park a motorhome on the property.

We had similar when I bought , however it was inly until.all properties had been sold , only 19 houses
No one cares it also said no builders vans, wish that remained there loads of them .
Not my van though .....

 

[DBK]

My understanding is the developers put these restrictions in place so the development will look neat and tidy while they are selling the houses. Once the last one is sold the developer will scarper and won't give a fig for what folk park on their drive.

 

[Buddy1012]

Well done. No doubt it cost a substantial amount to get to this point.
Now all wording will be changed in future to include motorhome as its own entity.

Didn’t cost anything - other than time. I just went through the previous posts on here and did a little bit of my own research and just set it all out on a piece of paper.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Orion]

Excellent result from extensive research on your part.

Reminds me of this quotation:

“Knowledge is Power” - Sir Francis Bacon, Meditationes Sacrae (1597).

Perhaps Jim might consider putting it somewhere in the reference section?

 

[Buddy1012]

In this case it does actually ‘run with the land’. The previous owner of the site passed on the restriction to the developer who word for word passed it on to me.

 

[dna]

Doesn't these restrictions result in many self employed people not being able to buy those properties?

Could that be a ploy to avoid skilled builders / trades people moving in and then making significant claims about sub standard parts of the new homes!

 

[Nanniemate]

Doesn't these restrictions result in many self employed people not being able to buy those properties?

Could that be a ploy to avoid skilled builders / trades people moving in and then making significant claims about sub standard parts of the new homes!

Don't seem to work that way , they buy them and then whinge about poor quality but in the words of the plaster that lives next door
Can complain we all get away with what ever we can

 

[peterc10]

This topic has been discussed extensively in the past so I’ve assumed that other Funsters may be interested in the outcome in my situation. Others may at some point find themselves in similar circumstances. Here are the headlines:

We bought a new build house (freehold) on a small development in 2023.​

House is in a decent sized plot with a long private driveway tucked away at the farthest point of the development.​

It has an area with hard standing at the side of the garages big enough to accommodate a 9m motorhome - no interference with garages or main driveway and hardly visible from the house, or any one else fro that matter - so ideal which is why we chose it.​

Restrictive covenant clause in place prohibiting parking of 'boats, caravans and commercial vehicles' - obviously I knew this when I bought the property but was unfazed by the wording and didn't even bother to clarify the meaning during conveyancing process.​

M'home been parked on site since mid 2023 (except when use usually 12 - 14 weeks a year).​

Recently been asked to move it by the 'Transferor in Title' who has pointed out the aforementioned parking restriction. (The request has been made entirely at the behest of the Transferor and relates to the intended sale of the final property on the development).​

I rejected this request on account of (in my view) not being in breach of the covenant in question.​

The basis for this rejection was as follows:

• The established legal precedent i.e. the relevant case law Oaktree Motorhomes v HMRC (2017), which rests on the common English language usage of the term ‘caravan’ together with the lack of any relevant legal definition of a ‘caravan’ that could be taken to include vehicles such as ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’.
• Other precedents in the form of genuine (redacted) examples of land transfer deeds that have been exchanged since 2017 and which contain clauses specifically prohibiting the parking of vehicles including ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’, in addition to the standard / generic clause referring to ‘caravans’. These documents are available to download via the Land Registry. All you need is the exact address for a particular property. In my case I obtained one from a property that I used to own and another from a property that I had previously looked at. In both cases I knew that there were parking restrictions in place that went beyond 'caravans'. The idea behind this was to deal with any possible argument claiming the intention of the covenant rather than the specifics of the actual wording.
• The actual legal definition of a ‘motor caravan’ (the all encompassing DVLA classification for ‘motor homes’ and ‘camper vans') as set out in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. This confirms that something that falls within this definition could never be considered as being a subset of the wider term ‘caravan’. This point was also referenced in the aforementioned case law. The idea behind using this was to deal with any suggestion that a vehicle categorised on a V5 document as a 'motor-caravan' is therefore a 'caravan'.

The outcome:

The above points have now been accepted by the Transferor's representatives. The requirement for me to relocate the motorhome has been withdrawn and I now have a letter on file which acknowledges that I am not in breach of the particular covenant and therefore have the right to park a motorhome on the property.

Do you have a Citation or detailed case name for that case law please. I have searched the BAILII site and can't find it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Buddy1012]

Do you have a Citation or detailed case name for that case law please. I have searched the BAILII site and can't find it.

Oak Tree Motor Homes Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs: [2017] UKUT 0027 (TCC)​

 

[PaulW2]

“Knowledge is Power” - Sir Francis Bacon, Meditationes Sacrae (1597).

Knowledge is power
France is bacon

 

[MichaelT]

Buddy1012 thanks for this, I have downloaded the document and briefly read it. I'm a bit confused as it sort of defines what a caravan is which is fine if the deeds say caravan only but if the deed specifically states no parking of motorhomes, campervans etc how does the ruling get round that please?

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand legal speak easily

 

[peterc10]

Buddy1012 thanks for this, I have downloaded the document and briefly read it. I'm a bit confused as it sort of defines what a caravan is which is fine if the deeds say caravan only but if the deed specifically states no parking of motorhomes, campervans etc how does the ruling get round that please?

It doesn't. The OP's deeds (like mine) only mentioned caravans, hence he can keep a motorhome on the property, because the case states that a motorhome is not a caravan.

 

[yorkiebar]

My house has a covenant which states that no "caravan on wheels" should be stored on the property!

This dates from 1990 when the housing estate was built. Last year I asked the company who now own Charles Church ( original house builder ) about the covenant and they responded:

Persimmon would not take enforcement action against a resident in breach of the covenants. It would be for a neighbour or fellow resident to take enforcement action through the courts.

The important thing to remember about restrictive covenants is that they ‘run with the land’. This means that they are applicable to all future purchasers of the property and not just the original purchaser.

So I just cracked on with storing the van on my drive, it doesn't affect anyone's view and no-one has mentioned it (apart from admiring the van).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[carolyn]

Our house was built in 1951 and there is a covenant about caravans but I’ve always assumed it would be unenforceable. We do have one slightly odd neighbour though. Their house is the other side of the footpath. The wife knocked on the door one day to complain that when Nick was washing the van her husband could feel the water spray when he was standing on their drive. I’m sure that was absolutely impossible due to distance and high hedges.

See the photo. Our house has the white van and car just at back of house with blue blob, not road side. The other van was our builder.

Her drive was road side of the smaller brown building to the left of our house!

Our current van is a Consort and the V5 says Panel van, think it might be safest to not bother to change it to Motorcaravan! Don’t want to give her anything to whinge about.

 

[MichaelT]

It doesn't. The OP's deeds (like mine) only mentioned caravans, hence he can keep a motorhome on the property, because the case states that a motorhome is not a caravan.

Thanks, I wonder if the below clause stating similar vehicles would count?

Not to park any heavy goods vehicle commercial vehicle caravan boat trailer or other similar type of vehicle on any part of the Property (other than within the garage (if any)) or on any part of the Estate (including the Estate Roads the Visitor Parking Spaces and the Allocated Parking Spaces) and not to carry out or allow to be carried out on a commercial basis any vehicle maintenance on any part of the Property or the Estate

 

[Larrynwin]

When I bought my property 8 years ago there was a restrictive covenant, my solicitor said as it was built in 1924 don’t worry about it and take out a lifetime indemnity which I did at a cost of less than £50 .

 

[oldiesontour]

Could be wrong but seems to remember years ago being told by a solicitor they can only be enforced if they are considered Reasonable presumably by a Judge ???
Maybe I'm wrong but be good to know either way

 

[Orion]

When I bought my property 8 years ago there was a restrictive covenant, my solicitor said as it was built in 1924 don’t worry about it and take out a lifetime indemnity which I did at a cost of less than £50 .

We also have a ‘restrictive’ covenant applicable to the section of our private lane in our ownership that states we must, ‘maintain the breadth of ***ford Place to allow the passage of two sedan chairs side-by-side’.

I’m not really bothered about getting it sorted!

There’s another one that states we must allow the passage of other residents to draw water from the Town Leat (in our neighbours garden) and for them to water any stock.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GAVLAD]

Pleased you got this sorted as it's just additional stress and costs that you could have done without.
It seems more frequently acceptable that new build estates include no caravans on their covenants and I'm sure that this will be of interest to those home owners that own a motorhome.
My old house had a covenant of the owner/occupant not having more than two dogs, no sheep or hens and one couldn't run a business from home.
The person we sold it to owns three dogs and trains guide-dogs for the blind has can house an additional dog.
they also keep bantam chickens/hens and the neighbour works for themselves from home.
But nobody knows who polices the covenants, so it may as well not be in the deeds.

 

[Buddy1012]

Buddy1012 thanks for this, I have downloaded the document and briefly read it. I'm a bit confused as it sort of defines what a caravan is which is fine if the deeds say caravan only but if the deed specifically states no parking of motorhomes, campervans etc how does the ruling get round that please?

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand legal speak easily

Unfortunately it won’t - in my case the prohibited parking clause states ‘caravans’. For quite a few years many in a similar position have taken this to include m’homes & camper vans based on the DVLA V5 categorisation as ‘motor caravans’ as in a motor caravan is just a caravan. If pushed then legal professionals / developers / transferors in title would also point to the ‘legal definition’ of a caravan as set out in the Control of Caravan Sites Act 1960. If you look at this definition it would be difficult to argue that a M’Home is not a caravan. Many M’Home owners (me included in last house but two) just took this as read and caved in when faced with an objection to our parking. The legal case takes all this apart in such a way that the term ‘caravan’ as it appears in legal documents, parking regulations etc can no longer be taken to include a M’Home (or Motor Caravans, Campervans)

 

[Buddy1012]

Pleased you got this sorted as it's just additional stress and costs that you could have done without.
It seems more frequently acceptable that new build estates include no caravans on their covenants and I'm sure that this will be of interest to those home owners that own a motorhome.
My old house had a covenant of the owner/occupant not having more than two dogs, no sheep or hens and one couldn't run a business from home.
The person we sold it to owns three dogs and trains guide-dogs for the blind has can house an additional dog.
they also keep bantam chickens/hens and the neighbour works for themselves from home.
But nobody knows who polices the covenants, so it may as well not be in the deeds.

I don’t think it is a case of them being policed. Depending on way the deeds are written there will usually be the Transferor (in my case the developer) and the Transferee (me) and I signed a covenant with the developer not to park a caravan (for his unspecified benefit). He was arguing that I was interfering with his benefit (presumably his ability to sell his last house at the best possible price). It gets a little less clear when

Our house was built in 1951 and there is a covenant about caravans but I’ve always assumed it would be unenforceable. We do have one slightly odd neighbour though. Their house is the other side of the footpath. The wife knocked on the door one day to complain that when Nick was washing the van her husband could feel the water spray when he was standing on their drive. I’m sure that was absolutely impossible due to distance and high hedges.

See the photo. Our house has the white van and car just at back of house with blue blob, not road side. The other van was our builder.

Her drive was road side of the smaller brown building to the left of our house!

Our current van is a Consort and the V5 says Panel van, think it might be safest to not bother to change it to Motorcaravan! Don’t want to give her anything to whinge about.



View attachment 990558

You wouldn’t have a problem if you did - a motor caravan is not a caravan according to the judgement.

 

[haganap]

well done Buddy1012 it's people like you fighting their corner that helps so many others without probably even realising.

I have a friend in this position, I will forward to him.

 

[Silver-Fox]

Didn’t cost anything - other than time. I just went through the previous posts on here and did a little bit of my own research and just set it all out on a piece of paper.

I bow to your perseverance, fair play to you.
Sometimes you just need to keep plugging away at something to get a result.

Well done

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Reallyretired]

My last but one place had a covenant dating from 1800 something stating that I must not build a Chapel or church on the property. Fortunately never had the urge to do so.

 

[Buddy1012]

Thanks, I wonder if the below clause stating similar vehicles would count?

Not to park any heavy goods vehicle commercial vehicle caravan boat trailer or other similar type of vehicle on any part of the Property (other than within the garage (if any)) or on any part of the Estate (including the Estate Roads the Visitor Parking Spaces and the Allocated Parking Spaces) and not to carry out or allow to be carried out on a commercial basis any vehicle maintenance on any part of the Property or the Estate

Personally if it was me I’d ignore that because I think the ‘similar vehicle’ phrase is way too ambiguous. It wouldn’t be hard to argue that a motorhome is not similar to any of the specifics detailed within the clause.

 

[DerryW]

This topic has been discussed extensively in the past so I’ve assumed that other Funsters may be interested in the outcome in my situation. Others may at some point find themselves in similar circumstances. Here are the headlines:

We bought a new build house (freehold) on a small development in 2023.​

House is in a decent sized plot with a long private driveway tucked away at the farthest point of the development.​

It has an area with hard standing at the side of the garages big enough to accommodate a 9m motorhome - no interference with garages or main driveway and hardly visible from the house, or any one else fro that matter - so ideal which is why we chose it.​

Restrictive covenant clause in place prohibiting parking of 'boats, caravans and commercial vehicles' - obviously I knew this when I bought the property but was unfazed by the wording and didn't even bother to clarify the meaning during conveyancing process.​

M'home been parked on site since mid 2023 (except when use usually 12 - 14 weeks a year).​

Recently been asked to move it by the 'Transferor in Title' who has pointed out the aforementioned parking restriction. (The request has been made entirely at the behest of the Transferor and relates to the intended sale of the final property on the development).​

I rejected this request on account of (in my view) not being in breach of the covenant in question.​

The basis for this rejection was as follows:

• The established legal precedent i.e. the relevant case law Oaktree Motorhomes v HMRC (2017), which rests on the common English language usage of the term ‘caravan’ together with the lack of any relevant legal definition of a ‘caravan’ that could be taken to include vehicles such as ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’.
• Other precedents in the form of genuine (redacted) examples of land transfer deeds that have been exchanged since 2017 and which contain clauses specifically prohibiting the parking of vehicles including ‘motorhomes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘camper vans’, in addition to the standard / generic clause referring to ‘caravans’. These documents are available to download via the Land Registry. All you need is the exact address for a particular property. In my case I obtained one from a property that I used to own and another from a property that I had previously looked at. In both cases I knew that there were parking restrictions in place that went beyond 'caravans'. The idea behind this was to deal with any possible argument claiming the intention of the covenant rather than the specifics of the actual wording.
• The actual legal definition of a ‘motor caravan’ (the all encompassing DVLA classification for ‘motor homes’ and ‘camper vans') as set out in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. This confirms that something that falls within this definition could never be considered as being a subset of the wider term ‘caravan’. This point was also referenced in the aforementioned case law. The idea behind using this was to deal with any suggestion that a vehicle categorised on a V5 document as a 'motor-caravan' is therefore a 'caravan'.

The outcome:

The above points have now been accepted by the Transferor's representatives. The requirement for me to relocate the motorhome has been withdrawn and I now have a letter on file which acknowledges that I am not in breach of the particular covenant and therefore have the right to park a motorhome on the property.

Well done. David & Goliath

 

[lorger]

When it states no hgv’s I wonder how a MH over 3.5t would be classed as their taxation class is PHGV.

We’re in Scotland so it’s Burdens we have up here, similar wording and restrictions but someone has to show how they are burdened. I also think but not 100% that it can only be a direct neighbour, we park our van on the drive but no one can see it from their house and possibly 1 neighbour can see part of it from their back garden 50 meters away, our neighbour is a solicitor so I better not upset her although her partner runs a business from home so I should be fine.

 

[Silver-Fox]

our neighbour is a solicitor so I better not upset her although her partner runs a business from home so I should be fine.

That’s the live and let live attitude I wish one of our neighbours had.
Unfortunately he/they are total planks

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}