UKC

Hi Folks,

Time to plumb the depth of knowledge and opinion that is UKC.

I'm in the process of buying a house and one of the restrictive covenants is for no parking on the "Estate Road" part of the development. - No parking at all, not even cars.

The layout is basically a square with five house round it and a shared access (Estate Road) which encompasses the square. The issue I may have is that the house I want to buy only has one space (a driveway) and a garage that isn't wide enough to fit either of our two cars.

When my wife and I were viewing the house (and at that point being unaware of the covenant) we spoke to one of the neighbours and asked if there were any parking issues and would he have a problem if we parked diagonally across the end of our drive (on the estate road), with the other car on the drive. He said that this wouldn't be a problem and that everyone worked round everyone else - basically give and take. The spot where we would park would mean we wouldn't be in anyone's way therefore not creating access issues.

My concern is that the covenant is as clear as a bell on the deeds and whilst everyone may well play ball we may be on a sticky wicket if someone decides to get snotty in the future.

However, I'd like to think that everyone would be sensible and failing this, in reality how difficult would it be to enforce such a covenant ?. Some of the other covenants are around not being able to install a satellite dish (Everyone has) so in my mind if anyone decided to be awkward I'd instantly make mention of that fact. Also, if we get stopped from parking that would automatically mean that any visitors to any of the properties would also not be allowed to park thereby buggering things for everyone.

I guess there's no one answer to this but I'd be interested to hear your opinions !

In reply to mattlee:

We had something similar and it's quite common as developers like to retain the 'feel' whilst selling. We were told they would have to demonstrate material loss to enforce the covenant. Ours included front door colour, satellite dishes, bins, caravans on drives and I think whether we could wipe our nose in public view.

More concerning for us was that the road hadn't been adopted and all the houses paid a service charge every month and had set up a Ltd company to manage common areas.

Couldn't be arsed with that as we're moving out of leasehold. This sort of nonsense is enough to drive anyone mad.

In reply to mattlee:

There's some interesting info here, including some really bizarre examples: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/09/restrictive-covenants-homebuy...

Could be worth looking at getting the covenant discharged, especially if all households agree, how long has it been around for/ when was it added to the deeds? Or is it a new build?

The danger is if you do bring up the issue then it could end up being enforced...

In reply to XXXX:

Thanks mate. The house Is 16 years old so quite established and I think we're potentially the third owners so I'm sure at some point someone's parked on the "Forbidden" bit.....

In reply to GarethSL:

Hi, yeah, that's the danger - do we just let sleeping dogs lie. Its sixteen years old - see my other reply.

In reply to mattlee:
If it was me, I'd walk away from it.

I have seen loads of this style of housing go up near me and the use of shared drives is always going to end up with a row with your neighbours at some point in the future.

In reply to mattlee:

It's worth finding out who has the right to enforce the covenants - developer or the neighbours. Ask your solicitor and they'll let you know. Unlikely that developer will enforce if all the plots are sold (no reason for them to care anymore) and if the neighbours have no right to enforce then there's no risk that they will...

In reply to mattlee:
Digression - something to watch out for.

There's been some press recently where a while back major developers (eg Bovis, Taylor Woodrow) set up ground rent or service charges that doubles every ten years. 10-20 years later people are staring to face up to some big bills. Pretty shocking that developers did this and that solicitors don't spot this because household incomes aren't guaranteed to double every ten years.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/05/ground-rent-scandal-engulfing...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ground-rent-scandal-shakes-taylor-wimpey...

In reply to thomasadixon:

Good point - If its the developer (They put the covenant in in the first place) - I agree that by now they wouldn't be arsed.

In reply to mattlee:

They would have to prove damages and then that those damages were a result of you ignoring the covenant. This would also have to follow you ignoring their attempts to get you to comply with the covenant (I.e move the car). Basically its nothing to worry about. If you're really risk adverse you can buy insurance which I have just been told by our expert behind me, is peanuts.
if the covenant is between neighbours it could have slightly worse consequences but still nothing to worry about

In reply to La benya:

That's great thankyou....

In reply to mattlee:

For this to be enforceable it would have to be a private road. Covenenats can only be placed on property.

We live in a private road. All is calm and good and people park sensibly. Every now and again the parking gets out of hand and everyone is reminded of the rules and the issues go away.

The problem with parking on the access road and on our road is it will restrict emergency access. It will be impossible for a fire engine to get to a house if people are parked where they shouldn't.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Cool, thankyou. Where we plan on parking is out of the way in one of the corners (it being a square) so we wont get in the way. We've been across to the place tonight, parked where we intend to going forwards, and knocked on most of the doors to ask if anyone had a problem and everyone seems more than happy for us to park where suggested - some even said "What else are you going to do"? so all good.

I think its a case that at some point everyone will have visitors (or need to park on the restricted bit) so its probably the case that everyone takes a sensible view and that as long as everyone behaves reasonably then no-one particularly cares !