Hugo Nebula wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:56:51 -0700 (PDT), a particular chimpanzee,
> tvmo randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
>
>> We're in the process of selling our house, however our buyer's
>> solicitor has picked up a covenant in our paperwork that states we
>> should have spoken with the builders of our house prior to undertaking
>> an extension.
>
>> What are the implications of this?
>
> IANAL, so ignore everything that follows, but usually these clauses
> are put into the original sales agreements so that the developer can
> retain some control on what the estate looks like. Stuff like not
> parking caravans on the drives, not having satellite dishes on the
> front elevations, not having clothes lines on the front lawns, etc.
>
> If the estate is now complete and all the properties are sold, I
> suspect they'll no longer care. That's not to say they won't charge
> for issuing any kind of retrospective 'permission'.
if i remember my parents had something similar, the plans stated they
would plant a silver birch in the front garden, didn't specify where,
part of the estate gardening plan.
they also had a few requirements for trees in back gardens.
since insurance companies like to ask if there is a tree near the house
and put your premium up if there is, not many people did.
they dweeb with clipboard who went round to check gave up on looking
into back gardens after one woman reported him as a peeping tom, the
police apparently had a word and common sense prevailed over back gardens.
as for the silver birch, they gave up, my dad pointed otu we had to
plant it, but didn't have to supply it, so he told them provide one and
i'll plant it. they ummed a bit, then he said it won't grow sine nowhere
did the contract say he could not chop the roots off first.
stuff about fences etc at the front were generally kept to but the silly
bits no.
i think the idea was to make the estate look nice so when new purchasers
drove round it looked good.
|