Covenants Builder Wants £60,000 To Remove. Want To Give Some To Charity Instead

[meltdom]

plot of land now with planning permission..covenants states..not to make an external alterations additions or extensions to any building to be erected upon the property hereby conveyed or any part thereof without the prior written approval of the trustees or their successors in title.
My question is are they entitled to this money and can they charge what they like ?

[black_cat51]

your question does not really make sense to me If it is just a plot of land there is no property?

[meltdom]

There is a 2 bed end terrace house with large plot of land which i have now got planning for 3 flats. the builder developed the area in the 1980`s and sold this house then with this covenant .

[factor-fiction]

So what is the £60000 for. What's the builder going to do?
It's still not clear to me

[black_cat51]

gotcha - the covenant says you can't build something there, and you want the covenant removed?

[black_cat51]

also, i realised i didn't actually answer your q
1) yes and 2) probably
where does giving money to charity come into it?

[factor-fiction]

So is it the original builder who is entitled to £60000 under the covenant?

[black_cat51]

that's how i read it

[gness]

I had a covenant removed from my house....don't think it cost anything but certainly not much if it did.

[whistonian]

Sorry guys you have completely lost me .There are so many questions one could ask here.

[SirOracle]

If I were you then I would be consulting a solicitor here.

He /she would be able to advise you properly after perusal of the restrictive covenant wording. Also advise you on the possibility of effecting a contingency Insurance policy for Breach of Covenant Insurance.

[Eve]

Indemnity insurance is pointless if the person with the benefit of the covenant has been approached, it would likely negate the policy, if any insurer would even give a policy if that is what has happened.

You should get proper legal advice from someone who can go over all the details.

[meltdom]

A indemnity would be no good because the company is still trading and wants this money to remove... if any solicitor who has links to a charity and would be willing to take this on ...would be a lot happier to make a contribution to charity rather than a profiteering outfit .

[Zacs-Master]

Your chances of finding someone like that on a site such as this are virtually nil. Have you done some research on the internet generally, such as looking at sites like this:
http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/beginners/plots/restrictive-covenants

[The Builder]

I have to say that I have walked away from a few of these in the past. It's common practice. I'm afraid that anyone who buys ground or property carrying a covenant such as this, must accept that whoever has the benefit of the covenant, has control.

In a perfect world, these types of covenant would never be allowed. They're terribly restrictive, and cause all kinds of problems. That's just my opinion though.

I think your idea of a charitable donation is a laudable one. To be blunt though, it's irrelevant. Negotiation is the only way forward. Somewhere in all this there is a point where you are willing to offer a certain price..... and they are willing to accept it. It's as simple as that.

With no deal, you have a development, but with limited control, and they get nothing out of it. They would likely make your life difficult.

With a deal, you build freely and they make some money.

Which is why I tend to walk before purchase if no deal is likely.

[cassa333]

Negotiate with them.

They have gone in high and you can try to get that down with a counter offer and see what happens.

What ever you do, don't start to build until you have agreed a price otherwise they haved you over a barrel and you pay whatever they say...

What company is it?

[tamborine]

You can negotiate to remove the covenant. Offer 10% of value of project.

http://www.hattonslaw.com/news-and-events/business/legal/removing-a-restrictive-covenant/

[Peter Pedant]

negative covenants are usually enforceable
Tulk v Moxhay 1848

well you wanted the law didnt you ?

[meltdom]

Thanks for all your replies

[buildersmate]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but you should have negotiated to remove the covenant BEFORE you increased it's value by applying for and getting consent. Now he's gotcha.
As others have said, you negotiate. 10% is too low a figure in my view and you might have to pay up to 30% of the now inflated value of the land.
If your consent contains a Section 106 obligation to contribute to local infrastructure as a condition, don't forget to include this fact in your negotiation. The financial terms of the contribution agreed between you and the planning authority over the s106 are confidential between you and the authority, so you can inflate this sum in your negotiation with the guy holding the convenent. But the real damage is done. Without release of the convenient, all you have is a piece of garden land.
Forcing this through a legal case to demonstrate the convenient is unreasonable is likely to be loadsa work for lawyers and you might not win.

[Peter Pedant]

google
damages for building despite coventant

and yo get this:
http://www.out-law.com/topics/property/property-litigation/how-should-damages-be-assessed-in-property-cases/

Parkside homes - there have been a few cases where an injunction to tear down was not granted and so the jjudge determined the damages on the profit made.
Series of cases - obviously varies - from lots to smaller

I would not do what was done ere - build and be damned
as you have given the builder notice - so that he could applyt for an injunction whilst, or at the beginning and then you are well and truly screwed.