Property Covenant - advice please.

[Marniejm]

House has a covenant in the deeds that it can only be let to one family and not unrelated tenants.

Is the enforceable?

House is not mortgaged, would would breaching the covenant impact on any household/building/contents insurance?

House is let to 3 unrelated adults - staff of a local business.

Thank you for considering.

Is it in a new build compound/estate type thing? Or is it like an older house on a regular road?

The house is a mid terrace, built in 2000. It is in a small courtyard setting of seven houses.

It can only be enforced by the beneficiary of the covenant. If that is the developer who built the houses, they are the only people who can enforce it. If they no longer exist or aren't interested, the no-one else can enforce it.

In order to answer this we need to know who has the benefit of this covenant. It might be the developer but it might also be for the mutual benefit of other residents.

If the intention is to prevent the place being let as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) then it may benefit the others. HMO's can cause issues with parking, failure to keep gardens tidy, noise etc etc.

Is the OP a resident in the let house or are you bothered my issues such as I list above?

My mother, at the end of her life, lived in quite smart block of privately owned flats on the edge of a major UK city. One parking space per flat. Couples with two cars were and issue never mind if there were four people in a flat. Not the same as living with ordinary households; HMO use affects the other residents.

Is it let to the staff or the business?

In this case, I believe the house is let as a. ‘Staff house’ by a local hotel. They provided furniture to the empty house. Individual tenants come and go as they join or leave the hotel.

The landlady is a private individual.
The house deeds include the covenant.

The house deeds also include details of parking. This house has space for one car. The rest of the courtyard is a shared ‘turning circle’ to allow other residents access on and off their drives. Access is also necessary for delivery and emergency service vehicles to turn around.

Tenants have a car each (so three cars) plus cars of any guests. Often the courtyard is blocked by tenant/guest parking. Six cars yesterday, four today.

Meetings have taken place with the hotel regarding the parking. It improves for a day or two, then issues repeat.

Could the covenant be used to address issues?

What's the wording of the covenant?

If in England or Wales they might well need to have a licence for this sort of let. I don't know this licence could be granted if it involves a breach of covenant.

https://www.gov.uk/find-licences/house-in-multiple-occupation-licence

It should be possible to check with the local authority if a licence exists for the property. In our area this can be looked up online.

The risk would be that one of the neighbours tips off the developer/ beneficiary of the covenant if there is antisocial behaviour. They are probably all subject to the same covenant so will be aware of it.

Properties in this area only require a license for 5 or more individuals.

Thank you for taking time to help.

As said above if for benefit of others (eg our private estate deeds all say one house per plot (not sure if one family but probably says so) and we only do have one house per plot owned by and in most cases lived in by the one family and if let let to one family which usually means just 1 or 2 cars rather than eg 3 couples and 6 cars - a huge difference

You need to sort out exactly what the covenant says. Who it benefits should be straightforward but it ain't necessarily so.

Probably one of those cases where, if several households are being messed around, it's worth clubbing together for proper paid for legal advice.

Your target is probably the Landlord letting in contravention of covenants. She may be ignorant of their terms or even their existence. The idea that it's my home and I can do what I want is depressingly common.

I believe restrictive covenants can be waived - i.e. become void - by passage of time without enforcement. Not saying this one is, but I think you’d need to take specialist advice on that, the benefit and the exact wording.

Wording in the deeds. @NoWordForFluffy

‘Not to use or suffer to be used the property hereby transferred or any part thereof….( as an inn, ale house, trade, business, profession, public meetings etc) …or for any other purpose than as a private residence for the use of one and not more than one family.’

If the covenants are replicated across all the new build properties ithe deeds might create an estate scheme enforceable but other owners of adjacent housing.
The deed needs to be read in full to understand who has the benefit of the covenant as people above have noted.

Thanks, please can I ask, what does ‘benefit of the covenant’ mean?

Is this something to find in the deeds?

Covenants benefit one party and burden the other:

https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/covenants-on-a-property-explained/

Figuring out who had the original benefit of the covenant and who can exercise it now isn't always easy. It may be necessary to look at the conveyance that imposed the covenant originally. If you want to pursue this, you should consult a solicitor.

Not too relevant to this question, but there was quite an interesting recent case relating to covenants and use of private roads to build a second house on one plot - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2023/9.html

All seven houses have the same covenant, I assumed to protect all residents by setting combined rules that we all have to abide by, to protect against the issues above. Is that not the case?

The parking issue is quite serious, an ambulance arrived recently for a neighbours child and couldn’t get to the house and was unable to turn around to get out. We have tried working with the hotel and although each time there is an incident they apologise with ‘we’ve spoken to the staff, it won’t happen again’ …and then it does.
Can you imagine if there were a fire.

The covenant was a next step, but maybe doesn’t protect us at all.

We have a similar issue with a house near us. You might find that they are in breach of planning permission. Houses of multiple occupancy is any house with more than two unrelated people living in it. They usually only need an hmo licance if they have more people in than that but all HMOs require a change of planning permission from c3 to C4. If you can get proof that there are more than 3 unrelated people living there and there is no planning permission for change of usage then you can report them to planning enforcement.

Planning permission is only needed if the LA has activated provisions requiring it. Lots of places probably have, particularly towns with large numbers of students or student heavy areas.

If the people are living as a family, PP isn't required - so if they all share a kitchen, living room etc. If the rooms are occupied more as bedsits, PP maybe required.

The fact they all have the same covenant does not mean that the current homeowners have the benefit of the covenant. They may have, but they may not. As I say, you need to take legal advice.