Restrictive covenant from 1928

[Elmrosie]

We're trying to buy a property which our surveyor reckons was extended in approximately 1990. Our solicitor is asking for a copy of the permission to extend, as required by a restrictive covenant from 1928 in favour of a named person and successors. If this document can't be found, is there really much of a risk of the breach being acted on? It's a 1920s property, with similar properties to either side, each of which have been/are being extended.

Can you get an indemnity insurance? I can't recall exactly but I think our solicitor sorted that out for us with regards to an old covenant.

I'm hoping so. We've got an uncooperative seller though, which isn't helpful.

Who on earth would act on such a covenent ...especially if they haven't in 30 years.

Personally if I was the seller I'd be hacked off if I was asked to pay for an indemnity (I think a lot of them are a scam)

Last time I sold a house I refused to buy an indemnity policy as there was no building reg sign off for the removal of a chimney breast which I reckoned had happened in about 1960! Probably before building regs! It had all the correct lintel thing so was sound from a structure pov. Buyer's solicitor just said ok and I never heard anymore about it!

@CovidCorvid

Who on earth would act on such a covenent ...especially if they haven't in 30 years.

Personally if I was the seller I'd be hacked off if I was asked to pay for an indemnity (I think a lot of them are a scam)

Last time I sold a house I refused to buy an indemnity policy as there was no building reg sign off for the removal of a chimney breast which I reckoned had happened in about 1960! Probably before building regs! It had all the correct lintel thing so was sound from a structure pov. Buyer's solicitor just said ok and I never heard anymore about it!

That's exactly what I was wondering. I can't see who would act on it, seems like an abundance of caution from our solicitor. That's not a bad thing, but we don't want to get mired down unnecessarily.

I do think solicitors are very quick to try and get one for everything, whether they get a cut of the money or just being cautious I'm not sure. As a buyer I genuinely wouldn't worry about this!

I suppose the only slight downside is if you come to sell the house in years to come and have a cautious buyer you may have to pay for a covenant. ??

If it was extended over 20 years ago then doctrine of laches (delay) applies and any party with the benefit of the covenant is out of time to enforce the breach. In plain English; if a covenant was breached 20 years ago or more and no one has complained, then no lender will have an issue with it and there is no basis in law for a claim.
An indemnity policy is a waste of money. There is no longer a right to claim that exists.
Pretty basic stuff on the basis of the facts you have given, and surprised your solicitor is making this an issue.

@CovidCorvid

I do think solicitors are very quick to try and get one for everything, whether they get a cut of the money or just being cautious I'm not sure. As a buyer I genuinely wouldn't worry about this!

I suppose the only slight downside is if you come to sell the house in years to come and have a cautious buyer you may have to pay for a covenant. ??

I'm only going out of this house in a wooden box, I'm never moving again

@HintofVintagePink

If it was extended over 20 years ago then doctrine of laches (delay) applies and any party with the benefit of the covenant is out of time to enforce the breach. In plain English; if a covenant was breached 20 years ago or more and no one has complained, then no lender will have an issue with it and there is no basis in law for a claim. An indemnity policy is a waste of money. There is no longer a right to claim that exists. Pretty basic stuff on the basis of the facts you have given, and surprised your solicitor is making this an issue.

Thank you that's very reassuring. I'm a cash buyer, so it's not as though I have to worry about keeping a lender happy.