Missing covenant from 1902

[instantpotnoodle]

We’re buying a house built in 1902 and the title report has come back to say the original deed references a restrictive covenant but that this wasn’t lodged or provided when the property was first registered. So no one knows what it says.

our solicitor has said on the phone that if it was him, he wouldn’t pay for the indemnity policy (quoted at £500) as it’s so old it’s very very unlikely it’ll ever come to light or that anyone even knows what it is. I can’t decide whether we should just to have it covered off, or just forget about it….the vendors have said they won’t cover the cost nor meet us halfway on it.

any thoughts to help me make up my mind?

Just been through this (literally this week), asked the seller to pay the 490 quid which they did as we’d been flawless buyers from the start.

Sorry didn’t really answer your question, except we wanted all indemnities because if you’re asking this question you can be certain other buyers will when you sell.

@Housebuyingfamily thanks. Our vendors have said no to paying despite us being a breeze on everything else.

yes, agree it’ll likely come up again but then as I understand any future buyers would need their own policy anyway? Could be wrong!

Not sure on future buyers I’m afraid but we had the same issue - the vendor refused to pay even though our solicitor strongly advised that usually it is their cost.

We paid for the indemnity in the end as wanted to have some work done to the place (attic conversion, kitchen side return etc.) and didn’t want to run any risks.

Have you looked at the land registry for adjacent, same age properties? They might have the same covenant.
otherwise I’d be tempted to forget about it, as who can prove what’s not registered?

Thanks. I just checked next door (the matching semi). That also has a missing restrictive covenant on it but different names relating to it.

Thanks. I just checked next door (the matching semi). That also has a missing restrictive covenant on it but different names relating to it.

I wonder if that suggests that the covenants were for the benefit of the adjoined house owners when built, i.e. Mr Smith lived in house A, and their house had a restrictive covenant to the benefit of Mr Jones in house B, and vice versa. Hence the different names? Is the wording exactly the same, other than the names? If so, most likely scenario, rather than a covenant for the benefit of the landowner/builder.

I think in that case I would prob pay for the indemnity - the covenant could relate to not extending without the neighbour's permission for example, and it's possible the physical covenant may be with the actual paperwork if the neighbour's have paid off their mortgage.... We got loads of weird paperwork relating to easements for the outflow of our septic tank when we paid off our mortgage - not something we'd seen when buying with a mortgage.