Conflicting restrictive covenants on property?

[WorriedDad23]

We are buying a property and come across these covenants in our searches, I can't see the logic here as they seem to contradict each other but wonder if anyone here can shed some light on this.

Property/land has been changed hands three times, first two transactions seems like they were land transactions and no property was built at the time, third transaction is between the property developer and my sellers who bought the property as a new build back in 1982

Below are the years of transactions and restrictive covenants relating to altering the building

1. 1980 Company A- > Company B : Not to erect or make alterations or additions to the elevations of the dwellinghouse and garage without the written consent of the...

1. 1981 Company B -> Company C : Not to erect or make alterations or additions to the elevations of the dwellinghouse and garage without the written consent of the..

1. 1982 Company C -> Mr XXX : Within a period of 10 years from the date 1982 not without the transferor's prior written consent to erect or place or suffer to be erected or placed on any part of the property any additional building or erection not to make or suffer to be made any addition to the outside of or which may affect the stability of present buildings on the property and to pay to the transferor a reasonable fee for considering any request for such consent.

Mr XXX has extended the property in 1995 which is 13 years after 1982 so it doesn't breach the last covenant, but in breach of the first two if they are enforceable.

My question is does the covenants mentioned in 1 & 2 still valid/enforceable in this example? if so, what is the point of 3rd one anyway with 10 a year expiry period when first two has no expiry.

Looking at this logically without any legal knowledge I feel third one must be overriding the first two but my solicitor and couple of others I've spoken to disagrees with me.

I've also learnt that if a breach of a restrictive covenant has existed for 20 years or more, without any complaint by the person with the benefit of the restrictive covenant, they will no longer be able to enforce against the breach.

Or I can get an indemnity policy as the last option, but I'd like to know the actual logic here.

Many thanks.

Not a legal bod in anyway but my thinking would be that a property was in place in 1980 at the time of the first sale, otherwise why mention a dwelling at all? Plus a new build in the uk seems to mean anything up
to around 10 years old…
Reading the entire post, it would seem that no one has breached any covenant, as companies b and c didn’t do any alterations (nor can they going forward) and Mr xxx did so after the timeframe has expired.
Are any of these parties/business around to enforce any of these covenants? Did any of your solicitors suggest what to do or not to do regarding this or about an indemnity policy?

Thanks for the reply

Yes, all companies mentioned are still in business

The confusion is did Mr XXX breach covenants put on by companies A & B ? My solicitor seems to think so.

If yes then what is the point of an expiry on the covenant put on by the company C?

why wouldn't you take the legal advice of your solicitor? if you don't trust them, you need to find one you do trust. this is exactly the thing you're paying them for

It just doesn't make sense, my solicitor is not able to give me an explanation, just says it is how it is. I'm just trying to make a logical explanation for my own sanity.

Thanks for the replies.

Your solicitor is right but you can have covenants removed, it’s a cost;y/lengthy ballache process though

Did mr XXX have written consent, in which case was not in breach of point 1?

It looks as if the third sale was likely including a side contract of consent which was part of the sales price so not subject to stamp or other tax. The buyer and seller would have agreed and given time to do the building work and make changes by paying a fee.
And option 1&2 remain in place but no fee is payable after year 10

Covenants can only be enforced by the people who put them in place and it would cost them a lot a be a huge faff to do this . The original covenant holders are unlikely to enforce them now after all this time so it probably isn't worth worrying about.

@TwatCat

No written consent was taken at the time.

Feels like not much to worry about given the breach happened 25 years ago.

Thanks for the replies everyone.