Fancy a pint?

[slinkydevil]

21 minutes ago, pongo said:

Lots of housing does. Including much stuff built in the past 25 years.

Our small estate has a covenant about no works vans. No one takes any notice, I don't blame them either really.

[Barlow]

11 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

Our small estate has a covenant about no works vans. No one takes any notice, I don't blame them either really.

The purpose of covenants were to protect the original landowner. So as they start selling off the land and building on it they don't want the next houses to be devalued by the first few houses lowering the tone with workers vans, (caravans, pubs etc). So the covenant pertains if it directly affects the original landowner. 

The brewery thing about selling a property with the proviso it isn't used as a pub is ridiculous (for various reasons) and needs to be tested in a Manx court.

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, finlo said:

It may well only be 10p but it's every couple of months!

It was 40p on a pint of lager to welcome pub goers out of the 1st lockdown last year.

[TerryFuchwit]

2 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

So if you own one off those houses can you sell it with the proviso it won't be used as a house?

No. But take Saddlestone in Douglas for instance.  I know someone who has a house there.  You cannot extend them without the written permission of the company that built them.  The builder put the covenant on.

Edited April 18, 2021 by TerryFuchwit

[Declan]

14 hours ago, finlo said:

It may well only be 10p but it's every couple of months!

You're just going to have to visit the pub once every three months instead.

[TerryFuchwit]

They don't put the price up like that anyway.

That aside, who cares?  Brewery pubs are in the minority.   Plenty of other places to drink that are not brewery owned.

 

[Banker]

Nags Head seems very busy this morning, presumably their clientele are not fully back to work yet!!

[trmpton]

Douglas was busy yesterday right from lunchtime.

1886, Front Porch, Thirsty Pigeon all being well supported.

Shame there are no visitors to entertain.

[Happier diner]

On 4/18/2021 at 10:59 PM, TerryFuchwit said:

No. But take Saddlestone in Douglas for instance.  I know someone who has a house there.  You cannot extend them without the written permission of the company that built them.  The builder put the covenant on.

I believe these covenants are only of interest to the builder until he/she have sold all the houses. Its to stop someone ruining the look of the development to the detriment of their sales. I further understand that normally only the builder has the power to invoke the covenant  and wouldn't be able to be bothered once the last property was sold. Sometimes the covenants mention vans, motorhomes, fences, caravans etc. But things might have changed.

I would imagine that such covenants are easily overturned anyway.

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

1. I believe these covenants are only of interest to the builder until he/she have sold all the houses. Its to stop someone ruining the look of the development to the detriment of their sales.

2. I further understand that normally only the builder has the power to invoke the covenant  and wouldn't be able to be bothered once the last property was sold.

3. Sometimes the covenants mention vans, motorhomes, fences, caravans etc. But things might have changed.

4. I would imagine that such covenants are easily overturned anyway.

1. Original land owner, developer, and occasionally the builder. Yes, that’s the initial purpose. But they carry on, and on.

2. there a two types of restrictive covenants. The first vested in and enforceable by the original owner, developer, builder, seller, or its successor, and the second, called an estate covenant, enforceable by anyone who has bought on the development. The latter are rare. I can think of two or three local developments where restrictive covenants still cause issues, especially of consent, years after development. And dozens of others where consent has to be asked. A smart apartment block was built on Victoria Road, just below Glenside, despite a single dwelling covenant. Made the apartments unsaleable for ages. King Edward Road Howstrake Estate still enforce, although sale of, and development was mainly completed by late 1940’s. Tromode Park Estates still enforce. Any advocate acting for a purchaser will ask the vendor to produce consent to alterations.

3. All sorts, building lines, no live stock, no businesses except professions etc. The list is endless.

4. No.

[Happier diner]

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

1. Original land owner, developer, and occasionally the builder. Yes, that’s the initial purpose. But they carry on, and on.

2. there a two types of restrictive covenants. The first vested in and enforceable by the original owner, developer, builder, seller, or its successor, and the second, called an estate covenant, enforceable by anyone who has bought on the development. The latter are rare. I can think of two or three local developments where restrictive covenants still cause issues, especially of consent, years after development. And dozens of others where consent has to be asked. A smart apartment block was built on Victoria Road, just below Glenside, despite a single dwelling covenant. Made the apartments unsaleable for ages. King Edward Road Howstrake Estate still enforce, although sale of, and development was mainly completed by late 1940’s. Tromode Park Estates still enforce. Any advocate acting for a purchaser will ask the vendor to produce consent to alterations.

3. All sorts, building lines, no live stock, no businesses except professions etc. The list is endless.

4. No.

Very interesting. So if my neighbour got himself a van and built an extension contrary to the covenant am I able to take action or does only the developer have to right to take action.

I once bought a house that adjoined an open field. The field had been gifted to the council with a covenant that they could only use it to build a school. I remember my conveyancer telling me this but then saying he didn't see much power in it as it could be overturned. 3 years later they were building new houses on it. The council had sold it to a developer

I guess its a minefield

[John Wright]

12 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

1. Very interesting. So if my neighbour got himself a van and built an extension contrary to the covenant am I able to take action or does only the developer have to right to take action.

2. I once bought a house that adjoined an open field. The field had been gifted to the council with a covenant that they could only use it to build a school. I remember my conveyancer telling me this but then saying he didn't see much power in it as it could be overturned. 3 years later they were building new houses on it. The council had sold it to a developer

I guess its a minefield

1. Depends if it’s an estate covenant and the right to enforce has been assigned to you when you bought.

2. that sounds like England. The law isn’t necessarily the same.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

1. Depends if it’s an estate covenant and the right to enforce has been assigned to you when you bought.

2. that sounds like England. The law isn’t necessarily the same.

Understood 😀

[piebaps]

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

2. that sounds like England. The law isn’t necessarily the same.

Of course it isn't, the bloody English have been involved

[Happier diner]

12 hours ago, piebaps said:

Of course it isn't, the bloody English have been involved

But don't we just cut and paste all their laws anyway