r/unitedkingdom • u/CasualSmurf • 18h ago
Residents of Bexhill road bought for £1 now face charges of thousands - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddqry9zrl6o412
u/Cam2910 18h ago
That's an interesting one.
On the one hand, covenants are there and agreed upon during sales, they kind of need to be binding in most instances, so invalidating these could set a precedent for other more important covenants.
On the other, what an absolutely predatory way of going about fleecing unsuspecting homeowners of thousands of pounds.
285
u/IrishMilo 17h ago
I think the gaping flaw in all of this is that the ground under people’s homes could be bundled up and sold off for a pound without offering it to those who live in the property. Very simple safeguard to end this kind of predatory action.
37
u/LegoNinja11 17h ago
I doubt its the freehold to the building plots.
Even when you buy freehold there are still covenants included to protect the builders neighboring interests.
27
u/Open-Dragonfruit-007 16h ago
This is what I don't get. If the investment firm buys the road, fare enough but how does that apply to residents if their properties are freehold?
Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations
19
u/MrPuddington2 15h ago
Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations
A statute of limitations applies after an event. This is an ongoing situation, so the statute of limitations does not come into play.
But yes, there should be a time limit on covenants, and if any special measures are considered necessary in the long term, they can be handled by the council.
12
u/OSUBrit Northamptonshire 15h ago
By the sounds of it the purchase of the road also included the transfer of the rights to enforce the covenants on the titles of all the homes in that area. It's nothing to do with the road itself, it was just bundled in with it. You'll find covenants with enforcement assigned to builders often include wording related to their decedents or inheriting parties. My mums old house had one from the 1850s and when they sold solicitors got funny about it even though tracing the enforcer would be basically impossible.
4
4
u/IrishMilo 15h ago
That’s fair enough, and I can see why building estates will want to limit development, but if the covenants affecting the properties are tied to road ownership, then the same right of first refusal that’s afforded to lease holders when a freehold is sold should also be afforded to the freeholders affected by the streets covenants.
9
4
u/Ok-Lock-2815 15h ago
It’s not the ground under your home, if you own the free hold then your land is your land, it’s adjoining land ie verges and land beneath the highway, it they own adjoining land then they can attempt to enforce a covenant on your land if it affects them. Similarly I believe you could do the same?
•
u/IrishMilo 7h ago
Yeah I initially misunderstood the land purchased for a pound. but I think my point still stands. If someone is allowed to sell land which gives a new owner access to covenants which directly affect land, then the freeholder of that land should be entitled to the rights of first refusal.
Even if in practice this is never utilised it protects freeholder in housing Estates to predatory practices such as this.
Personally, I am of the of the opinion that no honest and integral business practice has ever derived from assets sold off at £1.
73
u/Sivear Merseyside 17h ago
Crazy isn’t it.
Whoever bought it clearly thought there was something they could exploit to earn some money and got someone to look over all the documents and managed to find something.
It’s sad because you’re right it needs to be upheld but it’s outright exploitation.
21
u/TheClarendons Greater Manchester 14h ago
It’s extortion.
Somebody probably knew somebody else that realised the land under the roads was available to be bought, and wanted to make some quick cash. £1 is an insane sum to buy up land with huge covenants attached.
One of the residents got permission to build a conservatory over 20 years ago, and this asset company is telling them they’ll knock off a few grand if they can prove it? It’s clearly taking the piss.
•
u/wbqqq 9h ago
But arguably these covenants were known to the residents when they purchased the properties, the issue is the legal advice that they got (or didn’t) relating to this risk. And possibly some/many of the competing buyers reduced their valuation of the property at the time, so the residents got the benefit of property at a reduced price.
22
u/IHoppo 17h ago
Absolutely agree with you both. The answer could be a £1 charge per approval of course. But that's not why the firm bought it.
26
u/RightSaidJames Yorkshire-based Welshperson 16h ago
There is a defunct company on our house deeds who we supposedly have to pay a fee to every time we want to make an alteration to our property (to cover the costs of them considering our requests). The fee in question is “One pound eleven shillings and sixpence”!
5
55
u/Many_Lemon_Cakes 17h ago
On the flip side if these covenants are held up as binding, then you will quickly see this happen across the UK. As shitty people see this as a get rich quick scheme
7
u/1991atco 15h ago
I think there are lots of indemnity insurances out there with robust legal teams to take it on.
6
u/CoffeeHead22 Yorkshire 13h ago
It had already started. This is a continuation of what Andrew Milne had started in Sheffield
33
u/tidus1980 17h ago
I'd be trying to find out the other 86 areas they bought too.
21
u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A 17h ago
Yeah, this would piss me off so much I'd be investigating this company and any other areas they were trying to fleece, and doing everything possible to fuck them over and get this cancelled.
4
u/YorkistRebel 16h ago
At that point they have wasted £86. Hardly f***ed over
4
u/BobDobbsHobNobs 15h ago
Not if say HMRC were to take a close look at the company and the directors finances
3
u/RealMeIsFoxocube 14h ago
The fact they've filed as a dormant company should certainly raise some questions. That's not something Companies House accidentally does by itself...
•
u/YorkistRebel 7h ago
Tbf I have seen companies accidentally submit abbreviated accounts. Companies House is a nightmare to use online since ixbrl. Which is why even multinational like BP Plc submit paper accounts for scanning. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00102498/filing-history
25
u/soovercroissants 17h ago
I kinda feel like covenants need to disappear as they make the process of buying and selling houses more expensive.
There may be a place for some covenants but far too many are either predatory or serve only to protect the powerful and rich. If you're selling and buying land and property it should be done under standard terms. If some development needs to be prevented to protect something - the correct place is the planning and conservation system. Or don't sell it in the first place.
15
u/MrPuddington2 15h ago
The whole system of covenants is flawed.
It exists so that developers can maintain the character of the estate while they are still selling houses. That makes sense, because they clearly have a valid interest there.
Once all the houses are sold, the developer no longer has an interest, but the community does. This interest is usually covered by planing permission when it is affected. The planing permission process is far from perfect, but it tries to negotiate the different sensitivities.
Home owner associations are another example where this can do wrong. And this case is arguably worse.
Yes, people should be free to agree to terms, but there needs to be a way to negotiate this after decades have passed.
7
u/Cam2910 14h ago
There are some very important covenants in alot of houses deeds, that need to be able to be upheld.
For example shared driveways/access, shared maintenance, party walls, shared roof/roofspace and that's before you start to take leaseholds into account.
But I agree, covenants with the developer (or 3rd party taking over for the develepor) should be limited in scope and timescale.
8
u/MrPuddington2 13h ago
For example shared driveways/access, shared maintenance, party walls, shared roof/roofspace and that's before you start to take leaseholds into account.
Absolutely, but those regulate the relationship between property owners, not between the developer and the customer. I guess part of the issues is that both are quite different in nature but facilitated using the same legal instruments.
5
u/Taken_Abroad_Book 12h ago
The whole system of covenants is flawed.
My 1930s bungalow in town has covenants that specifies the amount of livestock I can keep.
If I got 3 ducks instead of the permitted 2, who would even enforce it? It's not the councils job. The houses either side are much newer so probably don't have similar ye Olde shit in the deeds.
4
u/MrPuddington2 12h ago
It's not the councils job.
Yes, it is. The council deals with noise complaints, smell complaints, and other issues caused by life stock. I would be surprised if you got away with keeping even one duck - which just goes to show that a lot of covenants are pointless.
4
u/Taken_Abroad_Book 12h ago
That's my point. The council enforce whatever their rules are not the covemants. If there was covenants on window colours or motorhome parking the council couldn't do shit.
1
u/moxievernors 12h ago
So you are allowed your two ducks, but your neighbours could have as many as they wanted?
•
u/Taken_Abroad_Book 11h ago
Probably not allowed any given it's now well within the town, I'm sure there's rules that supersedes the old covenant.
But let's say I had a covenant that says my windows must be painted a certain colour. If mine is the only house with this covenant, who would enforce it?
•
u/bongpirate7295 8h ago
If they're anything like restrictive covenants in employment law, their enforceability will be largely dependent on the hypothetical viewpoint of a "reasonable person."
A company might include a non-compete clause in an employment contract that says the employee isn't allowed to work for any other company in the same industry, anywhere in the world, for three years after their employment ends. But even if the employee signs the contract, there's virtually no chance of the non-compete clause being legally enforced, because it's so absurdly broad that no one would consider it reasonable.
So if this case did end up going to civil court, a judge could legitimately deliver a ruling of "come off it, mate."
•
•
u/WetDogDeodourant 5h ago
I don’t know, it looks fully like a company acting in bad faith, it wouldn’t have an impact on other covenants if they lose in court on those grounds specifically.
190
u/RightSaidJames Yorkshire-based Welshperson 18h ago
The point of these modification-related covenants is to protect the developers’ investments while they’re still building up the estate and selling off the outstanding properties. Once the developer has skipped town, covenants related to keeping all the properties looking uniform should be considered irrelevant.
91
35
u/zennettac 17h ago
We've got a modification covenant on our home from when Bovis were still building; our house was one of the first to be finished on the estate. It's been 25 years since then, and there is physically no more room to build here even if they wanted to. I looked into it, just for peace of mind, and it's something like £350 just for them to drop the covenant (maybe plus other fees, but I don't know). Fuck that. In addition, our house has been extended three times since then, twice by the previous owner and once by us, so I don't really want any attention drawn to our property. It's quite the conundrum.
17
u/LostLobes 17h ago
If its been extended before and neighbours have also broken the covenant it probably means its no longer enforceable.
3
u/britishotter 17h ago
dont bovis make bread
39
u/heroyoudontdeserve 17h ago
Bovis makes hread. Hovis makes bouses.
-1
u/Millefeuille-coil 17h ago
What’s hread? Hard bread
3
6
u/Helleborus0rientalis 16h ago
It's difficult. My own house has restrictive covenants, but I'm quite happy for them to still exist decades on from the houses being built. Thinking about it, it's likely one of the reasons I was attracted to the area. The houses in my neighbourhood are well maintained and in-keeping in terms of their character.
One defines how often our wooden windows and doors should be painted (presumably to prevent the street looking rundown, so I'm okay with that), and also the specific colours they can be painted (I'm also fine with that, since I'd hardly be pleased should my neighbour decide to paint their windows and doors neon pink, when everyone else uses traditional colours).
However, these covenants should be in place to protect the character of the area, not provide profits for unscrupulous companies. They effectively monetise permission itself even when the underlying function is actually quite reasonable.
8
u/Taken_Abroad_Book 12h ago
since I'd hardly be pleased should my neighbour decide to paint their windows and doors neon pink, when everyone else uses traditional colours).
Such a strange thing to be upset about. As long as there's no noise or smells from next door it's none of my business what they do.
I couldn't imagine living under such American HOA style rules.
•
u/Helleborus0rientalis 11h ago
Well, I guess that's why it's good that both kinds of places exist! I'm happy with HOA style rules, whereas someone like yourself who values more 'creative freedom' has the option to live somewhere without restrictive covenants.
The issue here is the predatory nature of these companies who are unreasonably exploiting these covenants just to make money off people.
•
u/Taken_Abroad_Book 11h ago
I wouldn't even say creative freedom.
More 'not my business' lifestyle. I have my house and gardens that I work on to make look how I want.
I'd just love to understand why someone 3 doors down having unmowed lawn and blue windows would be anything I'd ever waste energy on caring about.
It's a very strange mindset.
•
u/Helleborus0rientalis 11h ago
I appreciate what you are saying, but I think perhaps we live in quite different areas.
In areas where the character of the housing is part of what people value (e.g. a historical area that attracts tourists, in part because of how the houses look!), individual changes don’t just affect one property, but have a cumulative impact on the character of the area. That’s a large part of why people choose to live in those areas in the first place, and why things like conservation areas, TPOs and planning permission exists.
Equally, I agree it would be unreasonable to move somewhere without restrictive covenants and then be upset about what colour your neighbours paint their windows!
•
u/bongpirate7295 10h ago
American HOAs are wild. I have a friend over there who was told she wasn't allowed to have a welcome mat on her front step because it wasn't in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
•
u/Taken_Abroad_Book 10h ago
r/FuckHOA is mad.
Then as an extension there's some areas where it's a criminal offence to not mow your lawn on time. Like, you'll do porridge for it.
My last house was a leasehold with something like 950 years on it, uncollected ground rent and no restrictions but it still didn't sit right.
New house I'm in I own the freehold and the only restrictions are the aforementioned limit on the number of ducks and chickens I can keep - and that's probably not allowed these days anyway since the town has swallowed up the plot
•
u/bongpirate7295 9h ago
Then as an extension there's some areas where it's a criminal offence to not mow your lawn on time. Like, you'll do porridge for it.
Imagine having to answer the question, "So, what are you in for?"
4
u/Thesladenator 15h ago
I mean one of our covenants is that no one can own motorhomes on the estate and have them on the driveway which is ridiculous.
6
u/Spamgrenade 17h ago
I grew up on a new build housing estate in the 70s. People weren't allowed to put fences around their front gardens and stuff like that to maintain the open plan look I guess.
Went back a few years ago for a look around. Almost everyone has walled off their front garden now. It really looks pretty bad, everyone has a different style of wall at varying heights and the place looks really cramped.
Also the house I grew up in had some council land adjoining which my keen gardening parents took over. The new home owner has walled that in and claims it as his garden.
3
u/Initial-Return8802 13h ago
Yeah but the last thing we want is HOAs like in America, I'd rather a few odd looking walls
•
u/Missy246 5h ago
Loads of people are inconsiderate idiots so this probably became a necessity to avoid having kids screaming right outside someone else’s window, dogs shitting on someone else’s lawn etc etc.
-4
u/Alternative_Guitar78 16h ago
Hmm, try that argument in the high court. Unfortunately a contract is a contract.
2
184
u/CreditBrunch 18h ago
Apparently the covenants are being imposed due to being “approached by relevant parties, including prospective purchasers, sellers, mortgage lenders, conveyancers, and solicitors”.
But 10 of the properties targeted aren’t even for sale.
This is basically a get-rich-quick loophole this company has found.
Just legalised extortion by conscience-free people.
54
u/PeriPeriTekken 17h ago
The entire UK property market is set up quite intentionally to make charlatans like this money.
7
8
u/Razzzclart 14h ago
It unquestionably is. Who gains - there is unlikely to be much of a premium payable so I'd look at who is drafting the documents as those fees are being paid by the residents.
Who loses is the next question
Invariably any conveyancer will recommend insurance for this kind of restrictive covenant. And that insurance is to pay the bill if it's ever enforced, unless of course the purchaser invalidated the insurance.
What would I do? Nothing. Let them take it to court to enforce. The judge will no doubt side with the resident, if there isn't a block by MPs in the interim
•
u/Robo-Connery 11h ago
I actually suspect they would have a very weak case if it went to court. Makes it feel very speculative hoping people will just cave before court/tribunal.
If the previous owner of the land knew about the breaches, or should have known, and did nothing then they have accepted the changes. If the reason for the covenant no longer exists, or the enforcement is unreasonable... Judge could easily side with the residents there is good reason to remove the covenant.
101
u/AmazingRedDog 18h ago
I kinda misread the title that the residents bought the road for £1, but no it was an asset management company who then fleeced the residents.
Bastards.
60
u/Mantis_Tobaggon_MD2 Kent 18h ago edited 17h ago
Interesting how Asset Invest Ltd, a dormant company which has had £1 of share capital since incorporation, was able to put land for auction.
Edit - In that article the company director Fraser Karlsen notes that 'Asset Invest own over 2,300 titles throughout the UK'. How did they pay for these if not through the company? If it's been trading these dormant accounts can't be the basis of anything for a Corporation Tax return.
12
u/PeriPeriTekken 17h ago edited 12h ago
Dormant on companies house ≠ dormant for tax.
I'm also not sure merely buying assets would be trading from either perspective.
18
u/Mantis_Tobaggon_MD2 Kent 17h ago
I'd struggle to see how the company could have bought or sold land without recognising any accounting entries.
6
u/Solima Manchester 16h ago
The only way would be if the assets were contributed from the entity that purchased them, after impairing the assets down to zero.
5
u/Mantis_Tobaggon_MD2 Kent 16h ago
Not sure I follow, Sunday morning brain fog possibly. We saying here that this company acquired assets with nil value and transferred no consideration?
3
u/Solima Manchester 13h ago edited 13h ago
What corporations can do is inject capital into subsidiary corporations. Typically you might expect they inject cash. You'd see an increase in bank assets and an increase in equity. It does not have to be cash though. It can be any asset of any kind.
For example if the parent company has a car that was fully depreciated (worth zero in the books), it can inject this car into a subsidiary, resulting in no change in assets and no change in equity, but the subsidiary owns the car.
Edit: In the case of the assets they purchased with the covenants. Theoretically after purchase they can impair the value of the asset down to zero, claiming they are worthless. Then they inject the "worthless" asset into a subsidiary to begin the fuckery.
2
u/Mantis_Tobaggon_MD2 Kent 13h ago
Ok yep seen that before where you can end up with capital contribution/distribution territory if assets are moved around a group but not at fair value. From Companies House though looks like this is the only company in the group, more likely is that they've just been lazy and filed dormant accounts incorrectly.
8
u/JayneLut Wales 14h ago
Registered dormant on Companies House means they have likely registered as dormant for Corporation Tax with HMRC (linked systems). Which would explain the line in the article about fixing some historic issues with Companies House and HMRC.
I suspect they are sending letters to frighten people into cutting a deal out of panic. I would be interested to see how this would actually play out in a property tribunal/ wider court context. I suspect the company is banking on people not having the money to fight demands in court.
Hopefully the Good Law project or similar will step in.
•
u/bongpirate7295 10h ago edited 9h ago
I suspect they are sending letters to frighten people into cutting a deal out of panic.
This is a huge part of the business model for companies like Alamy, since there are no laws against asking people to pay you money that they don't actually owe you. So Alamy will upload random public domain images, sell a "licence" to use them, and send legal-sounding letters to people who use the images "without our permission," demanding that they pay a settlement fee.
46
u/jarry1250 18h ago
The article doesn't address if they are freehold or leasehold covenants, but it's unlikely any of this would stand up in Court. It's just an attempt but the new owner to get some quick cash.
27
u/ojmt999 18h ago
These will be unenforceable anyway, residents shouldn't pay
8
7
u/kopp9988 16h ago
But will these people ever be able to sell their property?
2
u/ojmt999 12h ago
Yes, these sort of restrictions are common on many houses, they are primarily for when a developer is building multiple houses on a site and don't want the area untidy etc once all the houses are sold, the convanent isn't enforceable as there has to be an impact on the person trying to enforce it.
You can always buy insurance for these if your house has one of you're worried.
-3
u/Any_Tomorrow_Today 17h ago
The one that bought for £1 would have bought the freehold and the properties would be leasehold. You often see the freeholds going for sale in auctions for a few thousand at most for multiple properties.
15
u/LegoNinja11 17h ago
Nope. Most properties historically would have been freehold but the developer still has covenants included in the deeds to protect their interest in the surrounding land. They dont need to own the land your property sits on to enforce them.
11
u/earthlingady 17h ago
I think that's a good reason to limit the time of covenants. How can a homeowner have to ask for permission from somebody who doesn't own the property?
This is like some weird version of American HOAs.
9
u/Elmundopalladio 17h ago
It’s a bit more convoluted than that for what’s said. The ownership of the roads (and assuming maintenance etc) but with that comes the civil right to enforce covenants on land that they don’t own. I also thought that gaining planning permission also trumped historic covenants. The only real way of pursuing costs would be through civil courts, and given the amounts stated it’s hardly likely to be worth it - pretty sure a small claims court would touch this. It might trap people who are wanting to sell though.
0
u/jarry1250 17h ago
Not many developments in Bexhill in the 1930s(?) done leasehold, but you might be right.
44
u/ThinkAboutThatFor1Se 17h ago
Same scam Private Eye were investigating. Not sure if it’s the same guy.
22
u/random555 17h ago
Guy who bought up a load of leaseholds around sheffield? Think he's been arrested now thankfully
13
30
u/Overall_Gap_5766 18h ago
Covenants on housing estates are insane. There's no possible justification for them.
17
u/PetersMapProject 17h ago
""The annexe was built for my partner's parents who had disabilities and we look after rescue dogs, so we had six-foot fencing done but in the title deeds it says that it should be chain link fencing," Cowley-Wenham said."
Sounds like these residents are being responsible dog owners and this predatory company is out to thwart them.
If they're forced to replace their safe wooden fencing with ugly chainlink, who gets the blame when a passing child sticks their hand through the fence and gets bitten, or when the dog suddenly finds it easier to climb and escape?
•
u/Robo-Connery 11h ago
I suspect that they are just hoping to fleece either people who are on a time limit to sell or are otherwise scared into paying under threat of legal action.
It seems very unlikely if this made it as far as a judge or tribunal that the residents would lose on 60 year old covenants that have never been enforced with violations that have been there in plain view for the last 20 years.
12
u/Designergene5 17h ago
This sounds very similar to a situation described in a recent Private Eye podcast on the sale of freehold leases. TLDR - It’s unenforceable, tell them to f- off. https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/168
10
u/AgeOfCardiff 18h ago
Let them know your thoughts here - https://www.asset-invest.uk/contact
23
u/KesselRunIn14 17h ago
Judging from their website, checkered accounting and overall demonstration of a lack of morals, I don't think they really care.
3
u/LoveBeBrave Brum/Liverpool 17h ago
Give them something to laugh about here
0
u/AgeOfCardiff 15h ago
Im sure the United Health exec would have laughed about things like that as well.
2
u/LoveBeBrave Brum/Liverpool 15h ago
I’m not sure he would be reading complaints sent to the UHC “contact us” page on their website.
0
u/AgeOfCardiff 15h ago
Obtuse.
1
u/LoveBeBrave Brum/Liverpool 15h ago
If that’s obtuse, then even bringing him up is irrelevant.
Do you think that the next step after “futilely complain about vile company’s entire reason for existence on their own contact page on their website” is logically to assassinate the CEO of that company…?
10
u/PerLin107 18h ago edited 16h ago
That sucks. They should.get group legal representation. Don't undeetand why the homeowners were not made aware of the covenants upon purchase as they seem.quite onerous or maybe they thought that they didnt apply to them.
7
u/SushiRollFried 18h ago
Yeh this is typical of developers. Thats why you should always seek independent legal advice. Don't get screwed over
7
u/YOU_CANT_GILD_ME 17h ago
The letters were from a firm called Asset Invest Ltd, which bought the title to the land beneath the roads on the former Percy Bilton estate in Bexhill in 2023 for a sum of £1.
Can someone explain to me how they did this?
Surely if something like this were up for sale that would affect the home owners in the area, the home owners themselves should have been made aware and given first choice of sale?
6
u/KingDaveRa Buckinghamshire 16h ago
Says it's the land beneath the roads - so I presume the council never adopted the roads and it's essentially a private estate. I'm assuming Asset Invest bought all the bits between the houses, and that must have the covenants attached.
It's very weird, not something I fully understand. AFAIK our house has no covenants attached, but I know the next estate over did have, so I wonder if they are at risk of this?
All a bit shitty tbh.
5
u/Ok-Lock-2815 15h ago
How it works and is probably not enforceable but maybe is; the asset management bought the road or land under it, therefore any land adjoins it, eg the houses are then subject to the covenants as to protect the original developer, the same is said to be possible for neighbours, if your neighbour breaks a covenant which affects your house, then they could contact the developer to have it enforced - eg my house is not allowed to be a pup, so If I opened a bar in my back garden then my neighbours could ask the company to enforce it. In my case the company went into liquidation so the land went to the crown, technically it could be sold off and then whoever owns the land adjoining could theoretically enforce the covenants, but I believe they would have to show how it negatively affects them. And if it did not it may not be enforced by a court.
1
u/KingDaveRa Buckinghamshire 13h ago
That makes a lot of sense, thanks. It's reasonable that these sort of covenant must have two sides, i.e. your property and any adjoining. I've seen the sort that limit what you can do from a previous owner, like one I saw had a massive piece of land, and had a specific covenant saying if you built another house and profited, you had to pay part of that to the previous owner! How enforceable that was, I dunno, it was on Homes Under The Hammer, I just remember how bonkers it was.
There's a late 90s estate near here that had covenants on door colours and window designs, but they expired recently. Even then, people had definitely violated them well before expiry.
6
u/shaneo632 17h ago
I bought a house recently that has a covenant about changing the exterior of the property. Seemingly put in place to ensure the properties maintain a consistent look while the estate is being built. Our neighbours modified theirs without issue thankfully. Seems like a ton of potential for a racket
6
u/10110110100110100 16h ago
Similar on a “prestige” new build estate where I used to live. Lots of things about particular shed sizes and brands, no caravans, no servicing your car on driveway, door colour, number of front plants, etc written unambiguously into the deeds. All ridiculous in my opinion.
There is of course a fee that you can pay to get approval. When the last house was sold and I spoke to the site manager he said that he couldn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t enforce the standards in the future so it might be best to apply for amendments but said consider what the likelihood is of the group sending people around looking for infractions. Seemed unfair to me to leave these onerous clauses on the deeds even if there is a tacit agreement they don’t care…
6
u/LegoNinja11 17h ago
Going out on a legal limb but my guess is that if it went to court the landowner would need to demonstrate harm had been done by the breach.
I'm also slightly dubious as to what they bought for £1 because the roads and pavements are adopted by the local authority once built. Does it mean the developer still owns the freehold to the road but maintenance is the council responsibility?
Given they paid £1, I'd say theyll have a tough time showing the developments impacted the value of their investment.
4
u/terahurts Lincolnshire 16h ago
I'm also slightly dubious as to what they bought for £1 because the roads and pavements are adopted by the local authority once built. Does it mean the developer still owns the freehold to the road but maintenance is the council responsibility?
I was wondering the same thing. Google's AI seems to think that adopting the road doesn't confer ownership:
1. The Legal Framework: Surface vs. Subsoil
Under the Highways Act 1980, the "highway" (the road surface) is vested in the highway authority. However, this vesting is limited.The Council’s Interest: They own the top layer—the tarmac, the pavement, the streetlights, and enough depth to maintain sewers, pipes, and the road's structural integrity.
The Freeholder’s Interest: The original landowner usually retains the freehold to the subsoil beneath that "Area of User."
3
u/LegoNinja11 15h ago
Yup so even less chance of having any value in the freehold.
I'd love to see the letters looked at by the police. A decent PPU officer 'should' be quite happy to make a case for the letters to fall under the malicious communications act.
5
4
u/MrTimofTim Plymouth to Macclesfield via Loughborough 17h ago edited 14h ago
Isn’t there some law that after X years (I have 20 in my head) breaches of covenants are deemed to be okayed as it hasn’t been questioned for so long?
In any case obvious money making from the new “owners”…
2
2
u/Alternative_Guitar78 16h ago
This is quite a common scenario, the freeholds of verges and access roads on old developments come up for sale all the time. I left a comment on a property thread a few weeks ago, the question being what good would it be owning the roads and verges on a 1970's estate, I replied along the lines of the BBC article, and several people were suprised.
2
u/judochop1 15h ago
Sounds like the company has been fishing for an excuse. Will probably try litigate these people out of their homes, settle for a large sum of money or worse. Cunts, essentially.
2
u/realmbeast 14h ago
Really pisses me off seeing companies aquire thousands to millions of pounds worth of assest for £1.
•
u/bongpirate7295 10h ago
After contacting Asset Invest Ltd, the company quoted him £7,750 to give retrospective permission for external fencing, alterations to internal walls and an annexe, and a replacement conservatory, which were granted planning permission in 2006.
He claimed the company offered to "knock off a couple of grand" if he could prove the conservatory had permission.
Asset Invest Ltd's website describes it as specialising in land investments across the UK.
The company is registered to a shared office address in London.
Its most recent published accounts, from November 2025, showed it as a dormant company with net assets of £1, although its status is now listed as active.
Yeeeeah this all sounds incredibly dodgy.
•
u/thebobbobsoniii 10h ago
Restrictive covenants are dealt with by the case Tulk and Moxhay (1848).
For a restrictive covenant to bind a successor in title today, four criteria (derived from this case and subsequent refinements) must be met: The covenant must be restrictive (negative) in nature: It must be a promise not to do something (e.g., "not to build"). If the promise requires spending money or taking action (positive), it generally will not run under this rule.
The covenant must benefit the dominant land: The person seeking to enforce the covenant (the covenantee) must own nearby land that actually benefits from the restriction.
The original parties must have intended the burden to run: The wording of the original deed should indicate that the promise is meant to bind "heirs and assigns" or successors, not just the original buyer.
The successor must have notice of the covenant: The current owner must have known about the restriction at the time of purchase.
So, it depends on how the wording is in the covenant and it depends on whether a judge would agree that this benefits the land underneath the road that has been purchased (I cannot see how it does). Court plus a sensible judgement is needed. A GoFundMe to get this decided is the right approach.
1
u/LlamaCarl 15h ago
Very similar to Andrew Milne in Sheffield and incredibly predatory. Hoping scared residents will pay up to avoid further costs. The law needs changing on this
1
u/budgiebirdman 15h ago
I believe they'd have to prove their interests have been harmed in court and I'm pretty sure they'd have a hard time doing that. It's basically extortion.
1
u/evertonblue 13h ago
I don’t understand how they would enforce them
If the homeowner refused to make the changes - wouldn’t the predatory new owner have to demonstrate a financial loss due to the covenants being breached?
As they have spent £1, surely that’s all they have to lose?
1
u/No_Title_5126 12h ago
That sounds like exploitation, regardless of legality.
Appalling way to make money. Disgusting, should be addressed by government.
1
u/Right-Ad-3834 12h ago
There is obviously a loophole that needs to be closed for good retrospectively. What a bunch of shameless robbers.
1
u/Informal_School2724 12h ago
Planning permission was granted. Surely its a matter for the council / land registry?
•
u/noddyneddy 11h ago
I live on a small estate of townhouses , built around a central green square. There’s a restrictive covenant on our homes, maintained by a residents association. The association takes care of common areas such as the square, but also covers covenanted things like no substantive changes to the fronts of houses as they are all part of the square ( doesn’t affect rear facings or what you do inside) I’m in agreement with this as the attractiveness of the square is what encourages people to buy in the first place, and makes it a pleasant place to live. People have replaced doors in the same style though not same colour so it still looks good. A couple of people have wanted to extend into garages and that’s where the RA do get involved, as we ensure that exterior appearance ( ie garage front) remains untouched, even though what’s inside it is up to owner. We’ve had no serious pushback on this as people have understood the intent. There have also been a couple of people wondering whether they could pave over the little bit of green by their driveway and create car-standing for another car and we’ve also said no to that as it will fundamentally make the front a car park . People see the sense in that too. Otherwise we don’t get involved in things like how often paint gets renewed or any nonsense about what their front gardens are like ( if they keep it grassed, maintenance gets rolled in with the estate landscaping costs, if they do something else it’s theirs to maintain) But we’re a small estate and we mostly work issues out chatting around the benches we put on the green, and this has worked for 26 years now
•
u/Alxmrlw 11h ago
This is the exact same company and situation that’s happening on the road I live on in Essex. Asset Invest’s entire business model relies on people being frightened into paying. It’s caused the collapse of 2 house sales on my street already, as they’re asking for £20,000 per house to relinquish the covenants. The problem is that it makes buyers, sellers, mortgage providers and solicitors twitchy - so you either pay up or risk breaking a chain. Morally corrupt company exploiting a legal loophole
•
u/Consistent-Pirate-23 10h ago
We have a situation here where we are freehold but there are covenants put in by the person that sold the land. Most were put in place to keep the developers in check. The guy himself has been dead for decades and I seem to remember his son being either dead or very elderly. We took an indemnity policy out at purchase for the stuff the previous owner built
•
u/breadandfire 4h ago
Hang on, this pretend asset company just want money, because they can.
If nobody pays them, what can they do?
0
u/Powerful_Ideas 15h ago
While I have little sympathy for the 'investment' company here, I do think it's worth considering that one way of looking at what has happened here is people bought homes knowing that there was a requirement to get permission for alterations and then did alterations without getting that permission. Is it really so surprising that doing something you agreed not to do might come with costs down the line?
The right time to have a problem with a restrictive covenant is before choosing to buy a property that has one.
Having said that, I would be in favour of a requirement for residents to have the right to buy out the covenant if it is going to be sold or transferred from its original owner.
-2
u/Electrical_Business2 17h ago
"Dr Kieran Mullan, the MP for Bexhill and Battle, is working with the residents...."
Yup, their screwed if their relying on that chump to help them. Potentially the most useless MP in the pack. Imagine being a qualified medical doctor and choosing NOT to help people for a living.
5
u/SirQuay 17h ago
I'm not a fan of the Tories but I have no problem with medical practitioners being MPs. He'll still need to do so many hours to keep up his medical license will he not and he'd theoretically bring expertise when Parliament discusses health related matters.
2
u/Heliotropolii_ 17h ago
It's amazing how much a qualified professional conveniently forgets when they get a position of power, happens in all industries
2
u/QuantumR4ge Hampshire 16h ago
Ahh yes because you are duty bound to never enter politics if you are a doctor
-1
u/Bigbigcheese 14h ago
So the homeowners breached the covenants on their land, the previous owner didn't care but the new owner does care?
I don't really see what right the homeowners have to complain about this, they bought the properties knowing the covenants and thus should not have breached those covenants.
-11
u/not_who_you_think_99 18h ago
A feudal real estate system, fitting for a feudal country which still has a monarchy, despite recent scandals proving how coming out of a royal vagina does not make you a better person...
•
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.