You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[i](b) The walls separating the premises agreed to be sold from the
premises retained by the Vendor and situate on the West side thereof
shall be deemed to be party walls and the said walls shall be
maintained and kept in repair at the joint expense of the Purchasers
and the Vendor"[/i]
Would you think it relates to boundary 'A' or 'B'?
69 and 71 were sold together to same buyer in 1971.
Image not working?
Is it now?
What a linguistic mess!
It only makes sense if it's boundary B, why would the vendor of the two houses keep any interest in the upkeep of B?
IAobviouslyNAL
Yep,
Wall to the west of the vendor's land, so B?
B
The question is whether 69 has the same covenant, if it doesn't they are off the hook for walk B
If it was put in there from the sale in 71, B.
B only. Can't see any other possible way of interpreting that (BIANAL).
B
Is there still a wall separating the yellow retained land and the blue sold land?
yeah, west side of land retained, so shared wall with the vendor/owner of land retained. B.
If it was put in there from the sale in 71, B.
69 and 71 used to belong to the people who own the yellow land. They sold both off to the same buyer in 1971 and this covenant was put in place then.
Is there still a wall separating the yellow retained land and the blue sold land?
It's the gable end of a huge warehouse wall. If it were a 4ft high brick wall I wouldn't be querying it. 🙂
What a linguistic mess!
It's not just me then! 🙂
B
Come on man, where's the Rightmove link!
Canny vendor - B, buyer should have not agreed to that & "allowed reasonable access to maintain said warehouse wall"
Come on man, where’s the Rightmove link!
I'll post when the legals are sorted!! 🙂
“allowed reasonable access to maintain said warehouse wall”
That is in as well, and we're fine with that.
If 69 and 71 were sold together and both as freehold, then covenants concerning boundary A could not have been created at the time they were sold off (the law will not enforce promises you make to yourself). The syntax of the sentence suggests that "West" refers to the retained land, though it could have been clearer.
It’s the gable end of a huge warehouse wall. If it were a 4ft high brick wall I wouldn’t be querying it.
Run away......
B
(b) The walls separating the premises agreed to be sold...
You could read this as 69 + 71
...from the premises retained by the Vendor..
And this as the land retained.
...and situate on the West side thereof...
The premises to the west of the land retained (i.e. 69 +71)
...shall be deemed to be party walls and the said walls shall be
maintained and kept in repair at the joint expense of the Purchasers
and the Vendor”
The only real outlier with this reading of it is that the vendor retains a duty to repair the party wall - assume the land was originally sold as freehold?
I'm not sure how common it is to refer to an external building wall that abuts adjoining property, but is not the division between 2 abutting buildings as a 'party wall', it would not fall under the traditional definition.
It’s the gable end of a huge warehouse wall. If it were a 4ft high brick wall I wouldn’t be querying it. 🙂
😳
You could be liable to a substantial amount judging by the length of the wall. Not sure I’d want to take on an unknown liability like that. Perhaps you could ask for details of previous maintenance bills?
I share your covenant dilemma, we received one today on our 'in process' purchase and its about 7 pages long, by god its complicated to flippin understand!!
I am no a lawyer, but that does read as if you would be on the hook to pay to repair their substantial building.
I'd seek clarification from your conveyancing solicitor and be prepared to run away. Also if big building immediately to the east of the property, will it not be dull and no light in the mornings?
Worth asking if the covenant has ever been enforced. If not can you ask for it to be removed?
You may be able to insure against the risk?
I’ve got a similar problem. I have a covenant which allows us to use the access road (which our garage faces onto) for the house behind us to the next street “…in perpetuity for a maximum period of 15 years”.
I thought perpetuity meant “forever”, and am now concerned I could have a redundant garage / no car parking if rear neighbours to decide to extend.
Sorry for the hijack but, any ideas?
Ianal but do know a bit about registering land, that party wall covenant looks to be a fairly standard wording that is used in many conveyances of the time,I agree it applies to boundary b but I wonder if the conveyancers who prepared the deed (or acted for the then purchaser) were aware of the nature of the walls in question - it is usually seen in conveyances of semi-detached or terraced residential properties.
I would speak with your conveyancer to see if it's possible to obtain any indemnity insurance or to approach the current owners of the adjoining land to see if they would release the covenant.
@kryton57 covenants normally relate to promises to either do, or not do, something with the land, ie maintain a boundary, not build on the land or not to operate certain businesses etc. Rights of access would be easements (or licences) and can be valid only for a set period, but are more commonly granted 'in fee simple' which means forever. Sometimes an easement can be granted with an associated covenant - for example a right of way could be granted with a covenant to build a path\roadway within a certain time period. Probably worth asking a solicitor if you're unsure.