Council Must be Open About its 'Buyer Beware' Approach to Restrictive Covenants

Bedford Borough Council has not pursued a single case of a breach of restrictive covenants in over twelve months, with residents left to launch their own costly private legal action if they wish to see a breach of covenant enforced. Liberal Democrats believe that the news will come as a shock to many residents, due to a common perception that people are protected by restrictive covenants, for example on the use of a house as a commercial premises or for storing large commercial vehicles.

The Lib Dems are demanding that the council is open and honest with residents and makes clear the policy on breaches of covenant. They are also questioning the fairness of the council's policy of maximising income from charges paid by homeowners to relax or remove restrictive covenants on their property which it has no intention of ever enforcing itself.

Liberal Democrat Councillor for Brickhill Ward Charles Royden will ask the Borough Council's Executive at its meeting on Wednesday to make clear to residents that where restrictive covenants are concerned, it is a case of 'buyer beware.' Commenting, Councillor Royden said "Many local residents will be staggered to discover that the council has no policy of enforcing breaches of covenant. Not one case has been pursued by the council in over twelve months. In effect, this approach means that if a resident wakes up one morning and finds that a taxi firm has started operating from the house next door in breach of a covenant which states that the premises are not to be used for business purposes, that resident is on their own. Residents must take their own costly legal action, but for many people this is simply not a viable option.'

"I have asked if the council will take a more pro-active approach to enforcing clear breaches of covenant that harm the quality of life for local communities. It has refused to do so, and I am therefore calling on it to make clear to residents that covenants offer no protection unless they are prepared to launch their own expensive legal proceedings. Such a move by the council is necessary in order to stop people living under false hope, and to avoid residents getting a nasty shock if they ever have the misfortune to find neighbours in breach of covenants. Homeowners are informed of covenants on properties when they purchase them, and if they are under the false impression that the council will step in if neighbours are in breach of them then that is a dangerous situation.'

"The council's 'hands off' approach to covenants also calls into question its policy of seeking to maximise its income from homeowners who wish to have covenants relaxed or removed. In practice, this means that it seeks to raise as much money as possible from homeowners for the relaxation or removal of covenants which it has no intention of ever enforcing itself.'

Councillor Royden believes that residents may also be shocked to know that the council cannot take restrictive covenants into account when dealing with planning applications: "It is unlawful for the council to take legal covenants into account on planning matters, meaning that it will grant planning permission for activities in direct breach of a covenant. This is another example of where there is a common misconception about the protection that covenants provide, and the Council needs to make the situation much clearer for local residents."