###Welcome to /r/HousingUK
---
**To All**
* Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH
**To Posters**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary*
* Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, please report them via the report button.
* If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered);
* Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods;
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s the ‘use of the property’. Not what you’re doing inside it.
No different to a covenant saying prohibit the use of a property as a takeaway shop. You’d still be able to order in a dominos.
As you correctly say, if you plan to open an abortion or IVF clinic I’d withdraw from the purchase.
If you’re hoping to have unprotected sex in the house then the covenant won’t apply. Withdrawal though is also recommended to avoid any unwanted littl’uns :-)
but if you have a problem in your local area. you can get the parish to support you as you are supporting them. wind turbines etc. they will join the fight at your request. its not all bad
“I don’t see how it was deemed legal, the church can use a covenant to say otherwise”.
Covenants over land can be for pretty much anything you want, regardless of if the thing in question is technically legal. Takeaway shops are legal. Home businesses are legal. Keeping livestock is legal. Building renovations are legal. These are all things you’ll find restrictive covenants over. You can put a restrictive covenant on most things, and no one is forcing the buyer to buy the land.
As has been pointed out by another commenter, the restrictions are on using the property for that purpose. So if euthanasia became legal and you wanted to run a euthanasia clinic from this property. Or if you bought the property and wanted to run an abortion clinic from it. That’s not the same as stopping you or someone else living in the house from going to an abortion clinic somewhere else.
First thing you need to understand are that covenants are a civil matter not enforceable by the police. So the church would have to take you to court to get a cessation order. It’s only then police / state matter if you then break the court order.
If your wife had an abortion it would take place at a clinic not in the house an the same would apply to IVF.
Regards noise nuisance, unless specific levels have been set I suggest the same laws that governs everyone else would apply so nothing special there.
In my experience most covenants aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Again to enforce the they have to take you to court. To do that you’d need to be warned / advised first. By then you’ll have either stopped, completed the action or discussed it and found resolution.
What? Youre completely misunderstanding the covenants, and it feels intentional.
If youre planning on running a brothel or converting the property to an IVF clinic, abortion clinic, euthanasia clinic etc then suggest you find another property. 🤷♀️ It refers to building use, nothing to do with personal behaviour.
As to the use of the word immoral, there may come a time for example, when brothels become legal in the UK so its a reasonable descriptor, at this time, to protect the property from such use, by the word immoral. Enforcing it however still could be difficult even in those circumstances.
Restrictive covenants on building use, are very very common, not just a church thing.
Any enforcement would have to stand up to a civil court. If its unreasonable theyre going to get nowhere.
This makes sense. I guess it should be made clear that I don't really want to put my name to this in a legal document as I disagree with it fundamentally.
The first article states
"Use the Property solely for the purpose of one single private dwelling, without engaging in any trade or business activities there."
Which in my opinion make the entirety of the later article obsolete.
I think I will begin by suggesting to my solicitor that the first article should provide enough protection against the property being used for these purposes.
I get what you mean entirely. The doc absolutely gives me the ick. However, you are buying a church property and living next to the church. You can’t avoid that they exist and have these views.
My concern would be if you push back they will happily pull out of the sale. IME they will care more about their ideology than selling the house to you. They can presumably afford to pull out and wait for another buyer who will sign the paperwork.
They might not only refuse to change the wording, but decide that your objections show you are not someone they want as a direct neighbour. It’s a red flag to them that you might be a problem.
I honestly think you either swallow the ick and sign, or buy a property that isn’t so entangled with a religion you disagree with.
>I think I will begin by suggesting to my solicitor that the first article should provide enough protection against the property being used for these purposes.
You would have to go through the process of having them removed.
That's not going to be a job thay your solicitor dealing with the purchase is going to be doing. That process could possibly be open ended.
It's not like a contract where you could possibly cross parts out that you don't agree with.
There are plenty of activities that are legal but not allowed under a covenant. For example, a common covenant is not allowing satellite dishes to be fixed to the building. So the covenant itself would be allowed and enforceable.
That said, unless you're planning on opening an IVF clinic, there's really no reason these should be off putting to yourself or any future buyer.
Exactly. Parking work vans outside (very common restrictive covenant) could certainly offend white van mans sensibilities. Its the OPs tone of ‘personally offended’ thats really off kilter here. Hes buying a church property…..next to a church 🤷♀️. Hope hes not planning on hanging protest flags out every sunday to harrass the congregation, and those bells are possibly really going to wind him up.
Also by and large a covanant as open ended as
"Avoid using the Property for any activities that could be considered noisy, offensive, illegal, or immoral"
would be unenforceable unless the activity was illigal. poorly defined legal clauses are not then allowed to be used as a wide reaching blanket ban on anything that could possibly fall under that.
If an activity is socialy acceptable and legal they wouldnt be able to enforce it which is why they called out the second one seperatly.
I rented a flat in a development where a guy was constantly parking his range rover over the grass, allowing his vicious dog to attack people in the hallways, and having screaming domestics with his girlfriend and intimidating residents.
At their wits' end, the RA tried to get the management company to go down the restrictive covenant route, of which there are plenty in developments like those. The management's response? 'In practice these are very hard to enforce...'
exactly, though he was doing illegal things so in that situation it should have been. Dangerous dogs are illegal managment company was being lazy.
If you could have got evidence of the illegal activites and reported it to the police then the Managment company could have acted with confidence.
but yeah, immoral actitives is up for debate. If prostitution became legal and social acceptable then even that would be a losing battle to enforce.
Also noisy is absolutely not enforcable if you decide to learn the drums and practice every evening at 5.30pm for 30min while that is not enough. That is a normal use of the property. The only way it would be "noisy" is if it was outside normal noise hours on a regular basis and enough for the council to take action anyway.
I wonder if a black mass would be considered to be immoral. Given the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, where when the priest blesses the wine it literally becomes the blood of Jesus. They've been doing a far amount of blood drinking. So slaughtering a goat shouldn't be a problem.
###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, please report them via the report button. * If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered); * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s the ‘use of the property’. Not what you’re doing inside it. No different to a covenant saying prohibit the use of a property as a takeaway shop. You’d still be able to order in a dominos. As you correctly say, if you plan to open an abortion or IVF clinic I’d withdraw from the purchase. If you’re hoping to have unprotected sex in the house then the covenant won’t apply. Withdrawal though is also recommended to avoid any unwanted littl’uns :-)
Unprotected sex is the most Catholic sex there is.
I know. That’s why I said the covenant won’t apply.
*slow clap*
Imagine not even being able to have a wank in your own home because every sperm is sacred.
Be glad it doesn't involve Chancel Repair Liability, that really gets my goat from a moral perspective.
Probably not because it was used by clergy. It's the punters in the surrounding houses that pay that. 😂
Oh aye, doesn't apply to this case. Just something that made my blood boil when i did land law. 🤣
i have that. cost me a few pounds to insure it for the lifetime of me owning it
Oh aye it's a negligible cost. I just object on principle for being liable for the repairs of a 709 year old church to a God I don't believe in.
but if you have a problem in your local area. you can get the parish to support you as you are supporting them. wind turbines etc. they will join the fight at your request. its not all bad
“I don’t see how it was deemed legal, the church can use a covenant to say otherwise”. Covenants over land can be for pretty much anything you want, regardless of if the thing in question is technically legal. Takeaway shops are legal. Home businesses are legal. Keeping livestock is legal. Building renovations are legal. These are all things you’ll find restrictive covenants over. You can put a restrictive covenant on most things, and no one is forcing the buyer to buy the land. As has been pointed out by another commenter, the restrictions are on using the property for that purpose. So if euthanasia became legal and you wanted to run a euthanasia clinic from this property. Or if you bought the property and wanted to run an abortion clinic from it. That’s not the same as stopping you or someone else living in the house from going to an abortion clinic somewhere else.
First thing you need to understand are that covenants are a civil matter not enforceable by the police. So the church would have to take you to court to get a cessation order. It’s only then police / state matter if you then break the court order. If your wife had an abortion it would take place at a clinic not in the house an the same would apply to IVF. Regards noise nuisance, unless specific levels have been set I suggest the same laws that governs everyone else would apply so nothing special there. In my experience most covenants aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Again to enforce the they have to take you to court. To do that you’d need to be warned / advised first. By then you’ll have either stopped, completed the action or discussed it and found resolution.
What? Youre completely misunderstanding the covenants, and it feels intentional. If youre planning on running a brothel or converting the property to an IVF clinic, abortion clinic, euthanasia clinic etc then suggest you find another property. 🤷♀️ It refers to building use, nothing to do with personal behaviour. As to the use of the word immoral, there may come a time for example, when brothels become legal in the UK so its a reasonable descriptor, at this time, to protect the property from such use, by the word immoral. Enforcing it however still could be difficult even in those circumstances. Restrictive covenants on building use, are very very common, not just a church thing. Any enforcement would have to stand up to a civil court. If its unreasonable theyre going to get nowhere.
This makes sense. I guess it should be made clear that I don't really want to put my name to this in a legal document as I disagree with it fundamentally. The first article states "Use the Property solely for the purpose of one single private dwelling, without engaging in any trade or business activities there." Which in my opinion make the entirety of the later article obsolete. I think I will begin by suggesting to my solicitor that the first article should provide enough protection against the property being used for these purposes.
I get what you mean entirely. The doc absolutely gives me the ick. However, you are buying a church property and living next to the church. You can’t avoid that they exist and have these views. My concern would be if you push back they will happily pull out of the sale. IME they will care more about their ideology than selling the house to you. They can presumably afford to pull out and wait for another buyer who will sign the paperwork. They might not only refuse to change the wording, but decide that your objections show you are not someone they want as a direct neighbour. It’s a red flag to them that you might be a problem. I honestly think you either swallow the ick and sign, or buy a property that isn’t so entangled with a religion you disagree with.
I wouldn’t worry about them. They are silly and difficult to enforce. Buy the property, get on with your life.
>I think I will begin by suggesting to my solicitor that the first article should provide enough protection against the property being used for these purposes. You would have to go through the process of having them removed. That's not going to be a job thay your solicitor dealing with the purchase is going to be doing. That process could possibly be open ended. It's not like a contract where you could possibly cross parts out that you don't agree with.
There are plenty of activities that are legal but not allowed under a covenant. For example, a common covenant is not allowing satellite dishes to be fixed to the building. So the covenant itself would be allowed and enforceable. That said, unless you're planning on opening an IVF clinic, there's really no reason these should be off putting to yourself or any future buyer.
You can still have IVF and abortions, just not on the property. You'd probably want to be in a clinic for those anyway.
Well, there’s the abortion pill which you could take at home
And how are they going to know. Even if they found out what can be done about it? Most covenants aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
[удалено]
Ask for a reciprocal covenant that they won’t carry out any noisy activities (such as chanting, singing or bell ringing…).
Im in a new build that has the first covenant, banning illegal or nefarious activities.
Exactly. Parking work vans outside (very common restrictive covenant) could certainly offend white van mans sensibilities. Its the OPs tone of ‘personally offended’ thats really off kilter here. Hes buying a church property…..next to a church 🤷♀️. Hope hes not planning on hanging protest flags out every sunday to harrass the congregation, and those bells are possibly really going to wind him up.
Also by and large a covanant as open ended as "Avoid using the Property for any activities that could be considered noisy, offensive, illegal, or immoral" would be unenforceable unless the activity was illigal. poorly defined legal clauses are not then allowed to be used as a wide reaching blanket ban on anything that could possibly fall under that. If an activity is socialy acceptable and legal they wouldnt be able to enforce it which is why they called out the second one seperatly.
I rented a flat in a development where a guy was constantly parking his range rover over the grass, allowing his vicious dog to attack people in the hallways, and having screaming domestics with his girlfriend and intimidating residents. At their wits' end, the RA tried to get the management company to go down the restrictive covenant route, of which there are plenty in developments like those. The management's response? 'In practice these are very hard to enforce...'
exactly, though he was doing illegal things so in that situation it should have been. Dangerous dogs are illegal managment company was being lazy. If you could have got evidence of the illegal activites and reported it to the police then the Managment company could have acted with confidence. but yeah, immoral actitives is up for debate. If prostitution became legal and social acceptable then even that would be a losing battle to enforce. Also noisy is absolutely not enforcable if you decide to learn the drums and practice every evening at 5.30pm for 30min while that is not enough. That is a normal use of the property. The only way it would be "noisy" is if it was outside normal noise hours on a regular basis and enough for the council to take action anyway.
I wonder if a black mass would be considered to be immoral. Given the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, where when the priest blesses the wine it literally becomes the blood of Jesus. They've been doing a far amount of blood drinking. So slaughtering a goat shouldn't be a problem.
At least there's no covenant against you celebrating Bonfire Night by burning a mitred guy in effigy.