I have them all now. It has taken a far disproportionate amount of time to
study the documents than we would normally spend answering a question on here
for the fee. However, I took it on, so I will deal with it for you.
Normally, I would print all the documents off and go through them word by
word so I cannot gurantee that I have missed a minor pount. It is a couple of hours job for which a solicitor would charge, probably
£400 plus VAT. I have already spent over an hour on it.
I will just use the last three digits of the title numbers.
201 and 346 are owned by
599, 693 and 659 are owned by Froud.
The only references I can find to fencing are at clause A3ii in 346 and in
C1b of 599.
Refer to title 346 and read, if you will, clause B1. That is really
important in this title.
Under normal circumstances, a positive freehold covenant is only and
forcible against the original person who covenanted. Any subsequent buyers are
not bound unless each of the subsequent buyers has entered into a similar kind
of covenant as in clause B1 of title 599. However, the covenant in clause B1 to perform the covenants refers to the
covenants in the Charges Register. There is no covenant with regard to the
fence in the Charges Register, because it is actually in the Property Register
at clause 3ii.
However, the covenant in 346 appears to be to erect a fence between two
pieces of land owned by Verbeelen. Although it is confusing because 3ii says to
erect a fence with the boundary on the south and east, which would appear to be
the ones bordering the wood land , but then it goes on to say that they are the
southern and eastern boundaries of the land known as Knowle Lodge , which is to
Moving now to title 599. There is a covenant to a rector fence between
points A and B, but there contained in the transfer deed and not shown on the
land Registry title plan. Even so, there is no indemnity covenant as there is
in title 346 clause B1, which means that it only applies if the current owner
is the owner, who did the original covenant which it appears, was back in 1962.
It appears that Froud only bought the property in 86.
If you let me know which border on which plan it will assist me to give you
a specific answer. You appear to be Verbeelen and the neighbour Froud. Is that
I think the covenant that he is looking to enforce is that contained in
In which case as Verbeelen bought the property in 1999, and there is only
an indemnity at B2 to observe the covenants in the charges register (and that
in the property register is not mentioned). I don't think that Verbeelen has to
put a fence up.
Assuming that it is not the southern and eastern boundary of Knowle Lodge but
it is the southern and eastern boundary of 346 There is another issue and that
is that even if there is an enforceable covenant, once it has been breached for
20 years or more (Hepworth v Pickles) , it is no longer enforceable.
Please bear with me today and over any weekends because I will be online
Please don't forget to positively rate my answer service (even if it was not
what you wanted to hear) and I will follow up any further points you raise for
If you don't rate it positively, then the site keep your deposit and I get 0
for my time. It is imperative that you give my answer a positive rating. It
doesn't give me "a pat on the head", "good boy" (like ebay), it is my
If in ratings you feel that you expected more or it only helped a little,
please ask me for further info before rating me negatively otherwise I don't
get paid at all for my time and answer.
The thread remains open for us to continue this exchange