Treacodactyl
|
Working from home - legal questionIf you want to work from home, say on your PC, but your house title documents state something along the lines of:
"you will not use the plot or any building thereon for the carrying on of any trade or business whatsoever and will use the same as a single private dwelling house only"
Does this technically mean you are not allowed to work from home? I understand that in all likely hood if no one complains you can do what you want but would like to know exactly what it means.
|
gil
|
Re: Working from home - legal question | Treacodactyl wrote: | | "you will not use the plot or any building thereon for the carrying on of any trade or business whatsoever and will use the same as a single private dwelling house only" |
Does it mention 'profession or vocation' ? i.e. white-collar working at a desk-type work
If your house deeds are old-ish, I would suspect they mean you can't do manual trades [mess, noise, smell, waste] or open a shop or builders yard in your house.
It would be interesting to know where GP and dentists surgeries [the old-fashioned kind, run from a house rather than a health centre] fit into this.
I'm sure a legal bod will be along shortly...
|
Treacodactyl
|
The house in question is modern, mid 1990s. I would generally regard it as preventing noise and inconvenience to neighbours, and rightly so, but I'm curious if it would prevent more modern things such as working on a PC for example.
|
marigold
|
You probably have to get PP/change of use sorted out to turn a private dwelling into a surgery. Dunno about TD's point though.
|
Hairyloon
|
Re: Working from home - legal question | Treacodactyl wrote: | If you want to work from home, say on your PC, but your house title documents state something along the lines of:
"you will not use the plot or any building thereon for the carrying on of any trade or business whatsoever and will use the same as a single private dwelling house only". |
Mine says something like that, only it goes on to say "..without permission, which will not be unreasonably withheld."
You could just ask the covenantor.
There is a simple answer: follow the eleventh commandment. 
|
Treacodactyl
|
The owner could ask the house builder but I'd like to know the legal stance first, i.e. is it enforceable against office work. If they say no then you've told them though, and if you keep quiet probably no one will ever know.
|
frewen
|
Several of our covenants were applicable only to the builder of the house - as the company has been dissolved those just became redundant 
|
judith
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | The owner could ask the house builder but I'd like to know the legal stance first, i.e. is it enforceable against office work. If they say no then you've told them though, and if you keep quiet probably no one will ever know. |
I raised the question with our solicitor when we moved to our last house. Can't remember exactly what he said, but the gist was that it didn't apply to office-type work that would not involve people coming and going to the house or lots of deliveries.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| judith wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | The owner could ask the house builder but I'd like to know the legal stance first, i.e. is it enforceable against office work. If they say no then you've told them though, and if you keep quiet probably no one will ever know. |
I raised the question with our solicitor when we moved to our last house. Can't remember exactly what he said, but the gist was that it didn't apply to office-type work that would not involve people coming and going to the house or lots of deliveries. |
That's roughly what's been said as well and I agree. But what I would like to know is why.
I would regard office work to be covered by "trade or business whatsoever" so is there a law that overrules the condition or is it a simple matter of common sense?
The question is being asked mainly as a curiosity but as the condition is very common I'm sure there's a answer somewhere. I've tried googling but I couldn't find anything in all the results.
|
Dr Rob
|
This covenant is very common including on the title of new estate houses. Often there are exceptions for 'professional' workers.
I used to tell my buyer clients who intended to work from home that, although their activities might be a technical breach, they shouldn't be concerned provided they didn't run a business which would generate noise or other nuisance which might lead to an attempt to enforce by the original developer or, much more likely, another resident who would also have the right to take action.
In 30 years, I never acted for anyone who wanted to enforce a covenant of this sort, nor who was the subject of legal action.
|
Treacodactyl
|
Many thanks for the comments Dr Rob, so it seems commons sense does apply. 
|
Hairyloon
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | Many thanks for the comments Dr Rob, so it seems commons sense does apply. |
I take that to mean that the original point is sufficiently well answered that you won't get upset if I go off at a slight tangent.
How are such covenants enforced?
Am I right in thinking that a court will impose a fine for breaching them?
But this is a civil matter, not a criminal one, so the burden of proof is the "balance of probabilities", not "beyond reasonable doubt"?
The reason I am asking is that somebody on my street referred to somebody else as "thieving drug dealers", and it set me thinking...
It seems to me that both of those activities are business, and would therefore be in breach of the covenant precluding the running of any business.
Therefore, if the covenantor were so minded, they could take action against the thievery (if it is occurring) at a much easier level than that required for criminal prosecution.
Would it work, or is it a daft idea?
|
sally_in_wales
|
another minor tangent, but my insurance company will cheerfully cover a home for business use as long as no business visitors are likely to call at the house and no likely annoyance is caused to the neighbours in terms of noise, deliveries etc, that seemed to be their broad criteria for determining between the sort of jobs that needed declaring in detail and the sort that 'everyone' does from home these days.
|
frewen
|
For what it's worth I don't think that an illegal activity can be considered a legal business...
But I could be wrong.
I do know that you have to prove that you are the beneficiary of a covenant before you even get started; and that usually requires the assistance of a barrister
|
Hairyloon
|
| Frewen Feltmaker wrote: | | For what it's worth I don't think that an illegal activity can be considered a legal business... |
I think you are quite right, but I think the covenant does not specify the legality or otherwise of the business, only that one shall not be run (though actually, I think the people in question are tenants, so the covenant wouldn't apply).
Also, it would be interesting I think to watch someone using the criminality of their activity as a defence against a civil action.
| Quote: | | I do know that you have to prove that you are the beneficiary of a covenant before you even get started... |
Well I don't, 'cos I amn't.
The idea is reliant on the covenantor wanting to do something about a local problem.
|
frewen
|
It might have been done in prostitution / immoral earning cases (off the top of my head) - which is why my ancient and rusty legal cogs twitched.
...and apologies - I have used "you" as in the royal "we"
|
Dr Rob
|
In theory a covenant is enforceable against any type of 'business' and, as has been pointed out, the burden of proof is lower in civil actions (in this case in the county court) than criminal. Furthermore, if the covenant has been properly drafted (all modern ones should be) it is enforceable not only by the original covenantee (usually the developer) but also by any other resident(s) on the estate.
In the case of drug dealing etc, the activities would probably fall under different covenants ie not to commit a nuisance or carry out any illegal activities etc.
|
mochyn
|
You can tell he's a lawyer, can't you? He uses words like 'furthermore' in cold blood.
|
Dr Rob
|
Oh dear, is it that obvious! It's quite difficult to leave the pompous language entirely behind.
|
Mary-Jane
|
| Dr Rob wrote: | | It's quite difficult to leave the pompous language entirely behind. |
*Cough, cough*
|
Gervase
|
There's always an insofaras and a handful of notwithstandings in a brown paper twist in one of his jacket pockets, just in case.
|
Mary-Jane
|
| Gervase wrote: | | There's always an insofaras and a handful of notwithstandings in a brown paper twist in one of his jacket pockets, just in case. |
 So very true...
|
Hairyloon
|
| Gervase wrote: | | There's always an insofaras and a handful of notwithstandings in a brown paper twist in one of his jacket pockets, just in case. |
I'm not keen on "notwithstandings". They can be confusing. 
|
Dr Rob
|
| Gervase wrote: | | There's always an insofaras and a handful of notwithstandings in a brown paper twist in one of his jacket pockets, just in case. |
I always wondered why I was always so unsuccessful with women.....
|
mochyn
|
| Dr Rob wrote: | | Gervase wrote: | | There's always an insofaras and a handful of notwithstandings in a brown paper twist in one of his jacket pockets, just in case. |
I always wondered why I was always so unsuccessful with women..... |
As long as there are no 'heretofore's lurking in there I think you're OK.
Does anyone else pronounce 'unenfordeable' as unenforceeable? My S level contract law teacher did.
|
