Successor in title - conveyance

[Wendyrjr]

council house bought in 1990 and the conveyance contains covenants re supply of sewage disposal and payment thereof. The conveyance only states the seller as the specific District Council (not refer to successors in title), but he district council was wound up and dissolved in 2009, when thI new local government structure was brought in. The new council is threatening to sue for non payment of capital charges that occurred in 2006. Can we argue that only the district council named in the conveyance can sue? The new council says that they are the successors in title so they have have the right to pursue. Surely the conveyance would have to say District Council or their successors in title? Please help with any wording/argument on this particular point that we can try to use to deter them!

[R0b]

Hello

I think we would need to see the whole of the wording. A restrictive covenant is generally a prohibitive action and is binding on successors whereas a positive covenant requires someone to do something i.e. pay a certain amount of money. Positive covenants are only binding to that specific party at the time, unless a Deed of Covenant is entered into.

Sometimes, positive covenants are drafted in a negative way but that does not mean it is a restrictive covenant. Once it is confirmed that it is a restrictive covenant then you would need to consider if it is enforceable. This would usually be set out something along the lines of "The Transferor covenants with the Transferee with the intent to bind the Transferor's adjoining land and each part of it into whatsoever hands they may come into and to benefit the property".

If you can post up the relevant covenant in question we might be able to identify if it is restrictive or positive but usually, a promise to do or pay would be a positive covenant e.g. to build and maintain a fence or to keep the grass on your front lawn to a length no higher than 500mm

[Wendyrjr]

Thank you Rob. Ive attached the original document containing the restrictive covenants which were referred to in the subsequent conveyance in 1988. The relevant covenant is in Schedule A. I will be very interested in your further comments. Many thanks