Is a restrictive covenant on bush from a dissolved company still valid?

[VTR]

Hi, I have a restrictive covenant on a 60-year-old house put on by the original builder,
The covenant was about a bush in the garden.
Am I right about the following points?
The covenant can only be enforced by the original creator of the covenant?
The restrictive covenant is therefore not enforceable as the creator of the covenant is no longer existing?
VTR

[dslippy]

No. You are mistaking this for a positive covenant.

A restrictive covenant attaches to the land and its benefit passes to a purchaser.
It is not quite as simple as that, and a better clue might be in the strange nature of the covenant - about a bush. What is the covenant itself?

[VTR]

The lines read ............and shall ,maintain at all times hereafter a good and substantial hedge on the rear boundary.

[atticus]

a hedge comprises a number of trees and bushes.

You have yet to indicate a reason why you are not bound by a covenant to maintain a hedge. This would include replacing dead trees.

[dslippy]

A covenant to maintain is not a restrictive covenant, but a positive covenant - you might in principle have to spend money to comply. As a positive covenant it is much less easily enforced. Precisely how depends upon the conveyancing. It is possible to have a system which keeps them enfoorceabl against the neighbours for the time being, but that would be unusual in this situation.

[VTR]

a hedge comprises a number of trees and bushes.

You have yet to indicate a reason why you are not bound by a covenant to maintain a hedge. This would include replacing dead trees.

I'm not saying I'm not bound, but asking if i am still bound given my comments in the first post

[VTR]

A covenant to maintain is not a restrictive covenant, but a positive covenant - you might in principle have to spend money to comply. As a positive covenant it is much less easily enforced. Precisely how depends upon the conveyancing. It is possible to have a system which keeps them enfoorceabl against the neighbours for the time being, but that would be unusual in this situation.

Thanks for the guidance so far. I had a look at


https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexisp...nants_overview

and read
“Unlike ‘negative’ or ‘restrictive’ covenants, the burden of a positive covenant does not ‘run’ with the land and so the promise cannot be enforced against subsequent owners or occupiers without structuring the transaction as a lease or by using one of the 'conveyancing devices’ (see below) developed for that purpose.”

Looking at the different types of conveyancing

compulsorily renewed covenants - That was not done, as far as i know. The solicitor did not mention this, plus the original builder was dissolved by then

a chain of covenants - I don't know as the buyer if the an indemnity cover was taken( would i have been involved / notified ?) The previous owner has died,

No others records of sale are available (but limited to 1995
an estate rentcharge with a right of entry - The property is free hold

Could this mean its not enforceable ?

[dslippy]

Good find.

The dissolution of the company involves the benefit of the covenant, not the burden. The benefit can be assigned, and regularly would be on the sale of the land left with the covenantee. It is pure guesswork from here.

[Ukmicky]

Ignore the fact the builders or whoever they are ,are no longer around .

. This is positive covenant which does not bind successors in title except in very rare circumstances where a successor in title has to basically agree to a new covenant on purchasing the property . The chances of this being the case for a bush is highly unlikely.

[dslippy]

"The chances of this being the case for a bush is highly unlikely."
Under the standard terms and conditions, the seller requests exactly that together with an indemnity if the buyer does not comply with the obligation. The parties would have to make a particular agreement to avoid this.