Housing Committee Seeks Answers from Minister Over Demands for Money for Past Property Works

Imagine receiving a letter out of the blue demanding a large sum of money for a shed, a fence or an extension you never built. That is the reality facing homeowners in England, and it has now prompted the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to intervene directly with the Housing Minister. The committee has written to Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister for Housing and Planning, seeking answers about what it sees as unreasonable enforcement of restrictive covenants and leasehold breaches.

The letter draws on cases raised by local MPs in the House of Commons. Dr Kieran Mullan, MP for Bexhill and Battle, has highlighted enforcement action by Asset Invest Ltd against freehold homeowners in Bexhill, while Olivia Blake, MP for Sheffield Hallam, has raised the case of Andrew Milne against leasehold homeowners in Sheffield. Taken together, the committee is concerned that these examples from different parts of the country could point to an emerging national pattern rather than isolated disputes.

What makes these cases particularly troubling is the retrospective nature of the demands. In many instances, the works in question were carried out years ago, sometimes by previous owners. Homeowners may have had no idea that consent was ever required for alterations such as extensions, fencing or sheds on their property. Only when an unexpected demand for a large sum of money arrives do they discover that a covenant, buried in the deeds, has been sitting there all along.

The committee's concern extends beyond freehold homeowners. It has highlighted similar enforcement practices relating to breaches of leasehold covenants, suggesting that leaseholders are being targeted in comparable ways. For leaseholders, the prospect of being chased for retrospective consent fees adds a further layer of financial risk to their form of tenure.

There is a broader question here about how covenants are being used. Restrictive covenants are a legitimate legal tool, designed to protect the character of an area or the interests of neighbouring land. But when enforcement appears to focus on extracting money for consent long after the fact, rather than preventing genuine harm, the balance tips from protection towards profiteering. The committee's letter asks the Housing Minister to respond to a series of questions about what action will be taken to strengthen protections for homeowners caught in this position.

For homeowners, the practical lesson is sobering: check your title deeds before commissioning any work, and keep records of any consents obtained by previous owners if you can. For buyers, covenant risk is now something worth probing during conveyancing, particularly for properties with a history of alterations. And for landlords and developers, the message from Parliament is that aggressive covenant enforcement is being watched at the highest level.

The committee's intervention does not guarantee change, but it puts the issue squarely on the minister's desk and on the public record. If the government concludes that a national pattern of unreasonable enforcement is emerging, we could see tighter rules on how and when covenants can be enforced, and better safeguards for homeowners facing demands for money over works they may never even have commissioned. Until then, anyone buying or owning a property with restrictive covenants attached would be wise to treat them as a live financial risk, not a forgotten legal footnote.