Covenant poser

Congratulations to David Briffa on his response to the letter by Terence Griffin (see [2001] Gazette, 12 April, 14).

For many years now I have been maintaining, ad nauseam, that there is no need for an enforcement covenant by a landlord in a case where the landlord is responsible to repair the structure of the building.

I do not know how many times I have been told by purchaser's solicitors that a client's lease is defective because of the absence of such a covenant.

When I have asked what covenant it is that the purchaser's solicitors think needs enforcing, they have been unable to provide me with one.

In my view, the Council of Mortgage Lenders' handbook is clear that such a covenant is not required, otherwise, it would say it was.

In a similar vein, why do so many solicitors insist on an indemnity covenant by a purchaser of an existing leasehold property? When one points out to them that there is a perfectly adequate implied covenant, or that their client, not being the original tenant, would have no liability for any breaches by the purchaser, especially if the vendor did not give an express indemnity covenant when he purchased, they still insist on it.

Again, why do so many solicitors acting for vendors insist on indemnity covenants in respect of ancient restrictive covenants, when it is unknown, who, if anyone, has the benefit of the covenants? This question is even more germane when their clients are not the original covenantors and can never have any liability for any breaches by the purchaser.

JJ Goldstein, JJ Goldstein & Co, London