is it a shared drive

StuC75

But the covenant is for the benefical owner (is it not), rather than for the OP or council.. so short of the OP actually making representation to the original beneficiary, and they choosing to pursue this.. Is there anything the OP can achieve in this??

princeofpounds

Yes the covenant is for the beneficiary alone to enforce. The relevant passage as to who is the beneficiary is below:

For the benefit of the adjoining property of the Vendors or on the

part or parts thereof for the time being unsold so as to bind the

property hereby conveyed unto whosesoever hands the same shall

come but so that the Purchaser shall not be liable for any breach

of the covenants hereinafter mentioned after he shall have parted

with the land hereby conveyed hereby covenants with the Vendors

It appears that is the neighbouring land owned by the vendor at the time of the original transaction. I'm not sure if a) that is the OP's land, and b) if the conditions to keep the covenant valid still apply. But a lawyer would be able to tell quite quickly.

As for my thoughts on the original question - you will need to look at your neighbour's deeds too. Sometimes rights of way are only on one set of deeds and not the other. If nothing appears in his either then it probably comes down to a question of whether an easement has been established through use.

If there never have been cars down the passageway, it may not actually be a requirement to allow cars down there in future despite the fact that they are 'garages'.