Restrictive covenants: who is the beneficiary?

Thrugelmir

daKlone wrote: »

Yes it will, but we've lived at this address for almost 10 years and I've never seen any of my neighbours use it.

What's the access for or to?

daKlone

The front of the house is on a cul-de-sac, but the back is on another road so they could conceivably walk out of your house and use our car port as a shortcut to this other road. They don't need it for access to their properties.

Another house along our block has the same arrangement, but they have already blocked one end of the car port with a fence, then fenced-in the garden area beyond to create an enclosed back garden, just like we want to.

Land_Registry

daKlone wrote: »

Who would enforce it though? Since all the original businesses have ceased trading does it fall to the County Council to enforce covenants?

Would just one or two beneficiaries mounting a challenge be enough or would they all have to complain?

ging84's replies and my own cover the issue of who may have the benefit. If the original developer still owns some of the original estate then they may well have the benefit and if the council now own some of the land they may have too.

Generally speaking it only needs one beneficiary to mount a challenge but that is where an understanding of the law comes into play as any enforcement is ultimately through the court process, if it gets that far.

As far as the access issue is concerned, whilst such rights of access/way are normally maintained as a legal right rather than a covenant the fact that nobody has used it for 10 years is unlikely to have a bearing on the issue other than perhaps suggesting that the risk of a challenge is smaller as a result

daKlone

What do we think about the fact that others have already done what we want in various ways?

Would that be a valid argument to have the covenants removed at a tribunal, or would mentioning it just bring potential trouble to those that have done it?